Self-Branding can put your self-esteem on a yo-yo string

The first time I saw the new Chrysler Pacifica “Dad Brand” commercial I laughed like crazy. I found it hilarious when actor and comedian Jim Gaffigan lovingly introduces his youngest daughter, Pat, but forgets the rest of his kids’ names.

The tone of the commercial is sarcastic and the overall message of the commercial is that driving that car is good for his “Dad Brand.”

As funny as these advertisements might be on the surface - they IRK me like crazy! My last blog was a bit of a RANT against “self-branding.”

So, here is the science behind why self-branding can be so personally destructive.

I have spent the last eight years studying "self-identity" psychological processes. For example: The ways in which people frame the world (i.e., how they see it) can have a powerful impact on their self-identity (1-5).

Some people frame the world (and themselves) as somewhat "fixed" and non-changing. (e.g., Popeye's "I am what I am and that's all that I am."). In psychology terms, this is known as having an ENTITY view of the world.

Other people frame the world (and themselves) as "changeable" (e.g., I change, the world can change, all things change). In psychology terms, this is known as having an INCREMENTAL view of the world.

Which of these belief systems do you think is better for our self-esteem and personal resilience?

Having an incremental view (seeing yourself & the world as changeable) is found to be most strongly tied to resilience, optimism and self-esteem (i.e., liking ourselves). (7 - 9)

This is not to say that a 'Strong Sense of Identity' (an entity slant) is not important!!

If we're about to fall off a cliff, it's nice to know that we are "a great climber." (a sense of competence that feels enduring at the time).

Having and recognizing our fixed strengths is important to our self-identity. (10)

The problem with branding ourselves:

The main problem with "self-branding" (or branding ourselves) is that we tend to only take ONE slice of our self-identity and make it our marketing platform.

Sometimes we like to show a different side of our "self" depending on who we talk to.

But a "brand" is just one slice of ourselves.

What if we worry that we have the wrong target audience? Maybe the "slice" should be a bit different?

When people aren't feeling sure about the "slice" or the "brand" that they have put out there, this creates a chain of events:

We take on a FIXED view our self - we put that slice out there and say it is true !!
If we are not sure of the slice we put out there, then we consider changing slices (which can put us into a tail-spin of self-identity crisis).
This potential self-identity crisis makes our self-esteem go up and down like a yo-yo - a terrible way to live.

What does this all mean? What should people do? Stay off social media? Not tell the world who you are?

The answer is a bit of this and a bit of that.

Go ahead and put your slice out there - after all, fixed strengths (but not fixed weaknesses) are good - and besides, everyone's doing it and you might look weird if you don't have a slice out there.

But recognize what this can do - realize that the benefits of self-marketing can come at a "yo-yo" cost. Having read this article is a good first step - now you know how this works and can try to avoid a (self) branding identity crisis.

The best way to avoid the slice-self-identity-yo-yo is to NOT rely on just your slice as the means of communicating who you are to the world.

Spend more of your time developing personal working relationships with others who will come to know more of your "slices" and all of your strengths.

Furthermore, a “working relationship" is about growing and developing together over time with your colleagues (the 'ole incremental theory of growth and development never hurt anyone : ) - this is something a slice cannot do.

- - -

NOTE: Entity and Incremental theories are on opposite sides of the same measurement continuum scale. (Below I show how these theories are measured in psychology labs).

Most people view the world with a little bit of both theories. (6)

However, research does show that when push comes to shove (particularly if we're heated or motivated), we tend to endorse one of the theories (fixed vs. changeable) more strongly than the other. (2)

Carol Dweck, prominent Stanford psychology researcher, suggests that if we can move between the two perspectives fluidly (e.g., tout our strengths when appropriate (entity) and foster change when appropriate (incremental) then we are likely to get the best of both worlds. (6)

- - -

Dr. Cindy Ward is a native of Kitchener, Ontario, Canada and has a PhD in social and behavioural psychology from Wilfrid Laurier University. Cindy is a Sr. Associate at BEworks and studies human motivation. She really likes Self-Determination Theory and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as good theories for “why people do what they do.” She also dabbles in ‘death’ (ahem . . . I mean terror management theory). Most of all, though, Cindy likes to argue. So, if you disagree or have any comments, please email her at drcindywardphd@gmail.com

Ward, C. L., & Wilson, A. E. (2015). Implicit Theories of Change and Stability Moderate Effects of Subjective Distance on the Remembered Self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
Leith, S., Ward, C. L., Giacomin, M., Landau, E., Ehrlinger, J., & Wilson, A. E. (2014). Changing Theories of Change: Strategic Shifting in Implicit Theory Endorsement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 597-620.
Ward, C. L., & Wilson, A. E. (2011, June). I Loved Me, I Loved Me Not: How Lay Theories Alter Perceptions of Past Selves and Events. Talk presented at the Canadian Psychological Association annual conference, Toronto, ON.
Ward, C. L., & Wilson, A. E. (2011, January). How implicit/lay theories alter perceptions of past selves and events. Poster presented at the annual convention of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, San Antonio, TX.
Hayes, J. P., & Ward, C. L., and McGregor, I. (2015). Why Bother? Death, Failure, and Fatalistic Withdrawal from Life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000039
Dweck, C. S. (1999) Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995a). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267-285.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995b). Implicit theories: Elaboration and extension of the model. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 322-333.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
Linley, P. A., Nielsen, K. M., Gillett, R., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). Using signature strengths in pursuit of goals: Effects on goal progress, need satisfaction, and well-being, and implications for coaching psychologists.International Coaching Psychology Review, 5(1), 6-15.
Image Credit (who am i): http://mixednation.com/ever-ask-yourself-who-am-i/
Image (the self): Ward, C. L., & Wilson, A. E. (unpublished). Myself as a Universe: Implicit Theories and Perceptions of Attribute Stability.