Dynamical approach and self-esteem

Grgory NINOT
Professor (PhD) Laboratory EA4206 Addictive, Performance and Health Behaviors www.performance-sante.fr

gregory.ninot@univ-montp1.fr

Thanks to Didier Delignires, Marina Fortes, Christophe Gernigon, Jean Bilard, Grgory Moullec, Johana Monthuy-Blanc, Jacques Birouste, Yannick Stephan, Christophe Maano

Plan

1 - Theories of self-esteems functioning 2 - Perspectives in the dynamical approach 3 - Applications in psychology

Inter-individual variability

Self-esteem : a conscious self-assessment

Level (i.e. Baumeister, 1993)
psychological variables
behavior variables
QUESTIONNAIRE Nom : ....................... CONSIGNES Dans ce questionnaire, vous trouverez 25 phrases qui expriment des sentiments, des opinions ou des ractions. Lisez attentivement chacune de ces phrases. Pour chaque phrase, encerclez une rponse entre cela me ressemble Pas du tout (1), Trs peu (2), Un peu (3), Assez (4), Beaucoup (5), Tout fait (6) Efforcez-vous de rpondre toutes les phrases. Sachez qu'aucune rponse n'est juste, elle doit tre avant tout personnelle. Cela me ressemble...
Pas trs du peu tout Un peu Assez Beaucoup Tout fait

Date : ............ Prnom : .......................

Age : .............

Sexe : .............

1. J'ai une bonne opinion de moi-mme -------------------------2. Globalement, je suis satisfait de mes capacits physiques -4. Je trouve la plupart des sports faciles -------------------------5. Je n'aime pas beaucoup mon apparence physique -----------6. Je pense tre plus fort que la moyenne -------------------------

-1-1-

-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-

--3-- ---4----3-- ---4----3-- ---4----3-- ---4----3-- ---4----3-- ---4----3-- ---4----3-- ---4----3-- ---4----3-- ---4----3-- ---4----3-- ---4----3-- ---4----3-- ---4----3-- ---4----3-- ---4----3-- ---4----3-- ---4----3-- ---4----3-- ---4----3-- ---4----3-- ---4----3-- ---4----3-- ---4----3-- ---4---

----5-------5-------5-------5-------5-------5-------5-------5-------5-------5-------5-------5-------5-------5-------5-------5-------5-------5-------5-------5-------5-------5-------5-------5-------5----

--6---6---6---6---6---6---6---6---6---6---6---6---6---6---6---6---6---6---6---6---6---6---6---6---6--

1 0

3. Je ne peux pas courir longtemps sans m'arrter --------------- -1-1-1-1-

7. Il y a des tas de choses en moi que j'aimerais changer ------- -18. Je suis content de ce que je suis et de ce que je peux faire physiquement ------------------------------------------------------- -19. Je serais bon dans une preuve d'endurance ------------------- -110. Je trouve que je suis bon dans tous les sports ----------------11. J'ai un corps agrable regarder -------------------------------12. Je serais bon dans une preuve de force ----------------------13. Je regrette souvent ce que j'ai fait -----------------------------14. Je suis confiant vis--vis de ma valeur physique ------------15. Je pense pouvoir courir longtemps sans tre fatigu ---------1-1-1-1-1-1-

8 6 4

16. Je me dbrouille bien dans tous les sports --------------------- -117. Personne ne me trouve beau ------------------------------------- -118. Face des situations demandant de la force, je suis le premier proposer mes services --------------------------------19. J'ai souvent honte de moi ---------------------------------------20. En gnral, je suis fier de mes possibilits physiques ------21. Je pourrais courir 5 km sans m'arrter ------------------------22. Je russis bien en sport ------------------------------------------24. Je suis bien avec mon corps ------------------------------------25. Je ne suis pas trs bon dans les activits d'endurance telles que le vlo ou la course -------------------------------------------1-1-1-1-1-

2
0

23. Je voudrais rester comme je suis -------------------------------- -1-1-1-

Merci d'avoir rpondu ce questionnaire

Inter-individual variability

Self-esteem : a conscious self-assessment

Level
psychological constructs behavior

Multidimensional models
well-being (i.e. Diener, 1984) motivation (i.e. Vallerand, 1997; Eliot, 2007) perceived competence

Inter-individual variability

Global self-esteem

Multidimensional Hierarchical model model

Physical self-worth

Physical condition

Sport competence

Attractive body

Physical strengh

Fox et Corbin (1989) : Physical Self Perception Profile

Inter-individual variability

Self-esteem : a conscious self-assessment

Level
psychological constructs behavior

Multidimensional models
well-being motivation perceived competence

Experimental design
transversal longitudinal

Inter-individual variability

Self-esteem : a conscious self-assessment

Level
psychological constructs behavior

Multidimensional models
well-being motivation perceived competence

Experimental design
transversal longitudinal

Intrinsic dynamics (functioning overtime)?

3 hypotheses (Strelau, 2001)

Inter-individual variability

Trait Dispositional
(i.e. Coopersmith, 1967; Epstein, 1979; Swann et al., 1987)
10 10 9 9 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

State

Steady state Interactionist

(i.e. Headey & Wearing, 1991; Rosenberg, 1986)

Situational
(i.e. Butler et al., 1994; Leary et al., 1995; Heartherton, 1991)

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

8 8
7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0

Self-schema Security base

Sociometer Emotional state

Homeostasis

Inter-individual variability

Nomothetical approach
Theoretical aspects Classical rule neglects time (Prigogine, 1994) - Level (attitudes + social stereotype)
-

no change of level after 30 years old

(McCrae & Costa, 1994)

Methodological aspects
Few repeated measures (< 6) - Plenty of subjects required (n > 100) - Gaussian statistics
10 9 8 7 6 5

trait ?

Psychometric aspects Long instruments ( > 25 items) - Weak sensitivity (< likert 7)
-

4 3 2 1 0

Plan

1 - Theories of self-esteems functioning 2 - Perspectives in the dynamical approach

Intra-individual variability

Instability (Kernis et al., 1991; Showers et al., 1998; Nezlek, 2002) Dynamics
8

(Nowak & Vallacher, 1998)

y + 7 days

auto-correlation standard deviation y t = f(y t-1) range

3 Days

Intra-individual variability

Nomothetic approach
Neglecting time - Level

Idiographic approach
Historicity (Nowak & Vallacher, 1998) Level + instability + dynamics Rate = fruit of a complex system

Theoretical aspects

Methodological aspects
Few repeated measures - Several subjects - Gaussian statistics
-

Best witness of self = self Time series analyses Cellular automata (Nowak et al., 2000)

Psychometric aspects Long instruments - Weak sensitivity

-

Brief instrument (Robins et al., 2001) High sensitivity (VAS)

Example of protocol design

Instrument
- Physical Self Inventory (6a)

Globally, you have a good opinion of yourself Not at all 6,5 cm - Random presentation of items 9 - Measure error item 8 - Personal zone of comment
7 10 10

Absolutely

Experimental design 6
- Self-assessment twice a day (7:00 9:00 AM and PM) 05
avr Time series analysis mai

- ACF, Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average, fractal analyses

Hypotheses of intrinsic dynamics of SE

Trait Dispositional

State

Steady state Interactionist

(Headey & Wearing, 1991; Rosenberg, 1986)

Situational

(Coopersmith, 1967; Epstein, (Butler et al., 1994; Leary et al., 1979; Swann et al., 1987) 1995; Heartherton, 1991)

10 10 9 9

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

8 8
7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0

Intra-individual variability

Dispositional theories of self-esteem : trait

Random fluctuations around a stable reference value Fixed-point attractor
10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500

ACF ACF NS

ARIMA (0,0,0) : y t = + t

Fractal analyses White noise

Intra-individual variability

Situational theories : state

Accumulation of uncorrelated displacements Undetermined dynamics
10

0 0 100 200 300 400 500

ACF

ARIMA

Fractal analyses

p < .05

(0,1,0) : y t = y t-1 + t

Brownian motion

Intra-individual variability

Interactionist theories : steady state

Relaxation oscillations around a fixed point attractor Fixed-point attractor
10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500

ACF

ARIMA

Fractal analyses

p < .05

(1,0,0) + cst : y t = + y t-1 + t

Homeostasis

Intra-individual variability

B : Man, 29 years old

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 avr mai juin juil aot sept

Intra-individual variability

ACF

Intra-individual variability

ACF

Intra-individual variability

A : Man, 32 years old

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 avr mai juin juil aot sept

Intra-individual variability

F : Woman, 26 years old

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 avr mai juin juil aot sept

Intra-individual variability

Instability (SD, Range, ADM)

- SE fluctuates more than measure error item (Ninot et al., 2004; 2005) - Inter-individual difference (Kernis et al., 1993; Nezlek, 2002)

Historicity (ACF)
ACF : - Short term historicity continuity of self (Tap, 1980; Tesser et al., 1996) resistance to change (Vallacher & Nowak,
2005; Vallacher et al., 2002; Knowles & Lin, 2004)

self-verification (Swann, 1990) personality (McCrae & John, 1992) ARIMA ?

Intra-individual variability

6 months
n

1 year 8 728
48 / 48
Ninot et al. (2004) IDR

512 days (17mths) 4 1024

7 / 48 24 / 24
Delignires et al. (2004) NDPLS

8 364
8/8
Ninot et al. (2005) JP

Observations
ARIMA (0,1,1) Publication

ARIMA model obtained in adults (p < .001)

Intra-individual variability

4.15 hours Experimental 51

41 / 48
Ninot Ninot et etal. al. (in (2004) press IDR a)

(0,0,0) : y t = + t

ARIMA model obtained in 8 adults (p < .001)

Intra-individual variability

Moving average model ARIMA (0,1,1) without significant constant

yt = yt-1 -t-1 + t

Value at time t

Perturbation at time t

Value at time t-1

Fraction of the perturbation at time t-1

Mathematically: random variations around local value changing slowly

Intra-individual variability

y t = y t-1 - (t-1) + t
Adaptation to perturbation Preservation

Random event(s)

Balance (0.0 1.0)

Without significant constant A local equilibrium around a slowly varying reference value Dynamical adjustment (Ninot et al., 2004, 2005; Delignires et al., 2004)

Intra-individual variability

Instability
- Self-esteem > measure error item - Inter-individual differences

Historicity
ACF : - Short term historicity continuity of self

Dynamics
ARIMA : - Same dynamics (whatever hierarchical level or subject) : (0,1,1)

- SE evolves slowly under influence of life events

- determines the balance between preservation and adaptation

Intra-individual variability

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 15 30 45 60 75 90

Auto-correlation

Lag

Exemple of an ACF for self-esteem series

Intra-individual variability (Delignires et al., 2004, NLDPLS)

1024

1024

Observations

Observations

1024

102

Observations

Observations

Spectral analysis: double logarithmic plot of power against frequency, Rescaled Range Analysis, Dispersional Analysis, Scaled Windowed Variance Method (Eke et al., 2001)

Intra-individual variability (Delignires et al., 2004, NLDPLS)

=1.17
log(Puissance)

=1.13
log(Puissance)

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

log(Frquence)

log(Frquence)

=1.09
log(Puissance)
log(Puissance)

=0.96

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

log(Frquence)

log(Frquence)

Intra-individual variability

Dynamics
Fractal analyses 1/ f : - time series of SE and PS present fractal properties

- SE acts as a complex dynamical system, composed of multiple, interconnected elements (Vallacher et al., 2002)
- Self-similar properties (auto-similarity): each level presents a complexity similar to that observed at higher levels (MarksTarlow, 1999)

Intra-individual variability

Intra-individual variability

Intra-individual variability

Intra-individual variability

Intra-individual variability

Dynamics
Fractal analyses : - Fractal properties of SE and physical self

- SE = complex dynamical system, interconnected elements

- Auto-similarity

- 1/f noise
ubiquitous phenomenon in biological systems
(West & Shlesinger, 1990)

intrinsic properties of stability and resistance to perturbations

(Schmidt et al., 1991)

characteristic signature of adaptive, young and healthy systems

(Haussdorf et al., 1997)

Intra-individual variability

100

200

300

400

500

100

200

300

400

500

100

200

300

400

500

Trait
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

State

Steady state

O ct N ov D ec

Ju n Ju l A ug S ep O ct N ov D ec

Ja n Fe b M ar A pr M ay

Ja n Fe b M ar A pr M ay

Ju n Ju l A ug S ep O ct N ov D ec

Intra-individual variability

100

200

300

400

500

100

200

300

400

500

100

200

300

400

500

Trait
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

State

Steady state

Dynamical adjustment :
- Preservation vs. adaptation - Metastable state - Disequilibrium equilibrium
Ju n Ju l A ug S ep O ct N ov D ec Ja n Fe b M ar A pr M ay M Ju n Ju l A ug S ep O ct N ov D ec Ja n Fe b M A pr ay ar

O ct N ov D ec

Plan

1 - Theories of self-esteems functioning 2 - Perspectives in the dynamical approach 3 - Applications in psychology

Applications

1 Dynamics of each element

Time

Instability = vulnerability ? (Ninot et al., 2006, JSS)

Sedentary adult (22 years old)

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 127 141 155
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 15

Triathlon athlete (22 years old)

29

43

57

71

85

99

113

127

141

155

More people place importance on physical competence and attractiveness as determinants of self-worth, the more the feelings of self-worth fluctuate (Kernis et al., 1993)

Prevention of withdrawal

J., 17 years old, restrictive anorexia

Prevention of withdrawal

J., 17 years old, restrictive anorexia

Compliment by father
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Weight loss Exercise

Exercise

sept-06 Sept-06

Dec-06

dc-0

Failure school

Weight increase

Bring up

Comparison of intrinsic dynamics (Moullec et al., submitted)

Auto-regressive
8,6%

Moving average
MA (0,1,x)
28,6%
58,2% 85,3%

21,4%

31,4%

32,1% 7,7%

(0,0,0)

28,6%

25,0% 12,5% 1,8%

15,4% 18,7% 2,0% 7,8% 4,9%

AR (x,0,0) + cst

10,0%

Depressive patients
(n = 14; 51.9 13.9)

COPD patients
(n=11; 62.5 9.7)

Elderly
(n=19; 60.8 10.7)

Young adult
(n=21; 25.2 4.0)

AR (x,0,0)

Proportion of ARIMAs model (GSE, PSW, anxiety, depression)

(0,1,0)

AR (x,1,0)

Intra-individual prevision (Ninot et Fortes, 2007)

p
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

p yt = f(yt-1) + t (p < .001)

O ct N ov D ec

Ju n Ju l A ug S ep O ct N ov D ec Ja n Fe b M ar A pr M ay

Ja n Fe b M ar A pr M ay

Ju n Ju l A ug S ep O ct N ov D ec

Applications

1 Dynamics of each element

2 Evolution of the model

GSE PSW PC SC AB PS

Time

Causal flow (Fortes et al., 2004; Ninot et al., submitted)

GSE PSW GSE PSW

PC

SC

AB

PS

PC

SC

AB

PS

Bottom-up (Byrne, 1996; Harter, 1998)

Top-down (Brown, 1998)

GSE PSW

1
GSE

2
GSE PSW

PSW

PC

SC

AB

PS

PC

SC

AB

PS

PC

SC

AB

PS

Reciprocal (Fiest et al., 1995)

Horizontal (Marsh & Young, 1998)

Applications (research report, Ninot, 2005)

Case study
Man, 35 years, incomplete paraplegia, single, police agent
9 9

GSE
8 7 6 8

PSW

7 6

VAS (0-10)

PC
5 4 3 2 1 0

SC

AB

PS
5 4 3 2 1 1 0 0

Valeurcotesurl'EVA

Bottom-up

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

Observations N u m r o s d e p a s s a t i o n GSE E G PSW V P P

Applications

1 Dynamics of each element

2 - Evolution of the model

GSE
PSW PC SC AB PS

Temps

3 - Impacts on the model

Constraint

Applications (Ninot et al., 2007, Disability & Rehabilitation)

Method
12 weeks including 4 weeks of respiratory rehabilitation 23 COPD patients

Results
10 9 8 7 VAS score 6 5 4

respiratory rehabilitation

3
2 1 0 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 127 141 155

Time

Applications

1 Dynamics of each element

2 Evolution of the model

GSE PSW PC SC AB PS

Temps

c - Impacts on the model

4 - Relation with biological variable

10 100

50

Constraint

Applications (Monthuy-Blanc et al., in preparation)

BMI relatively low and stable Time effect

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Brutal decrease of BMI

Septembre

Self-esteem instability

Change of the dynamics