AN EXTENSION OF THE EGO-DEFENSIVE MODEL TO INCLUDE 
COLLECTIVE SELF-ESTEEM 

By 

Lorraine M. Kuch 

A THESIS 

Submitted to  
Michigan State University 
in partial fulfillment of the requirements 
for the degree of 

Communication—Master of Arts 

2025 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ABSTRACT 

People desire to maintain positive self-esteem; however, some messages contain 

information that can directly conflict with the positive image we hold of ourselves or our social 

groups. Ego-defensive attitudes, attitudes that protect individuals from threats to identity, are 

hard to measure, due to their subconscious nature. To measure ego-defensive attitudes, Lapinski 

and Boster (2001) conceptualized the ego-defensive model, which maps the process by which 

individuals respond to counterattitudinal messages on topics in which they are heavily ego-

involved. Although originally the model was tested with a threat to personal self-esteem, the 

current study will provide an additional test of the ego-defensive model and extend existing 

research by testing the model with an issue that challenges collective self-esteem: esteem derived 

from social identity, and more specific to this study, attachments to gender identity. Findings 

were not consistent with the entirety of the ego-defensive model: contrary to predictions, 

negative thoughts were negatively associated with instances of message discounting, and source 

derogation was not associated with overall attitudes towards the message. However, results 

indicated a strong positive relationship between message discounting and source derogation, as 

predicted. Those with high collective self-esteem in the threat condition responded with more 

positive thoughts and less negative thoughts relative to those with low self-esteem. Collective 

self-esteem was found to have a buffering effect, such that those high in collective self-esteem 

participated less in message discounting and source derogation, and have more overall positive 

attitudes towards the message.  

iii 

 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 

LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................4 

METHOD ......................................................................................................................................17 

RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................25 

DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................31 

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..........................................................................................................................40 

APPENDIX A: TABLES & FIGURES .........................................................................................45 

APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE & STIMULI ........................................................................51 

iii 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION 

People harbor a natural desire to maintain positive self-esteem (Vaughan-Johnston et al., 

2022). However, some messages contain information that can directly conflict with the positive 

image we hold of ourselves; this could be a dedicated student receiving a college rejection letter, 

a job applicant being turned down by a potential employer, or even a die-hard sports fan hearing 

that their team didn’t make the playoffs. Though all of these messages have the potential to 

challenge a belief that contributes positively to self-esteem, our brains combat this potential loss 

of self-esteem with ego-defensive attitudes, or attitudes that protect individuals from threats to 

identity. Derived from Katz’s (1960) functional theory of attitudes, ego-defensive attitudes are 

used by the message receiver when the brain detects that an incoming message conflicts with an 

existing value or attitude (positive self-image), and corrects this discrepancy by undergoing 

effortful cognitive processes (Martiny & Kessler, 2014; Martiny & Rubin, 2016). For the job 

applicant facing numerous rejections, this might mean disparaging the groups who they believe 

are stealing jobs from people like them. The ego-defensive process has implications for our 

social group membership as well. People desire to maintain positive evaluations of the social 

groups of which we are members (Tajfel, 1974; Abrams & Hogg, 1988; Ellemers, 1993). Group 

members that perceive threats to their social group status might rely on ego-defensive attitudes to 

reject challenging messages, therefore mitigating any losses to self-esteem.  

The ego-defensive model (Lapinski & Boster, 2001) provides the theoretical and 

methodological framework for this study.  Ego-defensive attitudes have been conceived by 

Lapinski and Boster (2001) as a causal process, carried out cognitively, and perhaps 

subconsciously, to protect self-esteem from counter-attitudinal messages about highly ego-

involving issues. Although previously Lapinski and Boster (2001) tested the ego-defensive 

1 

 
 
 
model with an issue connected to personal self-esteem, the current study will extend existing 

research by testing the model with an issue connected to collective self-esteem; esteem derived 

from social identity. Collective self-esteem threats can occur in numerous everyday contexts. At 

any time, people can be in competition for prestige or resources, such as competition for 

employment during the hiring process. This conflict can be oversimplified into group 

competition when competitors are recognized only by their group memberships, leading to a 

potential loss of collective self-esteem.  In this study, male and female participants will react to 

messages which are expected to be perceived as threatening to their group membership, more 

specifically, their gender identity. We expect that participants will react according to the ego-

defensive model in response to the group-threatening message, compared to a message that is 

non-threatening. In addition, we expect that participants who gain more collective self-esteem 

from their gender (social identity) are more likely to feel threatened by the group-threatening 

message, than participants who gain less self-esteem through their gender.   

This study aims to provide a further test of the ego-defensive model, a means for which 

to measure and understand how our defense attitudes function, and understand how these 

attitudes affect how a threatening message and source are evaluated by the receiver. People are 

exposed to messages daily which may support or contradict attitudes and beliefs important to 

their self-concept. In these instances, ego-defensive attitudes may impact information processing 

and lead to biased judgements or prejudiced attitudes (Katz et al., 1956; Stotland et al., 1959), 

including negative attitudes towards minority groups (Rye & Goldszmidt, 2023; Barron, 2008). 

For this reason, it is important to gain a greater understanding of how ego-defensive attitudes 

impact our attitudes. In addition, extending the ego-defensive model will provide more clarity on 

the nature of intergroup dynamics, focusing on how attachments to group membership moderates 

2 

 
 
 
participant’s likelihood to respond according to the ego-defensive model; in other words, 

providing us with a better understanding of how messages we encounter day to day might be 

perceived as threatening if counter-attitudinal to important group memberships.  

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LITERATURE REVIEW 

The ego-defensive function of attitudes originated from Katz’s (1960) functional 

approach to attitudes, based on the fundamental idea that it is necessary to understand the 

psychological needs which our attitudes fulfill before we can understand the strategies a receiver 

may use to understand and respond to messages about those attitudes. Katz’s original model for 

the functional theory of attitudes has been expanded upon by a number of scholars, including 

Gregory Herek, who molded Katz’ original work into his own neo-functional theory of attitudes 

(1986). Herek (1986) separates attitudes into two categories: symbolic, fitting into one’s 

longstanding values and views of society, and utilitarian, a practical assessment of an attitude 

object’s utility. Unlike utilitarian attitudes, which function to minimize consequences and 

maximize rewards, symbolic attitudes’ functions are carried out by the expression of that 

attitude, and are used to define or clarify matters related to self and identity. Likewise, some 

symbolic attitudes protect individuals from threats to their identity, such as messages that 

challenge or undermine self concept; Herek called these defensive attitudes, but they are also 

known as ego-defensive attitudes. This attitude function was understood by Lapinski and Boster 

(2001) as “attitudes (which) serve to protect cognitions central to the self-concept from messages 

that challenge, or attack, them,” (p. 315).  

 Festinger (1957) found that people experience negative arousal when forced to hold two 

attitudes which are inconsistent with one another. This effect is only compounded when the 

attitudes are more important to the individual (Carpenter, 2019) or if the inconsistent attitude 

reduces consistency in one's self-esteem, or consistency with one's self-concept (Rokeach, 1968). 

Among many things, this inconsistent message could undermine a person’s view of themself as a 

good person, a rational person, or challenge the positive evaluation of a group membership 

4 

 
 
 
which they hold. People prefer that self-defining attributes (i.e. personal identity, social identity) 

remain positive, and prefer not to attach negative attributes to their self concept or identity 

(Vaughan-Johnston et al., 2022; Ellemers, 1993). Message resistance occurs to maintain 

consistency within our beliefs when a message or persuasive attempt introduces a dissonant idea 

(Fransen et al., 2015). This can occur when the incoming message is compared to existing 

beliefs, and discrepancies are noted, keeping the target from wanting to hold both beliefs 

simultaneously.  Likewise, ego-defensive attitudes are held to mitigate inconsistent information 

which may undermine our self-esteem or identity. According to Fransen et al.,“a reluctance to 

change may be caused by an unwillingness to change, but also by a desire to stay the same… the 

latter is more specific, and may occur primarily for beliefs that are important, and perhaps even 

central to one’s self” (2015, p. 5).  

Ego-defensive attitudes have been studied in different contexts. Past research has studied 

how dismantling ego-defensive attitudes can reduce bias (Katz et al., 1956; Stotland et al., 1959). 

In an early study of ego-defensive attitudes related to racial bias, Katz et al. (1956) created 

messages designed to challenge ego-defensive attitudes, and found that information which 

provides insight on the nature of bias was effective at reducing bias. However, this material was 

significantly less effective with subjects high in ego-defensiveness. Additionally, research 

supports that ego-defensive attitudes are a strong predictor of attitudes central to self-concept and 

identity (Vaughan-Johnston et al., 2022), a strong predictor of negative attitudes towards 

minority groups (Rye & Goldszmidt, 2023; Barron, 2008), and, when targeted, can increase the 

persuasive power of propaganda (Shen, 2022).  

This attitude function is difficult to study due to its complex nature. Consider that in 

some cases, message reception can fail due to active attempts to disregard the incoming 

5 

 
 
 
information, using motivated resistance strategies (Fransen et al., 2015). However, it is argued 

that ego-defensive attitudes reject messages with resistance strategies that may function at a 

subconscious level; these cannot be considered active strategies, as the subject is not necessarily 

aware of the cognitive process taking place and are therefore unable to report it using 

conventional self-report or explicit measures. In addition, thinking about attitude function is 

unpalatable for most people (Rye & Goldszmidt, 2023), who dislike thinking about why they 

hold the attitudes they have, and find it distasteful to admit that their beliefs could come from 

anything but their own morals (e.g., social-expressive function, attitudes expressed to gain 

acceptance from important referent groups). In their 2023 study, Rye and Goldszmidt call for 

more covert measures of the ego-defensive function to be developed after they found that people 

mostly reported attitudes based on the value-expressive function, or attitudes in congruence with 

our key beliefs, and were unwilling to admit to use of the social-expressive and ego-defensive 

function (also see Pedersen et al., 2000). In a review of functional attitude theory, Carpenter et 

al. (2012) expressed their disappointment over the notable lack of studies which target the ego-

defensive function of attitudes. Lapinski and Boster's (2001) solution to this complex problem 

was to conceptualize the ego-defensive process as a causal process, rather than as a single 

variable (see Appendix A for flow chart of ego-defensive model).  

Lapinski and Boster’s (2001) model of the ego-defensive function of attitudes maps the 

process by which individuals respond to counterattitudinal messages on topics in which they are 

heavily ego-involved. A message that elicits an ego-defensive attitude will contain information 

that challenges one’s self-concept. In Lapinski and Boster’s model, an ego-threatening message 

was conceptualized as, “a message that is both attitudinally discrepant, or counterattitudinal, and 

highly ego-involving.” (p. 315)  These messages should invoke cognitive turmoil by attacking 

6 

 
 
 
self-esteem, and/or group self-esteem. For example, men might view themselves to be supportive 

of women, and yet believe that only men should be the bread-winners in the family. When 

confronted with a message that shows the inconsistency of these beliefs, the individual will 

process the information in a way that protects their sense of self and identity, and not forsake 

their view of themselves as a “good man.” Pereira et al. (2018) found that when participants are 

made aware of their own discriminatory behavior, threat to self-esteem is mitigated with 

justification for discrimination. Rokeach (1968) stated that people want to be logical thinkers, 

but the desire for self-esteem consistency is great and will overrule the desire to remain logical. 

When a message conflicts with one’s self-concept, a person will engage in a biased processing 

that protects their self-concept from dissonant information. In this way, ego-defensive attitudes 

are measured through the response mechanisms they incite, rather than through self-report.  

The Lapinski and Boster (2001) study exposed highly ego-involved sources to a 

counterattitudinal stimulus, and examined the resulting process set in motion by the need to 

protect oneself from the message. The ego-defensive model predicted that the ego-involved 

participants in their study would react to the message according to the following process. 1) 

More negative thoughts (e.g. counterarguments) and less positive thoughts directed towards the 

message. 2) A message that induces more negative thoughts than positive thoughts is expected to 

result in message discounting (calling message quality into question), or disregarding. 3) If the 

message is discounted, it is expected that attacks on the source of the message will occur, calling 

into question the trustworthiness and credibility of the source of the message. 4) Finally, it can be 

expected that the process laid out in the model will conclude in recipient attitudes towards the 

message content. The more the recipient engages in negative attitudes, message discounting, and 

7 

 
 
 
source attacks, the less likely it will be that the recipient will be persuaded by the message or 

comply with and recommendations by the source. 

Among other conceptualizations of self, ego-defensive attitudes may also be used to 

protect one’s social identity, or “that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his 

knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the emotional 

significance attached to that membership” (Tajfel, 1974, p. 292). While Lapinski and Boster’s 

original test of the ego-defensive model focused on threats to self-concept, the current study 

expands on the existing research by testing the ego-defensive model on messages that threaten 

collective self-esteem, which is derived from one’s important group memberships.  According to 

Tajfel (1974), group membership is desired when being part of the group contributes to the 

positive aspects of one’s identity, also referred to as collective self-esteem (also called social 

self-esteem, Rubin & Hewstone, 1998; and group self-esteem, Ellemers et al., 1999). Individuals 

desire to have high collective self-esteem, and are motivated to protect the positive distinction of 

their group to enhance their self-esteem, very similar to one’s motivation to protect self-concept.  

Threats to Collective Self-Esteem 

Carpenter (2019) stated there is no clear reason why the concept of ego-involvement 

should not also include social identity, since people strive to maintain positivity in group 

membership just as they strive to maintain a positive self-concept. As an example, Boston Red 

Sox fans want their team to win when they go head-to-head with the Yankees, because it means 

they are members of a group that is superior to the other. This victory is all the sweeter if they 

engage in some general mocking of the other team, outlining all the ways the other team is 

inferior to their own. This is a relatively harmless example of group dynamics, however, these 

dynamics become more problematic within the context of demographic or cultural groups. 

8 

 
 
 
Within the context of gender, we might see the higher status group (men) communicating about 

traits, roles, or other objects commonly associated with women, in a negative way.   

People organize their social environment using group memberships to create and define 

one’s own place in society (Tajfel, 1974), including their group’s relative hierarchical position 

compared to other groups. Collective self-esteem is the value we place on our social groups and 

how they contribute to our positive self-worth. It makes sense that collective self-esteem is 

typically higher for high-status groups as compared to low-status groups (Ellemers et al., 1999), 

and it can be increased by engaging in downward social comparison (comparing your group to a 

lower-status group) and out-group derogation (Abrams & Hogg, 1988; Rubin & Hewstone, 

1998). A study by Vaughan-Johnston et al., (2021) found that extroverts, who are more likely to 

have strong ties to social groups and engage in frequent social activity, are more likely to engage 

in downward social comparison to increase their general self-esteem.  

People desire to gain self-esteem through their group memberships, and group members 

are motivated to protect the positive distinction of their groups in order to maintain positive 

identity. Since people want their social group to be well-evaluated compared to other groups to 

bolster self-esteem, people that are part of a less positively evaluated group will likely attempt to 

leave that group (Tajfel, 1974). One study (Williams & Wittig, 1997) found that 

self-identification as a feminist had more to do with positive evaluation of the group rather than 

sharing beliefs of the feminist movement. According to Tajfel (1974), individuals who are part of 

a disadvantaged ingroup will take steps to improve the status of their social group if they are 

unable or unwilling to shed their group membership. However, one group achieving a high status 

can be perceived as threatening to a second, comparable group. In situations where group status 

is threatened, groups will exert cognitive energy to protect their collective self-esteem (Hogg, 

9 

 
 
 
2016; Blanz et al., 1998), as holding these beliefs simultaneously may decrease the potential for 

a high-status group to engage (consciously or unconsciously) in downward social comparison, 

thus removing one way they increase collective self-esteem. A study by Ellemers (1993) found 

that when group boundaries are permeable, high status groups want to protect their position, and 

indication that they may lose their positive distinction results in increased in-group identification, 

or stronger likelihood of seeing oneself as more similar to in-group members and less similar to 

out-group members (Turner & Reynolds, 2012).  

In this way, social identity theory and its successors suggest that intergroup conflict is  

part of the relationship between social groups (Hogg, 2016), and intergroup behavior includes a 

struggle for relative group prestige (Ellemers, 1993). Tajfel and Turner theorized this 

relationship would exist specifically in cases where social identity is internalized as important to 

self-concept, when social identity (group membership) is more salient than personal identity 

within the interaction, and when facing competition from a relevant comparison group (Tajfel & 

Turner, 2004).  

Some research has studied how strength of group ties, including reliance on group self-

esteem, can moderate reactance in the face of group threat. In their research on social identity 

and self-esteem, Abrams and Hogg (1988, 1990) studied self-esteem gained through direct group 

competition, and predicted that engaging in outgroup derogation increases collective self-esteem, 

and threats to group status will motivate outgroup derogation (see meta-analysis by Aberson et 

al., 2000). Martiny and Rubin (2016) postulate that, “group members who have high collective 

self-esteem experience a large discrepancy when negative intergroup comparison outcomes are 

made salient and, consequently, they are especially motivated to restore their positive view of the 

in-group (p. 24).” Some studies have found data consistent with the claim that initial levels of 

10 

 
 
 
group self-esteem can predict outgroup derogation when group identity is threatened 

(Branscombe & Wann, 1994; Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990). One study found that high group 

identification coupled with a reduction of group self-esteem predicted likelihood to participate in 

outgroup derogation (Branscombe & Wann, 1994). This study also found that outgroup 

derogation, following a threat to collective self-esteem, can mitigate the negative impact of the 

threat on collective self-esteem. A study by Matby and Day (2003) examined self-esteem threat 

in a gendered context by exposing male participants to an identity threat by a female research 

confederate. Men who began the study with high self-esteem, and reported high positive attitudes 

towards men before the threat, reported significantly higher positive attitudes toward men 

following the threat. 

The literature suggests that people high in collective self-esteem will be more likely to 

respond in congruence with the ego-defensive model to a message that threatens collective self-

esteem. This message should be perceived as threatening to their group’s relative social standing. 

As stated earlier, collective self-esteem is the positive value placed on ingroup membership, 

which contributes positively to our self-concept. With our study population, that would be the 

self-esteem gained from being a man or woman, and sharing an ingroup with other men or 

women. According to Luhtanen and Crocker (1992), collective self-esteem includes the 

perception of yourself as a valuable ingroup member, personal judgements about your social 

group, perceptions of how others judge your social group, and the influence your group has on 

your own self-concept. While personal self-esteem is thought to moderate the use of self-serving 

bias, Luhtanen and Crocker (1992) say that collective self-esteem may be an important 

moderator of ingroup bias, and other ingroup level strategies. Crocker and Luhtanen (1990) 

11 

 
 
 
found that collective self-esteem moderated subjects' responses to threats to social identity, as 

opposed to personal self-esteem.  

Lapinski and Boster (2001) conceptualized a message that will trigger the ego-defensive 

model to be both ego-involving and counterattitudinal. Lapinski and Boster (2001) tested their 

model on a sample of college students who viewed themselves as ‘serious students’ and 

presented them with a counterattitudinal message that threatened their identity as a serious 

student. They were then exposed to a message that suggested they were not, in fact, serious 

students by describing “good” academic behaviors which far outstripped their current behaviors. 

Students were found to be highly ego-involved in being a serious student. Consistent with the 

model, these highly ego-involved students were more likely to respond with the production of 

counterarguments, discounting of the message, and derogation of the source of that message. The 

students in the threatening message condition reported a substantial number of negative thoughts 

and very few positive thoughts; the effect was reversed in the non-threatening message 

condition. The prevalence of positive or negative thoughts had an effect on the extent the 

message was discounted by participants, then impacted the extent to which the source of the 

message was derogated. Lapinski and Boster found that negative attitudes, message discounting 

and source derogation occurred when a salient aspect of self-concept was threatened. This study 

intends to test that same model when collective self-esteem is threatened.  

Though not tested in its entirety, researchers have tested parts of the ego-defensive model 

proposed by Lapinski & Boster (2001). A study on intention to purchase counterfeit items 

(Sharma & Chan, 2017) found that the ego-defensive attitude function was related to the 

production of negative evaluations (negative attitudes) of counterfeit purchases, and adding 

involvement level into the model helped to explain a greater amount of variance in purchase 

12 

 
 
 
intentions. A study on political fact checking found that perceptions of message credibility 

(message discounting) moderated the likelihood to accept the corrected information (attitude 

change; Garret & Weeks, 2013), when the misinformation correction was counterattitudinal. In a 

synthesis of ego-defensive research on counterattitudinal messages, Carpenter (2019) described 

other research consistent with the Lapinski-Boster (2001) model; ego-involved recipients of 

counterattitudinal messages will be more critical of messages (in comparison to pro-attitudinal 

messages), and be more critical of the source (Klaczynski & Gordon, 1996). One study of 

counterattitudinal messages, found that ego-involvement was negatively correlated with 

perceptions of the source’s expertise, and ego-involved sources showed less attitude change 

(Sereno, 1968).  

In the current study, the ego-defensive model will be tested with a sample of college-age 

men and women, and will additionally aim to understand how the process is moderated by 

collective self-esteem. Ego-defensive attitudes protecting social identity will be investigated 

within the context of gender1group membership, more specifically, men and women responding 

to a message which gives evidence that the other gender is more prepared to enter the workforce 

post college graduation (i.e, that men are more prepared than women, or that women are more 

prepared than men). This message is considered a group threatening message; a message that is 

likely to be threatening to one’s relative group status. This message should be counter-attitudinal 

for participants, highly counter-attitudinal for participants with high collective self-esteem 

associated with their gender identity, and ego-involving for college-age students (Zhuang et al., 

2017, May). Participants exposed to the group-threatening message should be more likely to 

1 Gender, as referred to in this paper, is the socially constructed characteristics of men/boys and  women/girls 
(World Health Organization, 2023). Though gender is related to sex, it is not the same thing as sex, which refers 
specifically to biological characteristics. When this paper refers to men and women, it is referring to people that 
identify as either gender, regardless of biological sex.   

13 

 
 
 
 
react to the message in a manner consistent with the ego-defensive model than participants who 

are exposed to the non-threatening message (in this instance, a message which indicates that their 

own gender is better prepared to be successful post-graduation than the other). Evidence suggests 

that participants' responses to the group-threatening message can predict the attitudes that follow 

(Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959), each step of the ego-defensive model following a simple causal 

chain. Exposure to a group-threatening message is predicted to generate more negative thoughts 

(e.g., counter arguments) and fewer positive thoughts than exposure to the non-threatening 

message (Abelson, 1968). These thoughts generated by the group-threatening message are then 

expected to impact the extent to which the message is discounted. As negative thoughts increase, 

message discounting is expected to increase. This should occur to a lesser extent for the non-

threatening message, which will generate fewer negative thoughts. Message discounting will 

then lead to source derogation, as the participant seeks reasons to discredit the source’s 

competence or trustworthiness rather than accept the threatening information. The more 

participants discount the message, the more they are predicted to derogate the source of the 

message. Lastly, the model posits that the more the audience of the message derogates the 

source, the more negatively they should evaluate the message overall, and the less likely they 

will be to accept the recommendations of the message. The following hypotheses are proposed 

comparing a message that is group threatening to non-threatening: 

H1:      A group threatening message will result in greater numbers of negative thoughts 

and fewer positive thoughts than a message that is non-threatening.   

H2:      A greater number of negative thoughts and fewer positive thoughts will result in 

greater message discounting.   

H3:      Message discounting will result in more instances of source derogation.   

14 

 
 
 
 
H4:      Source derogation will result in more overall negative attitudes. 

Lapinski & Boster (2001) predicted a simple, causal chain and the data were consistent 

with the model. This study will complicate this model and predict that collective self-esteem will 

moderate the effects of the message such that participants with high collective self-esteem (i.e., a 

greater portion of their self-esteem is derived from group membership) are more likely than 

participants with low collective self-esteem to view the group-threatening message as a challenge 

to the status of their ingroup, therefore magnifying the effects of the ego-defensive model with 

even more negative thoughts and less positive thoughts about the message. As indicated by the 

model, the production of more negative and less positive attitudes will likely initiate all 

subsequent stages of the model, including more instances of message discounting, source 

derogation and overall negative attitudes, as a result of high collective self-esteem. Although the 

group-threatening message should be viewed as more threatening than the non-threatening 

message for all participants, men and women with high collective self-esteem should be more 

affected than men and women with low collective self-esteem. The following hypothesis and 

research question are proposed: 

H5: The effect of group threatening messages will be moderated by collective self-esteem 

such that people with high collective self-esteem will have a greater number of negative thoughts 

and fewer positive thoughts than people with low collective self-esteem. 

Due to the nature of the ego-defensive model causal chain, there is reason to question 

whether the predicted interaction of collective-self esteem and group threatening messages has 

an effect on all subsequent variables in the model, such as message discounting, source 

derogation, and attitudes towards career success. Therefore, the following research question is 

proposed: 

15 

 
 
 
RQ1: Will collective self-esteem moderate the effects of threatening messages on message 

discounting, source derogation, and overall attitudes towards the message? 

Intergroup conflict exists between relevant comparison groups, including situations 

where a lower-status group takes steps to increase their group status, thus threatening the relative 

status of a higher-status group (Tajfel & Turner, 2004). Women in the United States are 

considered a lower-status group as compared to men, who are well documented in earning more 

money and occupying higher-status jobs compared to women (US Census Bureau, 2021).  One 

study found a negative correlation between attitudes towards men and attitudes towards women 

in a sample of men (Maltby & Day, 2003), meaning that the more men hold other men in 

positive regard, the more they are likely to view women in a negative light. In addition, support 

for pro-social action that benefits women can be found more readily among women than among 

men (Rolfes-Haase & Swers, 2022; Dolan, 1997; Burn et al., 2000; Williams & Wittig, 1997; 

Glick & Fisk, 1996). Finally, there is reason to expect that men feel threatened by challenges to 

their masculinity, as research has found that men respond to masculinity threats with signs of 

increased anxiety and aggressive thoughts. This same relationship was not found in women when 

femininity was threatened (Vandello et al., 2008). The following research question is proposed: 

RQ2: Are the effects of group threatening messages different for men and women? 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Overview 

METHOD 

This study design utilized a pretest-posttest experiment in which participants were 

randomly assigned to read either a group-threatening or non-threatening message about gender 

differences in college preparation for the workforce. Collective self-esteem, thoughts about the 

messages, message discounting, source derogation, attitudes, and discrete emotions were 

measured via self-report after message exposure. 

Participants 

Participants in this study (N = 249) were male (n = 80) and female (n = 169) 

undergraduate students. Twenty-nine participants were removed from the final pool, 17 for 

failing at least one attention check, 10 for failure to complete the second part of the study, and 

two for not identifying as male or female, and therefore not fitting within the planned analysis 

for this study. Participants who completed this study through use of the Michigan State 

University Communication Department SONA pool (n = 192) were given course credit for 

participation. Participants who completed this study through the Michigan State University 

Department of Advertising and Public Relations paid research pool (n = 59), were given $6 for 

study completion. Independent sample t-tests showed that these two samples showed no 

significant difference on any study variables, therefore, these samples were treated as one for all 

analysis.   

Procedure 

The study was conducted as two online surveys using the Qualtrics platform. In the first 

survey, participants were asked to complete a series of questionnaires assessing their ego-

17 

 
 
 
 
involvement in career success and attachment to their group identity (gender) through two 

measures of collective self-esteem.  

The second survey asked participants to respond to a written message that was made to 

look like an OpEd article. Participants were instructed to read the article carefully and evaluate 

it. Participants were randomly assigned into one of two message conditions: a message stating 

that female undergraduate students were more prepared to enter the workforce than male 

undergraduate students, or a message stating that male undergraduate students were more 

prepared to enter the workforce than female undergraduate students. These messages were 

designed to be non-threatening or group-threatening based on participant gender.  

Immediately after exposure to the message, participants were instructed to complete a 

thought-listing task, followed by evaluating the message itself and the source of the message. 

Then, participants take a questionnaire rating their overall attitudes towards the content of the 

message. Finally, participant emotions were measured.  

Instrumentation  

Scale reliability was examined by first testing inter-item correlation and looking at item 

contributions to scale reliability. Once items were removed that did not contribute significantly 

to scale reliability, overall alpha was estimated. Scale items that were found sufficiently reliable 

were summed, so that higher values indicated more of each variable. Each of the following 

measures used a seven-point scale.  

Ego-Involvement  

Measured using five items modified from Lapinski and Boster (2001) on a Likert-type 

scale, ranging from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree.” Scale items were modified to 

measure participant’s ego-involvement in being successful in their career, including items such 

18 

 
 
 
 
as, “I place high value on having a successful career.” and “I see myself as career-focused.” 

These scores were averaged, and reverse coded as indicated, so that higher scores indicate more 

ego-involvement. This scale was found to be sufficiently reliable (α = .87). 

Collective Self-Esteem 

 Measured using Luhtanen and Crocker (1992) Collective Self-Esteem (CSE) scale, 

originally developed as a global, collective self-esteem scale, designed to fit within social 

identity theory’s understanding of group self-esteem. Past studies have found sufficient variance 

in the scale to identify instances of covariance with other variables (Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990; 

Foels & Tomcho, 2005; Zhang, 2005). Scale items measure four subscales of collective self-

esteem as conceptualized by Luhtanen and Crocker, and validated by exploratory factor analysis: 

membership esteem, “I am a worthy member of this group I belong to,” private collective self-

esteem, “In general, I’m glad to be a member of this group I belong to,” public collective self-

esteem, “In general, other people respect this group that I am a member of,” and importance of 

identity to one’s self-concept, “In general, belonging to this group is an important part of my 

self-image.” This study used a version of the Collective Self-Esteem Scale that was altered 

slightly to measure collective self-esteem from a specific group. In this version “the social 

groups I belong to” are changed to “this group” in scale items, and participants will be asked to 

think about their gender identity group membership prior to responding to study items.  

This scale consists of 16-items on a Likert-type scale, from “Strongly disagree,” to 

“Strongly agree.” Our final analysis used only 11 items to improve inter-item correlations within 

the scale. Scores are averaged across all items, with higher scores indicating higher collective 

self-esteem. This scale was found to be sufficiently reliable (α = .88).  

19 

 
 
 
 
Negative Thoughts  

Measured through a thought-listing task, in which participants were asked to list all 

thoughts they had while reading the message (with each unique thought on a separate line). 

Positive and negative thoughts are coded, positive thoughts being those that positively evaluate 

or support the source or content of the message, or general thoughts consistent with the message; 

negative thoughts are those that negatively evaluate or oppose the source or content of the 

message, or thoughts inconsistent with the message. Participants will be asked to code their own 

thoughts directly after this task; first labeling thoughts as message relevant or message irrelevant, 

then labeling message relevant thoughts as either supporting the message (positive), opposing the 

message (negative), or neutral. Overall scores are calculated by subtracting the number of 

negative thoughts from the number of positive thoughts for each participant. Higher scores 

showing a tendency towards positive thoughts and negative scores displaying more negative 

thoughts towards the message.  

Message Discounting  

Measured through a set of nine semantic differential items (e.g., The points made in this 

message are “important/not important,” “relevant/ irrelevant”) taken from Lapinski and Boster’s 

(2001) study. Scores will be calculated such that higher numbers indicate more message 

discounting. Standardized item α = 0.91.  

Source Derogation  

Measured through a set of five semantic differential items, asking participants to evaluate 

the source of the message (e.g., The source of this message is “intelligent/stupid,” “reasonable/ 

absurd”) taken from Lapinski and Boster’s (2001) study. Higher scores indicated a higher 

occurrence of source derogation. Standardized item α = .93.  

20 

 
 
 
Attitudes  

To measure attitudes towards career success, this study will use a modified version of a 

five-item scale used by Lapinski & Boster (2001). This 7-point Likert-type scale includes items 

such as, “It is important to have a successful career,” and “I place a strong emphasis on excelling 

in my career.” Higher scores indicate more positive attitudes towards career success. One item 

was cut from analysis to improve scale reliability (α = .82). 

Exploratory Variables 

To understand the emotional responses to the messages, six emotions were measured in 

this study: ashamed, guilty, angry, mad, satisfied, and proud. For each emotion, the participants 

were asked, “How well do the following adjectives describe your feelings about this message?” 

Higher scores indicate feeling more of that emotion.  

Message Design 

Two OpEd messages were created for the purposes of this experiment. Participants were 

told they were evaluating an article written by a MSU masters student studying journalism, prior 

to the student sending it to a local news outlet. Both messages focus on undergraduate student 

preparedness for the workforce post-graduation. This topic was chosen because male and female 

undergraduate students in a pilot study were found to be highly ego-involved in having a 

successful career post graduation. One message stated that female undergraduate students are 

better prepared than male undergraduate students to be successful in the workforce post-

graduation (expected to be perceived as group-threatening to men and non-threatening to 

women). The second message articulates the opposite; that male undergraduate students are more 

prepared than female students to find workforce success post-graduation (expected to be 

perceived as group-threatening to women and non-threatening to men). Other than the stance 

21 

 
 
 
taken by each message, differences between OpEd articles was minimized by keeping 

formatting, source of the message, and length the same. Message qualities that have been found 

to impact source derogation, such as source effects (e.g., source credibility) and message effects 

(e.g., argument quality, message-sidedness, number of arguments), were controlled between the 

two message conditions. 

Pilot Studies  

Prior to conducting the experiment, two pilot studies were administered on two separate 

samples, independent from our final study sample.  The pilot studies were designed to determine 

whether our group-threatening message was ego-involving and counterattitudinal to our study 

sample. It also functioned to provide a preliminary assessment of the main study scales, measure 

message believability, and discrete emotional response to the message. 

Pilot study 1 (N = 86) showed that participants in our study sample were highly ego-

involved in having a successful career post-graduation, with mean ego-involvement falling 

significantly higher than the midpoint of the scale, M = 4.09, SD = 0.59, t(20) = 8.46, p < .001. 

Pilot study 1 tested two messages about gender diversity in the workforce: one encouraged 

employers to prioritize gender-diversity in the hiring process, and the other encouraged hiring 

practices solely based on skills alone. A control condition, with no message, was also included, 

to measure participant attitudes without message influence. However, a 7-point scale measuring 

attitudes toward gender diversity in the workforce showed that male participants in our control 

condition fell above the scale midpoint (M = 4.4865, SD = 1.21296, t(36) = 2.44, p < .02) and 

that the topic was not counter-attitudinal. Therefore, a second pilot study was conducted, testing 

a new set of messages.  

22 

 
 
 
In Pilot 2, messages were tested with a small sample (N = 23) of students from two local 

universities. This pilot tested our final study messages on student success post-graduation. 

Participants were randomly assigned to either a group-threatening message, non-threatening 

message, or a control, no message, condition. Message believability and discrete emotional 

response were measured in this pilot. According to an independent sample t-test, message 

believability for participants was not found to be significantly different in the group-threatening 

(M = 4.67, SD = 1.19), and non-threatening (M = 5.20, SD = 0.38) message conditions, t (9) = 

.95, p = .37. Independent sample t-tests showed that discrete emotional responses across message 

conditions were only significantly different for one emotion – ashamed –  t(9) = -2.46, p = .04. 

All other measured emotions (guilty, mad, angry, satisfied, proud), were not found to have 

significant differences across message conditions.  

The second pilot study focused on testing whether the message, which stated that female 

students are more prepared than male students to be successful post-graduation, was group-

threatening to male participants. In the control group (n = 16), men on average disagreed with the 

following statement: “In today’s population of college students, women are more prepared than 

men to have a successful career post-graduation.” The mean for male participants (M = 2.67, SD 

= 1.63) in the control condition was found in a single sample t-test to be significantly different 

than the midpoint of the scale [t(5) = - 2.00, p = .05], showing that this topic is counterattitudinal 

for our study sample.   

In the control group (n = 16), women responded to a one-item measure that matched the 

topic of the group-threatening message: “In today’s population of college students, men are more 

prepared than women to have a successful career post-graduation.” The mean for female 

participants (M = 4.00, SD = 1.63) in the control condition was found in a t-test to be at the 

23 

 
 
 
midpoint of the scale, t(5) = 0, p = .5. Because the sample size for the second pilot was small and 

the means in the right direction, data collection commenced for the full study.  

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Preliminary Analysis 

RESULTS 

Messages were conceptualized as ego-threatening if they were both highly ego-involving 

and counter attitudinal (Lapinski & Boster, 2001). The OpEd message stating that men are 

better-prepared than women to have a successful career post college was designed to be 

threatening to female participants; the OpEd message stating that women are better prepared than 

men to have a successful career post college was designed to be threatening to male participants. 

In our analysis, the variable “threat” was created, as shown in Table 1. The study conditions, 

threat (n = 124) and no-threat (n = 125) will be used in all subsequent analysis.  

On average, participants were highly ego-involved in having a successful career post-

graduation (see Table 2). Mean ego-involvement across participants fell above the midpoint of 

the scale, t(249) = 29.22, p < .001. Mean collective self-esteem fell above the midpoint of the 

scale (see Table 2) for both men , [t(79) = 15.98, p < .001] and women [t(168) = 35.94, p < .001], 

and women were found to have significantly higher collective self-esteem compared to men, 

t(247) = -2.54, p = .01. In addition, participant-reported emotions were different by threat 

condition. Participants in the threat condition reported feeling significantly more mad, angry and 

ashamed than people in the non-threat condition, while participants in the no threat condition 

reported feeling significantly more satisfied and proud (See Table 3). All emotions were 

significantly different than the midpoint of the scale across conditions.  

Tests of Hypotheses and Research Questions 

Participants could list up to 10 thoughts; the mean number of thoughts listed by 

participants was M = 5.3, SD = 2.95, the Median was 5, and the Mode was 10. In Hypothesis 1, it 

was expected that the message, regarded as threatening for each gender, would lead to a greater 

25 

 
 
 
number of negative thoughts than the non-threatening message. The data were not consistent 

with this prediction.  No significant differences were found in the number of negative thoughts 

produced in the message threat condition compared to the message no-threat condition, t(247) = 

.37, p = .71. In both the threatening [t(123) = 9.73, p = <.001], and non-threatening [t(124) = 

9.92, p = <.001] conditions, the mean number of negative thoughts is significantly greater than 

zero (see Table 4).  

It was expected that the message, regarded as threatening for each gender, would result in 

less positive thoughts than the non-threatening message. The data were not consistent with this 

prediction. No significant differences were found in the number of positive thoughts produced 

[t(247) = -1.22, p = .225], in the message threat condition compared to the message no-threat 

condition. In both the threatening [t(123) = 11.409, p = <.001] and non-threatening [t(124) = 

11.13, p = <.001] conditions, the mean number of positive thoughts is significantly greater than 

zero (see Table 4).  

It was predicted that there would be a substantial number of negative thoughts and few 

positive thoughts in the threatening message condition, and few negative thoughts but numerous 

positive thoughts in the non-threatening message condition. Therefore, it was expected that the 

thought index (positive - negative thoughts) for participants in the threat condition would sum to 

a substantial negative number, and for the participants in the no-threat condition, a substantial 

positive number. The data were not consistent with this prediction. In both the threat condition 

[t(123) = 0.98, p = .165] and no-threat condition [t(124) = -0.56, p = .579), means were not 

significantly different from zero (see Table 4), or significantly different from each other [t(247) 

= -1.09, p = .276]. Thus, the data were not consistent with Hypothesis 1. 

26 

 
 
 
 
It was predicted that a greater number of negative thoughts and fewer positive thoughts 

will result in greater message discounting. The thought index was found to have a significant 

positive correlation with message discounting (

 = 0.38, 

 < .01), meaning that more positive 

𝑟𝑟
thoughts were correlated with more instances of message discounting. Indeed, the number of 

𝑝𝑝

negative thoughts had a negative correlation (

 = -0.20, 

 < .01) and positive thoughts had a 

positive correlation (

 = 0.34, 

 < .01) with message discounting. The data were not consistent 

𝑟𝑟

𝑝𝑝

with Hypothesis 2 (see Table 5).       

𝑝𝑝

𝑟𝑟

It was predicted that message discounting would be associated with greater source 

derogation.  The data were consistent with this prediction. Message discounting was found to 

have a significant positive correlation to source derogation (

 = 0.79, 

 < .01), meaning that 

more instances of message discounting were correlated with more instances of source derogation 

𝑟𝑟

𝑝𝑝

(see Table 5). Therefore, the data were consistent with Hypothesis 3. 

For the final step of the model, it was predicted that source derogation would result in 

more overall negative attitudes towards the message topic, career success. The data were not 

consistent with this prediction. The relationship between source derogation and attitudes towards 

career success was not significant, though it did fall in the predicted direction (

 = - .08, 

 = 

.228, see Table 5).  

𝑟𝑟

𝑝𝑝

     It was predicted in Hypothesis 5 that collective self-esteem would moderate the effect 

of group-threatening messages such that people with high collective self-esteem will have a 

greater number of negative thoughts and fewer positive thoughts than people with low collective 

self esteem. A moderation analysis was conducted to examine whether collective self-esteem 

moderates the relationship between threat and the thought index (positive - negative thoughts). 

The main effects for threat and collective self-esteem, and the interaction term (collective self-

27 

 
 
 
 
esteem × threat) were included in the regression model to test for moderation. The main effect 

for collective self-esteem was (β = -.152, p = .10); the main effect for threat was (β = -.93, p = 

.05), such that people in the threat condition reported significantly fewer negative thoughts than 

people in the no threat condition. The interaction term was significant, but not in the direction 

predicted , β = 1.01, p = .03.  This means that people with high collective self-esteem in the 

threat condition responded with more positive and less negative thoughts. People with low 

collective self-esteem in the threat condition responded with more negative and less positive 

thoughts.  

Research Question 1 asked if collective self-esteem moderated the effects of the 

messages on message discounting, source derogation and attitudes towards the message. 

Collective self-esteem had a significant main effect on message discounting (β = -.274, p = .002) 

so that those with higher collective self-esteem engaged in less message discounting. There was 

no significant main effect for threat (β = -.494, p = .26). The interaction between collective self-

esteem and threat did not have a significant effect on message discounting (β = .80, p = .069).  

Collective self-esteem had a significant main effect on source derogation (β = -.343, p < 

.001) so that those with higher collective self-esteem engaged in less source derogation. There 

was no significant main effect for threat (β = -.453, p = .293). The interaction between collective 

self-esteem and threat did not have a significant effect on source derogation (β = .758, p = .08). 

Collective self-esteem had a significant main effect on attitudes towards career success (β 

= .324, p < .001) so that those with higher collective self-esteem had more positive attitudes 

towards career success. There was no significant main effect for threat (β = -.184, p = .675).  The 

interaction between collective self-esteem and threat did not have a significant effect on attitudes 

towards career success (β = .186, p = .673). Thus, the effects of the messages were not 

28 

 
 
 
moderated by collective self-esteem and the effects of collective self-esteem appear to reduce 

ego-defensive outcomes and enhance positive attitudes.  

Research Question 2 asked if the effects of group-threatening messages are different for 

men and women. To answer this question, male and female participant data was analyzed 

separately for each step of the ego-defensive model.  

Male participants in the threatening condition were found to list significantly more 

negative thoughts [t(78) = 2.29, p = .012] and significantly less positive thoughts [t(78) = -1.67, 

p = .050], than male participants in the no-threat condition (see Table 6). The interaction between 

collective self-esteem and message on thoughts was not significant for men (p =.28).  A 

significant difference was found between the thought index of male participants in the threat and 

no-threat conditions [t(78) = -2.92, p = .002], with male participants in the threat condition 

having significant negative numbers, and male participants in the no-threat condition having 

significant positive numbers (see Table 6). This was not the case for female participants. Female 

participants in the threat condition were found to list significantly more positive thoughts [t(167) 

= -2.70, p = .004] and significantly less negative thoughts [t(167) = 1.92, p = .028] than female 

participants in the no-threat condition. A significant difference was also found between the 

thought index of female participants in the threat and no-threat conditions [t(167) = -3.31, p < 

.001], with female participants in the threat condition having significant positive numbers, and 

female participants in the no-threat condition having significant negative numbers (see Table 6). 

The interaction between collective self-esteem and message on the thought index was significant 

for women, β =-1.61, p = .003 but the effect was such that women with high CSE with a 

threatening message reported greater positive than negative thoughts.  

29 

 
 
 
Men in the threat condition were not significantly different than men in the no-threat 

condition to participate in message discounting, t(77) = -1.58, p = .06. On the other hand, women 

in the threat condition were significantly more likely to participate in message discounting than 

women in the no-threat condition, t(164) = -7.68, p < .001 (see Table 7). No significant 

differences were found between men in the threat condition and no-threat condition to participate 

in source derogation, t(77) = -1.37, p = .09. On the other hand, women in the threat condition 

were significantly more likely to participate in source derogation than women in the no-threat 

condition, t(165) = -7.53, p < .001 (see Table 7).  

No significant differences existed between men in the threat condition and in the no-

threat condition on attitudes toward career success, t(77) = -.57, p = .286. No significant 

differences existed between women in the threat condition, or in the no-threat condition, on 

attitudes toward career success, t(167) = -.013, p = .495 (see Table 7).  

Post Hoc Analysis 

Gender differences between reported discrete emotions were measured as a post hoc 

analysis. Significant differences were found between men in the threat condition and no-threat 

condition on reporting feeling mad, angry and guilty. Men in the no-threat condition reported 

feeling more mad, angry and guilty than men in the no-threat condition. Significant differences 

were found between women in the threat condition and no-threat condition on all measured 

emotions (ashamed, guilty, mad, angry, satisfied and proud). Women in the threat condition 

reported feeling more mad, angry, ashamed, and guilty than women in the no-threat condition. 

Women in the no-threat condition reported feeling more proud and satisfied than women in the 

threat condition (See Table 8). 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
DISCUSSION 

The goal for this study was to test the ego-defensive model on a sample of college-aged 

students, adding collective self-esteem as a moderator. Although it was expected that the 

message predicted to be threatening for each gender, would lead to a greater number of negative 

thoughts and less positive thoughts than the non-threatening message, which would in turn lead 

to more message discounting, source derogation, and more overall negative attitudes towards the 

message; overall, the data were not consistent with this model. 

Though more negative than positive thoughts were expected in response to the group-

threatening message, the data were not consistent with this prediction, as the relationship was not 

found to be significant across the sample. However, significant differences in negative and 

positive thoughts were found when genders were analyzed separately. It was found that women 

in the threat condition produced significantly more positive thoughts (than women in the no 

threat condition), and women in the no threat condition produced significantly more negative 

thoughts (than women in the threat condition). This was not consistent with our prediction. On 

the other hand, male participants thought listing did match our predictions, as men in the threat 

condition had significantly more negative thoughts (than men in the no-threat condition) and 

men in the no threat condition had significantly more positive thoughts (than men in the threat 

condition).  

For both men and women, the thought index was positively associated with message 

discounting, meaning that those with more positive thoughts were more likely to discount the 

message. Though participants in the threat condition were significantly more likely to participate 

in message discounting and source derogation (which had a significant positive relationship), this 

31 

 
 
 
was only true for female participants. Male participants, on the other hand, showed no significant 

differences in message discounting and source derogation by threat condition.  

Source derogation was not correlated with attitudes towards career success, but 

interestingly, positive thoughts did have a significant positive relationship with attitudes; 

meaning that participants who listed more positive thoughts were more likely to have positive 

attitudes toward the message topic. Career success attitudes were not associated with any other 

variable in the ego-defensive model. It is expected that smaller effect sizes will be found at the 

end of the ego-defensive model causal chain. It would be fruitful to see if a larger sample might 

help us to detect any relationships of a smaller effect size.   

Additionally, men reported feelings more mad, angry and guilty in response to the no-

threat condition, compared to men in the threat condition, while women in the threat condition 

reported feeling more mad, angry, ashamed, and guilty than women in the no-threat condition. 

For women, mad and angry were the only emotions to fall above the mean of the scale in the 

threat condition. It would be fruitful to learn more about anger’s role in the ego-defensive model, 

as both an outcome of the ego-defensive process, or a moderator within the causal chain. 

The data from the message discounting, source derogation, and discrete emotional 

response measures suggest that women were generally more threatened than men by the group-

threatening message. To understand why, there are some important factors to consider:  

It is likely that women are generally perceived to be better students than men (Voyer & 

Voyer, 2014) and despite our pilot results, it may be the case that our message was not believed 

by our sample. Male participants may have perceived the message which stated that male 

students are better prepared than female students to succeed post-graduation (expected to be non-

threatening), to not be very realistic. Therefore, the purportedly male non-threatening message 

32 

 
 
 
could have appeared false when compared to participant’s existing perceptions about student 

preparedness, accounting for the lack of significant differences in message discounting and 

source derogation. Participant thoughts provide some evidence that this could be the case. One 

participant stated that they, “find it hard to believe that women skip class more than men.” On 

the other hand, the opposite message (women are better-prepared than men to succeed post-

graduation) was likely perceived as more realistic to both male and female participants. One 

male participant stated that, “women take their education more seriously.” Though no differences 

in message believability were found in the pilot study, the small sample (N = 23) could have kept 

those differences from being detected, due to lack of statistical power.  

Alternatively, women in this sample were found to have significantly higher collective 

self-esteem compared to the men in this sample (though collective self-esteem fell above the 

midpoint for both genders). Past research would suggest that those with higher collective self-

esteem would have a greater need to mitigate threats to group identity (Branscombe & Wann, 

1994; Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990), as these individuals would feel greater cognitive 

discrepancies when exposed to negative intergroup comparisons (Martiny & Rubin, 2016). This 

difference in strength of ties to group identity could provide an alternate explanation for the 

differences found in men and women’s tendency to participate in message discounting and 

source derogation, and women reporting feeling more mad and angry in response to the group-

threatening message. Interestingly, past studies have found men to be susceptible to threats to 

their masculinity, but did not find this relationship in women when femininity was threatened 

(Maltby & Day, 2003; Vandello et al., 2008). Future research could focus further on gender 

identity, to better understand how people react when messages threaten group identities and the 

33 

 
 
 
scenarios or circumstances in which these group memberships are salient (e.g., high prestige 

group or low prestige group). 

The interaction between collective self-esteem and threat was found to moderate the 

effect of group-threatening messages such that people with high collective self-esteem in the 

threat condition responded with more positive and less negative thoughts. People with low 

collective self-esteem in the threat condition responded with more negative and less positive 

thoughts. This was the opposite of the predicted direction. Additionally, the interaction was not 

found to significantly modify message discounting, source derogation, or attitudes towards 

career success. However, collective self-esteem did have a significant main effect on message 

discounting, source derogation, and attitudes towards career success, such that people high in 

collective self-esteem were less likely to participate in message discounting and source 

derogation, but more likely to have positive attitudes towards career success. Thus, the effects of 

the messages were not moderated by collective self-esteem and the effects of collective self-

esteem appear to reduce ego-defensive outcomes and enhance positive attitudes. These findings 

are opposite from what we would expect to find. Based on social identity theory literature, it was 

expected that higher collective self-esteem would make the receiver more susceptible to threats 

to social identity (Martiny & Rubin, 2016; Branscombe & Wann, 1994; Crocker & Luhtanen, 

1990). However, our data suggests that these individuals were less vulnerable to identity threats, 

contrary to our hypotheses.  

As the Luhtanen and Crocker CSE scale includes subscales for membership esteem, the 

perception of yourself as a valuable ingroup member, and private collective self-esteem, personal 

judgements about your social group, it may be that participants that scored higher in this scale 

were more secure in their social group, and therefore, less concerned by the threatening message. 

34 

 
 
 
As such, collective self-esteem may have a buffering effect, protecting those with high collective 

self-esteem from attacks to group identity, therefore making them less likely to engage in 

message discounting and source derogation, and resulting in more positive attitudes towards the 

message content. 

Additionally, Luhtanen & Crocker (1992) found that collective self-esteem was 

moderately correlated with personal self-esteem, or the overall evaluative attitude towards the 

self (Rosenberg, 1965); this could mean that participants high in collective self-esteem were also 

high in personal self-esteem. Research on personal self-esteem shows mixed findings in how 

high or low self-esteem could impact how people respond to threats, self-esteem loss, negative 

emotions and negative feedback. Some research shows that high self-esteem individuals are 

more reactive to threats to self-esteem and will use strategies to regain self-esteem post-threat, 

including responding with unrealistically positive appraisals about the self (Roth et al., 1986) and 

risky goal setting (Baumeister et al., 1993). Other studies suggest that those high in personal self-

esteem suffer less emotional distress when they encounter negative feedback (Brown, 2010), and 

are less likely to feel anxious or depressed (Greenburg et al., 1992; Sharma & Agarwala, 2014).  

Within the context of this study, this could mean that participants with high self-esteem 

experienced less cognitive dissonance when exposed to the group-threatening message than 

those with low self-esteem, therefore making them less likely to seek out self-esteem 

maintenance strategies, such as message discounting and source derogation, and resulting in 

more positive attitudes towards the message content. Additionally, Crocker & Schwartz (1985) 

found that low personal self-esteem individuals are more likely than those with high personal 

self-esteem to display outgroup bias. Therefore, it may be that those with high self-esteem were 

more likely to use self-esteem maintenance strategies besides outgroup derogation, such as using 

35 

 
 
 
a direct remedial response to address the source of the self-esteem threat (Nussbaum & Dweck, 

2008). As such, it is possible that after reading the threatening message, participants high in self-

esteem took steps to better prepare themselves to enter the workforce in order to address the 

threat to self-esteem (e.g., attending a workshop, studying for a test).  

The interaction (collective self-esteem x threat) did not moderate the ego-defensive 

model as predicted; rather than finding that collective self-esteem boosts the effect of ego-

defensive attitudes, instead, we found that collective self-esteem diminished the effect of ego-

defensive attitudes. It may prove fruitful to continue to test the effects of self-esteem (personal 

and collective) on the ego-defensive model, to better understand the role of self-esteem as a 

buffer against messages that are perceived to be threatening to personal or group identity.  

Limitations 

One possible limitation was in having participants self code their thoughts, which may 

have impacted overall study findings. The Lapinski & Boster (2001) study used coders to 

determine thought relevance and valence. In this study, participants were provided instructions 

for coding their own thoughts, and did so directly after the thought listing activity. Ego-defensive 

attitudes are thought to not be generally accessible to those who hold them, operating primarily 

at a subconscious level. Having participants code their own thoughts could have had the 

unintended effect of turning ego-defensive attitudes, a typically unconscious process, into a 

conscious one, by providing time to self-reflect on the valence of their thoughts towards the 

message. This procedure could also have unintentionally stoked participant emotions and/or 

caused self-coded thoughts to be influenced by biased judgements or response distortions—

evasions or distortions in self-reports, potentially to gain social approval or avoid social 

disapproval (Himmelfarb, 1993). Additionally, participants with strong attitudes toward the 

36 

 
 
 
message might be more likely to code their thoughts at either extreme (positive or negative; 

Himmelfarb, 1993), whereas an external, unbiased coder may have identified more neutral 

thoughts. This is a strong possibility, as participants reported being highly ego-involved in 

obtaining career success post-graduation. The ego-defensive model is meant to be an 

unconscious process followed to protect against threats to self-esteem. When an element of 

introspection is introduced at the start of the causal chain, it may have had an impact on each 

subsequent link of the chain.  

Additionally, asking participants to label their message relevant thoughts as positive, 

negative, or neutral, was likely not specific enough for the purposes of this study; thought 

valence might have been perceived as positive or negative relative to the participants existing 

attitudes, beliefs, or biases, rather than relative to the message content. Instead, it may have been 

more helpful to have participants label their message-relevant thoughts as supportive, contrary, 

or neutral to the message, which may have better served the needs of this study. 

An additional possible limitation of the study is that there was a named source of the 

message, that was likely interpreted as a female source. This would likely be perceived as an 

ingroup member for women and an outgroup member for men. This could have shaped message 

response. Future research could test for differences in ego-defensive outcomes in response to 

ingroup and outgroup message sources.  

It was difficult to recruit a large sample of male participants for this study. Only about 

32% of our participants were men, which led to less statistical power to detect possible effects of 

the group-threatening message. Future replications would benefit from a larger, national sample 

rather than relying solely on student participants. Research suggests that men are highly 

susceptible to threats to their masculinity (Maltby & Day, 2003; Vandello et al., 2008), so a 

37 

 
 
 
larger sample size of men may be better suited for initial research to understand the relationship 

between collective self-esteem and the ego-defensive model, specifically when gender is the 

group membership of interest.  

Finally, a number of participants failed one of the three attention checks, 17 in total; 

additionally, 10 were removed for failure to complete part two of the study: 27 participants in 

total were cut from final analysis due to inattentiveness or lack of motivation to complete the 

study in its entirety. This suggests that participants may have required different incentives in 

order to complete a study with their full attention. This could mean making compensation 

contingent on passing attention checks and full study completion. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, the data was not consistent with the ego-defensive model, except in the 

case of message discounting and source derogation, which had a strong positive relationship. The 

interaction between threat and collective self-esteem had a significant effect on the thought 

index, such that participants with high collective self-esteem in the threat condition responded 

with more positive and less negative thoughts. However, the interaction did not have an effect on 

subsequent stages of the model. Additionally, collective self-esteem was found to have a strong 

main effect on steps of the model, including a negative effect on message discounting and source 

derogation, and a positive effect on career success attitudes. Thus, the effects of collective self-

esteem appear to reduce ego-defensive outcomes and enhance positive attitudes, appearing to act 

as a buffer against threats to group identity. 

The data also strongly indicates that only women were threatened by the purportedly 

group-threatening message, as only women reported feeling significantly more mad and angry in 

the threat condition. Additionally, women were more likely to participate in message discounting 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
and source derogation when exposed to a group-threatening message, whereas men showed no 

significant differences in these variables between message conditions.  

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Abelson, R. P. (1968). Psychological implications. In R. P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. J. McGuire, 

T. M. Newcomb, M. J. Rosenberg, & P. H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitive 
consistency: A sourcebook (pp. 112–139). Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally. 

Aberson, C. L., Healy, M., & Romero, V. (2000). Ingroup bias and self-esteem: A meta-analysis. 

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 157–173. 
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_04  

Abrams, D. and Hogg, M.A. (1988), Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in 

social identity and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology,  
18(4), 317-334. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180403  

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social identification, self-categorization and social 

influence. European review of social psychology, 1(1), 195-228.  

Barron, J. M., Struckman-Johnson, C., Quevillon, R., & Banka, S. R. (2008). Heterosexual  

men’s attitudes toward gay men: A hierarchical model including masculinity, openness,  
and theoretical explanations. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 9(3), 154–166. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.9.3.154 

Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1993). When ego threats lead to 

self-regulation failure: negative consequences of high self-esteem. Journal of personality 
and social psychology, 64(1), 141. 

Blanz, M., Mummendey, A., Mielke, R., & Klink, A. (1998). Responding to negative social 
identity: A taxonomy of identity management strategies. European Journal of Social 
Psychology, 28(5), 697–729.  
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199809/10)28:5<697::AID-EJSP889>3.0.CO;2-# 

Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1994). Collective self-esteem consequences of outgroup 
derogation when a valued social identity is on trial. European Journal of Social 
Psychology, 24(6), 641–657. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420240603 

Brown, J. D. (2010). High self-esteem buffers negative feedback: Once more with feeling.  

Cognition & Emotion, 24(8), 1389–1404. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930903504405 

Burn, S. M., Aboud, R., & Moyles, C. (2000). The relationship between gender social identity  

and support for feminism. Sex Roles, 42, 1081-1089. 

Carpenter, C. J. (2012). A meta-analysis of the functional matching effect based on functional 

attitude theory. Southern Communication Journal, 77(5), 438–451. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2012.699989 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Carpenter, C. J. (2019). Cognitive dissonance, ego-involvement, and motivated reasoning. 

Annals of the International Communication Association, 43(1), 1–23. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2018.1564881 

Cho, H., & Boster, F. J. (2005). Development and validation of value-, outcome-, and 

impression-relevant involvement scales. Communication Research, 32(2), 235–264. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650204273764  

Crocker, J., & Luhtanen, R. (1990). Collective self-esteem and ingroup bias. Journal of 

personality and social psychology, 58(1), 60. 

Dolan, K. (1997). Gender differences in support for women candidates: Is there a glass 

ceiling in American politics? Women & Politics, 17(2), 27–41. 
https://doi.org/10.1300/J014v17n02_02  

Garrett, R. K., & Weeks, B. E. (2013). The promise and peril of real-time corrections to political 

misperceptions. Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported 
Cooperative Work, 1047–1058. https://doi.org/10.1145/2441776.2441895 

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist 

attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women quarterly, 21(1), 119-135. 

Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T., Rosenblatt, A., Burling, J., Lyon, D., Simon, L., &  
Pinel, E. (1992). Why do people need self-esteem? Converging evidence that self-esteem 
serves an anxiety-buffering function. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 
63(6), 913. 

Ellemers, N. (1993). The influence of socio-structural variables on identity management  

strategies. European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 27–57. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779343000013 

Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (1999). Self-categorisation, commitment to the 
group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. Eur. J. Soc. 
Psychol. 29(2‐3), 371-389. 

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. The 

Journal of abnormal and social psychology, 58(2), 203. 

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 

Foels, R., & Tomcho, T. J. (2005). Gender, interdependent self-construals, and collective  

self-esteem: Women and men are mostly the same. Self and Identity, 4(3), 213–225.  
https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500444000281 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fransen, M. L., Smit, E. G., & Verlegh, P. W. J. (2015). Strategies and motives for resistance to 

persuasion: An integrative framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1201. 
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01201 

Herek, G. M. (1986). The instrumentality of attitudes: Toward a neofunctional theory. Journal 

of Social Issues, 42(2), 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1986.tb00227.x 

Hogg, M.A (2016). Social Identity Theory. In Christie, D. J., Understanding Peace and Conflict 
Through Social Identity Theory: Contemporary Global Perspectives, (pp. 19-33). 
Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29869-6  

Katz, D., Sarnoff, I., & McClintock, C. (1956). Ego-defense and attitude change. Human 

Relations, 9, 27–45. 

Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public opinion quarterly, 

24(2), 163-204. 

Klaczynski, P. A., & Gordon, D. H. (1996). Self-serving influences on adolescents’ evaluations  
of belief-relevant evidence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 62(3), 317–339.  
https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1996.0033  

Lapinski, M., & Boster, F. J. (2001). Modeling the ego-defensive function of attitudes. 

Communication Monographs, 68(3), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750128062 

Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one's social 

identity. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 18(3), 302-318. 

Lapinski, M. K., Rimal, R., DeVries, R., & Lee, E. L. (2007). The role of group orientation and 

descriptive norms on water conservation attitudes and behaviors. Health 
Communication, 22(2), 133-142. 

Maltby, J., & Day, L. (2003). Applying a social identity paradigm to examine the relationship 

between men’s self-esteem and their attitudes toward men and women. The Journal 
of Social Psychology, 143(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540309598434  

Martiny, S. E., & Kessler, T. (2014). Managing one's social identity: Successful and  

unsuccessful identity management. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(7), 748- 
757. 

Martiny, S. E., & Rubin, M. (2016). Towards a clearer understanding of social identity theory’s 
self-esteem hypothesis. Understanding peace and conflict through social identity theory: 
Contemporary global perspectives, 19-32. Springer International Publishing.  
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29869-6  

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pedersen, A., Griffiths, B., Contos, N., Bishop, B., & Walker, I. (2000). Attitudes toward 

Aboriginal Australians in city and country settings. Australian Psychologist, 35(2), 
109-117. 

Pereira, C. R., Álvaro, J. L., & Vala, J. (2018). The ego-defensive role of legitimacy: How 
threat-based justifications protect the self-esteem of discriminators. Personality and 
Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(10), 1473–1486. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218771007 

Rokeach, M. (1968). A theory of organization and change within value-attitude systems. Journal  

of social issues. 

Rolfes-Haase, K. L., & Swers, M. L. (2022). Understanding the gender and partisan dynamics  
of abortion voting in the House of Representatives. Politics & Gender, 18(2), 448–482. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X20000719 

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Journal of Religion and Health.  

Roth, D. L., Snyder, C. R., & Pace, L. M. (1986). Dimensions of favorable self-presentation. 

Journal Of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(4), 867. 

Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M. (1998). Social identity theory’s self-esteem hypothesis: A review 

and some suggestions for clarification. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(1),  
40–62. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0201_3 

Rye, B. J., & Goldszmidt, R. (2023). Do attitude functions and perceiver demographics predict 

attitudes towards asexuality? Psychology & Sexuality, 1–21. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2023.2185534 

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human 

values? Journal of social issues, 50(4), 19-45. 

Sereno, K. K. (1968). Ego‐involvement, high source credibility, and response to a 

belief‐discrepant communication. Speech Monographs, 35(4), 476–481. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/03637756809375597 

Sharma, S., & Agarwala, S. (2014). Self-esteem and collective self-esteem as predictors of  

depression. Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 24(1), 21-28. 

Sharma, P., & Chan, R. Y. K. (2017). Exploring the role of attitudinal functions in counterfeit  

purchase behavior via an extended conceptual framework. Psychology & Marketing, 
34(3), 294–308. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20989 

Shen, X. (2022). The role of psychological needs in understanding propaganda’s  

heterogeneous effects. SSRN 4177261. 
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4177261  

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Stotland, E., Katz, D., & Patcshen, M. (1959). The reduction of prejudice through the arousal of 

self‐insight. Journal of Personality, 27(4), 507-531. 

Tajfel, H. (1974). Social categorization. English manuscript of ‘La catégorisation sociale’. 
In S. Moscovici (Ed.), Introduction à la psychologie sociale (Vol. 1, pp. 272–302). 
Paris: Larousse. 

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Political  

psychology (pp. 276-293). Psychology Press. 

Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2012). Self-Categorization Theory. In P. Van Lange, A. 

Kruglanski, & E. Higgins, Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology (pp. 399–417).  
SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n46 

Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver, J. R. (2008). Precarious  

manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1325–1339.  
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012453 

Vaughan-Johnston, T. I., Fowlie, D. I., & Jacobson, J. A. (2022). Connecting attitude position  

and function: The role of self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 
014616722211008. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221100866 

Vaughan-Johnston, T. I., MacGregor, K. E., Fabrigar, L. R., Evraire, L. E., & Wasylkiw, L. 
(2021). Extraversion as a moderator of the efficacy of self-esteem maintenance 
strategies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(1), 131–145. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220921713  

Voyer, D., & Voyer, S. D. (2014). Gender differences in scholastic achievement: A meta- 

analysis. Psychological bulletin, 140(4), 1174. 

Williams, R., & Wittig, M. A. (1997). “I’m not a feminist, but…”: Factors contributing to the 

discrepancy between pro-feminist orientation and feminist social identity. Sex Roles, 
37(11–12), 885–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02936345 

Zhang, L. (2005). Prediction of Chinese life satisfaction: Contribution of collective self‐esteem. 

International Journal of Psychology, 40(3), 189-200. 

Zhuang, J., Cheng, Y., Lapinski, M. K., Hussain, S. A., & Yue, G. (2017, May). The effects of  
social norms and value-relevant involvement on information processing and behavior.  
Paper presented to the Information Systems Division of the International Communication  
Association Annual Conference, San Diego: CA. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX A: TABLES & FIGURES 

Figure 1  

Predicted path model of the ego-defensive process 

Table 1 

Creation of the Variable, Threat 

“Women are 
better prepared 
than men…” 

“Men are better 
prepared than 
women…” 

Women 

No-threat 

Threat 

Men 

Threat 

No-threat 

Note. Threat was created using message condition and participant gender.   

Table 2 

Ego-Involvement and Collective Self-Esteem by Gender 

All participants 

Men 

Ego-Involving 

Collective Self-
Esteem (Luhtanen & 
Crocker) 

 M = 5.85  
SD = 1.00 

M = 5.92 
SD = .82 

M = 5.87 
SD = 1.02 

M = 5.73  
SD = .97 

Women 

M = 5.86 
SD = 1.00 

M = 6.01 
SD =  .73 

Note. Measured on a 7-point scale, where higher numbers indicate greater levels of the variable. 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3 

Differences in participant-reported emotions, by study condition. 

Threat  

No-threat 

Independent samples t-
test 

M = 3.86  
SD = 2.06 

M =  2.70  
SD = 1.60 

t(244) = -4.96, p < .001 

M = 3.91  
SD = 2.00 

M =  2.68 
SD = 1.62 

M = 2.80, 
 SD = 1.59 

M =  2.44, 
 SD = 1.50 

M = 3.09  
SD = 1.68 

M =  2.45 
SD = 1.45 

M = 2.69  
SD = 1.61 

M =  4.48 
SD = 1.48 

M = 2.75  
SD = 1.67 

M =  4.66 
 SD = 1.61 

t(246) = -5.34, p < .001 

t(245) = -1.88, p = .06 

t(246) = -3.19, p = .002 

t(246) = 9.05, p < .001 

t(246) = 9.2, p < .001 

Mad 

Angry 

Guilty 

Ashamed 

Satisfied 

Proud 

Note. Measured on a 7-point scale, where higher numbers indicate greater levels of the variable. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4 

Variables of the Ego-Defensive Model, separated by study condition.  

Negative 
Thoughts 

Positive Thoughts 

Thought Index 
(Pos-Neg 
thoughts) 

Message 
Discounting 

Source Derogation 

Attitudes towards 
Career Success 

Threat 

M = 1.66 
SD = 1.92 

M = 1.91 
SD = 1.87 

M = .23 
SD = 2.66 

M = 3.67 
SD = 1.29 

M = 3.51 
SD = 1.41 

M = 6.08 
SD = 0.84 

No-Threat 

M = 1.77 
SD = 1.99 

M = 1.64 
 SD = 1.65 

M = -0.13 
SD = 2.57 

M = 2.92 
SD = 1.01 

M = 2.68 
SD = 1.14 

M = 6.12 
SD = 0.71 

Note. All variables were measured on a 7-point scale. Higher numbers indicate greater levels of 
the variable. In the thought index, positive numbers indicated more positive thoughts than 
negative; negative numbers indicate more negative thoughts than positive. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 5 

Correlation Table for Model Independent and Dependent Variables 

Threat 

Negative 
Thoughts 

Positive 
Thoughts 

Thought 
Index 

Message 
Discounting 

Source 
Derogation 

Career 
Success 
Attitudes 

Collective 
Self-Esteem 

Threat 

1 

-.023 

-.023 

1 

.077 

.012 

.069 

.309** 

.311** 

-.023 

-.061 

-.739** 

-.198** 

-.181** 

.075 

.020 

Negative 
Thoughts 

Positive 
Thoughts 

Thought 
Index 

Message 
Discounting 

Source 
Derogation 

Career 
Success 
Attitudes 

Collective 
Self-Esteem 

.077 

.012 

1 

.665** 

.343** 

.302** 

.129* 

.007 

.069 

-.739** 

.665** 

1 

.379** 

.340** 

.031 

-.010 

.309** 

-.198** 

.343** 

.379** 

1 

.787** 

-.075 

-.179** 

.311** 

-.181** 

.302** 

.340** 

.787** 

1 

-.077 

-.252** 

-.023 

.075 

.129* 

.031 

-.075 

-.077 

1 

.351** 

-.061 

.020 

.007 

-.010 

-.179** 

-.252** 

.351** 

1 

 Note. * indicated correlation is significant at .05 level; ** indicates correlation is significant at    
 .01 level 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 6 

Thought means by study condition and gender. 

Male: Threat  Male: No-

threat 

Female: 
Threat 

Female: No-
threat 

Positive 
thoughts 

M = 1.04 
SD =1.00 

M =1.60  
SD =1.93 

M =2.41  
SD =2.06 

M =1.66  
SD =1.54 

Negative 
Thoughts 

M =2.13  
SD =2.29 

M =1.17  
SD =1.07 

M =1.42  
SD =1.63 

M =2.00 
SD =2.21 

Thought 
Index 

M =-1.09  
SD =2.39 

M = 0.43  
SD = 2.19 

M = 0.99  
SD = 2.52 

M = - 0.34  
SD = 2.69 

Note. Higher numbers indicate greater levels of the variable. In the thought index, positive 
numbers indicated more positive thoughts than negative; negative numbers indicate more 
negative thoughts than positive. 

Table 7 

Message Discounting, Source Derogation and Career Success Attitudes, by gender and study 
condition. 

Male: Threat 

Male: No-threat 

Female: Threat 

Message 
Discounting 

M = 2.97  
SD = .96 

Source 
Derogation 

M = 2.77  
SD =  1.03 

M = 3.35  
SD =  1.15 

M = 3.13  
SD =  3.13 

M = 4.06 
SD =  1.29 

M = 3.94 
SD =  1.42 

Female: No-
threat 

M = 2.75  
SD =  .90 

M = 2.50  
SD =  1.03 

Career 
Success 
Attitudes 

M = 6.00 
SD = .76 

M = 6.10  
SD = .71 

M = 6.13 
SD = .88 

M = 6.13 
SD = .72 

Note. Measured on a 7-point scale, where higher numbers indicate greater levels of the variable. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 8 

Differences in participant-reported emotions, by gender and message condition 

Men: 
Threat 

Men: No-
threat 

Mean 
differences 
(Men) 

Women: 
Threat 

Women: 
No-threat 

Mean 
differences 
(Women) 

Ashamed  M = 2.47 
SD = 1.46 

M = 2.97 
SD =1.56 

t(78) = -1.49 
p = .14 

M = 3.44 
SD = 1.71 

M = 2.25 
SD = 1.36 

t(166) = -5.05 
 p < .001 

Guilty 

Mad 

Angry 

Proud 

M = 2.44 
SD =1.46 

M = 3.03 
SD =1.58 

t(78) = -1.72 
p = .09 

M =  3.01 
SD = 1.63 

M = 2.20 
SD = 1.41 

t(165) = -3.45 
p < .001 

M = 2.38 
SD =1.54 

M = 3.21 
SD =1.56 

t(76) = -2.35 
p = .02 

M = 4.71 
SD = 1.83 

M = 2.51 
SD = 1.58 

t(166) = -8.38 
 p < .001 

M = 2.36 
SD =1.38 

M = 3.23 
SD =1.57 

t(78) = -2.64 
p = .01 

M = 4.80 
SD = 1.74 

M = 2.46 
SD = 1.60 

t(166) = -9.09 
p < .001 

M = 3.78 
SD =1.59 

M = 3.66 
SD =1.51 

t(78) = .34 
p = .73 

M = 2.16 
SD = 1.41 

M = 5.06 
SD = 1.47 

t(166) = 12.97 
p < .001 

Satisfied  M = 3.69 
SD =1.64 

M = 3.89 
SD =1.47 

t(78) = -.56 
p = .58 

M = 2.13 
SD = 1.30 

M = 4.71 
SD = 1.43 

t(166) = 12.16 
p < .001 

Note. Measured on a 7-point scale, where higher numbers indicate greater levels of the variable. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE & STIMULI 

Ego-Involvement (modified from Lapinski & Boster, 2001) 

The following questions will ask you about the value you place on career success. Please answer 

as completely and honestly as possible. 

1.  I place high value on having a successful career. 

2.   Having a successful career is very important to me. 

3.   I see myself as career-focused. 

4.   I value being a good employee. 

5.   Being career-focused is central to how I see myself. 

Collective Self-esteem (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992; modified) 

* indicates reverse-coded item; highlighted items were cut from final analysis to improve scale 

reliability 

This study will ask you questions about attachment to your gender identity, as in the gender with 

which you identify, which can be separate from biological sex. Please select the answers that 

most accurately reflect your experience. 

Membership 

1.  I am a worthy member of this group I belong to 

2.  I feel I don’t have much to offer this group I belong to* 

3.  I am a cooperative participant of this group I belong to. 

4.  I often feel I am a useless member of this group* 

Private 

5.  I often regret that I belong to this group.* 

6.  In general, I’m glad to be a member of this group 

51 

 
 
 
 
7.  Overall, I feel that this group I belong to is not worthwhile* 

8.  I feel good about this group I belong to. 

Public 

9.  Overall, this group is considered good by others. 

10.  Most people consider this group, on average, to be more ineffective than other social groups* 

11.  In general, other people respect this group that I am a member of 

12.  In general, other people think that this group I am a member of is unworthy* 

Identity  

13.  Overall, my membership to this group has little to do with how I feel about myself* 

14.  This group I belong to is an important reflection of who I am 

15.  This group I belong to is unimportant to my sense of what kind of person I am* 

16.  In general, belonging to this group is an important part of my self-image 

Message Stimulus 

On the following page, you will be shown an OpEd article written by a MSU masters student, 

who plans to submit their article to a local media outlet in East Lansing.  The OpEd article 

states opinions on the workforce preparedness of local college graduates. Your role in this study 

is to read the message carefully and evaluate the article using the questions to follow. 

Group Threatening: Women; Non-Threatening: Men 

OpEd –  Men are better-prepared than women to have a successful career post college. 

March 5, 2024 - BY MAYA PETERS 

The main function of college is to prepare students to pursue a successful career, both through 
classwork, and other career-readiness training programs. Colleges and universities offer 
numerous resources that students can take advantage of to help them excel in the workforce post 
graduation.   

52 

 
 
 
 
 
However, all students are not taking advantage of these options equally. Data shows that men are 
three times more likely to utilize campus resources for career success. This suggests that men are 
more prepared to enter the workforce than their female classmates.  

About 6.3 million people are unemployed and there are more US Americans searching for work 
than there are jobs available. Out of all the college graduates that will be entering the workforce 
in the next couple of years, it is likely that male job candidates will be selected to fill more of 
these job openings, as research has found that men are better prepared to have a successful career 
after college, compared to women. 

Recent data has found that men, while attending college for their bachelor’s degree, are more 
likely to take advantage of career-preparation training, and are more likely to engage in desirable 
workplace behaviors.   

Research has shown that men are more likely than women to take advantage of networking 
opportunities while attending college, including career fairs, professional social events, and 
meetings with professors. This has been found to lead to positive communication and leadership 
outcomes for men, including better group project management skills.  

Men are also more likely to engage in practice job interviews and resume building workshops, 
allowing them to create a better first-impression when meeting with potential employers.  

In addition, men are more likely to demonstrate behaviors in the classroom that reflect desirable 
workplace behaviors. This includes better attendance and punctuality compared to women. Data 
has found that men are less likely to cut class.  

A recent study has also shown that men are less likely to turn in late work and more likely to 
engage in productive note-taking behaviors.  

All together, this data shows that male job applicants are better prepared to join the workforce 
and begin a successful career post-graduation. 

In conclusion, hiring is a complex process where the employer is required to assess applicant 
skills and fit within the workplace culture, in order to find the best candidate. If an employer 
wants to find the best candidate that will bring valuable skills and competencies to the work 
environment, data shows that the male job candidates entering the job market in the upcoming 
years will be better prepared to fill this position than their female counterparts. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Group Threatening: Men; Non-Threatening: Women 

OpEd –  Women are better-prepared than men to have a successful career post college. 

March 5, 2024 - BY MAYA PETERS 

The main function of college is to prepare students to pursue a successful career, both through 
classwork, and other career-readiness training programs. Colleges and universities offer 
numerous resources that students can take advantage of to help them excel in the workforce post-
graduation.  

However, all students are not taking advantage of these options equally. Data shows that women 
are three times more likely to utilize campus resources for career success. This suggests that 
women are more prepared to enter the workforce than their male classmates.  

About 6.3 million people are unemployed and there are more US Americans searching for work 
than there are jobs available. Out of all the college graduates that will be entering the workforce 
in the next couple of years, it is likely that female job candidates will be selected to fill more of 
these job openings, as research has found that women are better prepared to have a successful 
career after college, compared to men. 

Recent data has found that women, while attending college for their bachelor’s degree, are more 
likely to take advantage of career-preparation training, and are more likely to engage in desirable 
workplace behaviors.   

Research has shown that women are more likely than men to take advantage of networking 
opportunities while attending college, including career fairs, professional social events, and 
meetings with professors. This has been found to lead to positive communication and leadership 
outcomes for women, including better group project management skills.  

Women are also more likely to engage in practice job interviews and resume building 
workshops, allowing them to create a better first-impression when meeting with potential 
employers.  

In addition, women are more likely to demonstrate behaviors in the classroom that reflect 
desirable workplace behaviors. This includes better attendance and punctuality compared to men. 
Data has found that women are less likely to cut class.  

A recent study has also shown that women are less likely to turn in late work and more likely to 
engage in productive note-taking behaviors.  

All together, this data shows that female job applicants are better prepared to join the workforce 
and begin a successful career post-graduation. 

In conclusion, hiring is a complex process where the employer is required to assess applicant 
skills and fit within the workplace culture, in order to find the best candidate. If an employer 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
wants to find the best candidate that will bring valuable skills and competencies to the work 
environment, data shows that the female job candidates entering the job market in the upcoming 
years will be better prepared to fill this position than their male counterparts.  

Thought Listing 

Below, list any thoughts that come to mind about the message you just read. Please provide one 

thought per box, starting with box 1.  

For each thought listed: 

-  Label the following thought as relevant, or irrelevant to the OpEd message you had 

previously read. 

-  Label the following thought as positive, negative or neutral: 

Message Discounting (Lapinski & Boster, 2001) 

Think about the OpEd message you just read and rate the message using the following adjectives 

below by indicating where you believe it falls between the two opposing terms on a scale. 

(Example, if you think the message was equally rational and irrational, you would choose the 

circle in the center of the scale) 

* indicates reverse-coded item 

1.  Not Important - Very Important 

2.  Relevant - Irrelevant* 

3. 

4. 

Insignificant - Significant 

Intelligent - Stupid* 

5.  Useless - Useful 

6.  Rational - Irrational* 

7. 

Illogical - Logical 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
8.  Absurd - Reasonable 

9.  Critical - Trivial * 

Source Derogation (Lapinski & Boster, 2001) 

The author of the message you read was a MSU graduate student named Maya Peters. Think 

about the author of the OpEd message you just read. Rate the author of the message, using the 

adjectives below by indicating where you believe she falls between the two opposing terms on a 

scale. (Example, if you think the author was equally rational and irrational, you would choose 

the circle in the center of the scale) 

* indicates reverse-coded item 

1.  Intelligent - Stupid * 

2.  Intellectual - Ignorant * 

3.  Absurd - Reasonable 

4.  Illogical - Logical 

5.  Rational - Irrational * 

Attitudes towards Career Success (Lapinski & Boster, 2001; modified) 

The following questions will ask you about your attitudes toward career success. Please answer 

as completely and honestly as possible. 

* indicates reverse-coded item; highlighted items were cut from final analysis to improve scale 

reliability 

1.  It is important to have a successful career 

2.  It is essential to perform well in job interviews. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  I respect those who dedicate themselves to their jobs. 

4.  I place a strong emphasis on excelling in my career. 

5.  It is stupid for people to spend a lot of time on their career.* 

Emotional Responses  

How well do the following adjectives describe your feelings? 

1.  Ashamed. 

2.  Guilty. 

3.  Angry. 

4.  Mad. 

5.  Satisfied. 

6.  Proud. 

57