.png)
By Emilia Irimia
In psychology, confidence is described as a subjective feeling associated with beliefs about the world [1]. Not to be confused with self-esteem, a retrospective concept that looks into the past, confidence may be introspective, but it pertains to the present and the future [2].
Confidence is divided into outcome expectation and efficacy expectation. The former regards the external world and poses a question of "what may/could happen?", while the latter entails asking yourself what you can do. Pessimism acts in three stages; it may be a result of answering negatively to both of the previous questions: it can't happen, I can't do it, in which case your anterior cingulate cortex remains apathetic and unmotivated [3] - whatever the goal was, your brain now doesn't have the energy to materialize it. The second stage centers around your frontal lobes and their self-appraisal system, responsible for feelings of failure and self-doubt [4]. You acknowledge that the steps to reach your goal are not only necessary, but also feasible. However, you believe you're unable to take these steps: can't do, could happen. You feel anxious, which triggers the mechanisms in your frontal lobes. Pessimism in its third stage gives way to frustration and anger, amongst other things [5]. Your brain registers pain [6], as a result of believing yourself capable of taking the needed steps, but considering them irrelevant to the ideal outcome: can do, couldn't happen.
Optimism (can do, could happen) allows for increased dopamine activity [7]. The brain's reward network operates using the prediction error mechanism. This means that the anti-anxiety, depression effects of dopamine neurotransmitters are particularly engaged when there is a disparity between expectation and reality; a dopamine surge happens when reality exceeds expectations. Stability and congruence, a match between expectation and reality, lead to a diminished boost. Negative prediction errors (can do, couldn't happen) completely sever dopamine activity, which in turn skyrockets anxiety levels.
As for the relationship between self-confidence and self-esteem, its effects are irreversible. While self-confidence aids in building the latter, the same cannot be said vice versa. Moral licensing [8] is an integral phenomenon that takes on the morality of self-esteem as an influence on confidence. A study documented by researchers at Northwestern University found that we behave less well when we already think well of ourselves. Participants in the study were asked to write about themselves using neutral words, for one group, negative ones for another, while the third group used positive words in their stories. They were then asked to donate a sum of money. The neutrally motivated group donated 2.71 dollars, on average, while the morally negative story writers donated around 5.30 dollars. The participants who spoke highly of themselves averaged 1.07 dollars [9]. Just the thought of worthy action in the future serves as an incentive to behave less than ideally in the present. In this ordeal, self-esteem negatively affects building confidence. This mechanism is also the culprit behind procrastination (but that's a story for another time).
Vanity, you may think, is synonymous with overconfidence. You may find, as you keep reading, that this is not the case.
Freud suggested that our egos reject unbearable ideas [10]. The brain retrospects away from itself when it comes to failure, choosing to blame fate, or other external factors, as they become threats to our egos. This is vanity. Retrospective pessimism [11] is one of the techniques used to minimize threat to the ego - chances for success were originally low, and failure was inevitable.
Self-handicapping [12] is another cognitive process meant to soften the blow of anticipated defeat. In this case, the brain finds a comfortable source of distraction: you performed badly on a test, but that's entirely because you didn't study enough, or you didn't sleep well, maybe because the questions were badly formulated, or the study materials weren't concise enough. Wherever the blame may ultimately fall, this is the perfect excuse for your image of yourself to remain unchanged.
Studies have found that the brain allocates less time for negative, image-altering thoughts to be processed [13]. This means that, in the long run, we mostly remember positive feedback.
The concept of self, though it may seem esoteric, is very subjective and convenient. As we have already established, positive feedback is the backbone of self-image. If ever, you aren't happy with who you are, memory is your best friend. It surfaces positive memories and builds a new you [14]. If, say, you read a paper on how extroverted people are more likely to succeed, your memory shines light on whatever memories you have stored that suggest you are an extrovert.
This is rational enough, as far as pink-tinted sunglasses (it's November!) wearing a vain brain goes. Rationality is the lawyer that supports your case; I am an extrovert because once (so long ago it had to be forklifted out of my subconscious), I spoke a whole sentence without stuttering. Granted, I was alone, but who said rationality was a rational lawyer?
Rationality and memory work together to hide and distort information that doesn't align with our final goal [15]. The Chicago Blackhawks are qualifying for the Stanley Cup, despite losing 49 games this season (or did they?). Guess what my favorite hockey team is now!
Our vain brain interacts with reality, rather than perceiving it.
The brain tends to manipulate personality based on events and your reactions to them.
Decision-making, fortunately, brings forth a more realistic approach, shutting out the vain
illusion of omnipotence and self-flattery, while becoming more contemplative [16]. However,
this doesn't last long.
So, if this ideal self of yours is a realist, don't be too mad at your brain for not allowing that to happen (cause it isn't). We all suffer from vanity, and these processes are essential to
maintaining mental health. However, there is a group of people whose realities translate veritably in their brains as well. Their discernment of actual events is more accurate, more balanced, and failure and success register equally in their brains. These people are the portrait of clinical depression [17].
Confidence is also described as a statistical quantity, defined as the likelihood that a belief is correct [1]. This is where delusion plays its part in discerning confidence and vanity. Specialists still struggle in assigning a turning point from self-delusion, a necessary mechanism when it comes to perception of self, to its clinical form, an immediate claim for psychiatric attention. They've played around with "false belief held despite contrary evidence" [18] as a definition. You may recognize the process used to dispute otherwise sound, irrefutable evidence as the lousy
lawyer from earlier, rationality.
Memory, as well, plays its part. This time, though, it has no problem treating positive and
negative feedback the same. Am I a good partner? A detailed, considerate spreadsheet of
everything your significant other likes or dislikes rushes through your mind. Am I a bad partner? And suddenly every single time you've ever been late to a date comes to the forefront. This is what psychologists call a positive test strategy [19], and it's applicable as much retrospectively, as it is interpersonally. ("You don't love me anymore?" is not an effective way of ensuring they keep doing so).
This suggests that the words we say or hear bind our attention to our confidence. You know what that means? Fake it ‘til you make it!
References
1. The Neurobiology of Confidence: From Beliefs to Neurons, Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on
Quantitative Biology
2. Learning and Individual Differences, 2014; 35:1-8
3. Individual Differences in Premotor brain Systems underlie behavioral apathy, Cerebral
Cortex, 2015, 26(2):807-19
4. Rethinking feelings: A fMRI study of the cognitive regulation of emotion, Journal of
Cognitive Neuroscience, 2002, 14(8):1215-29
5. Relations of low frustration tolerance beliefs with stress, depression, and anxiety in young
adolescents, Psychological Reports, 2007, 100(1):98-100.
6. The psychological and neural basis of loss aversion, Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 2019, 28(1):20-7.
7. Mesolimbic dopamine signals the value of work, Nature Neuroscience, 2019
8. Miller and Effron, 2010
9. Psychological Science, 2009, 20(4):523-8.
10. The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense, 1936
11. Retroactive pessimism: A different kind of hindsight bias. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 32(4), 577–588.
12. Jones, E. E.; Berglas, S. (1978). "Control of attributions about the self through
self-handicapping strategies: The appeal of alcohol and the role of underachievement".
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 4 (2): 200–206.
13. Sedikides, C., & Green, J. D. (2000). On the self-protective nature of
inconsistency-negativity management: Using the person memory paradigm to examine
self-referent memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 906–922.
14. Sanitioso, R., Kunda, Z., & Fong, G. T. (1990). Motivated recruitment of autobiographical
memories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 229–241
15. In Search of Information That Confirms a Desired Self-Perception: Motivated Processing of
Social Feedback and Choice of Social Interactions, Sanitioso & Wlodarski
16. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Kinney, R. F. (1989). Effects of deliberative and implemental mind-sets
on illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(4), 531–542.
17. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological
perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193–210.
18. De-rationalising Delusions, V. Bell, N. Raihani, S. Wilkinson
19. Zuckerman, M., Knee, C. R., Hodgins, H. S., & Miyake, K. (1995). Hypothesis confirmation:
The joint effect of positive test strategy and acquiescence response set. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 68(1), 52–60.
Comments