Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 719–731, 10.1111/spc3.

12061

Compartmentalization: A Window on the Defensive Self1

Jenna S. Thomas1*, Christopher P. Ditzfeld2 and Carolin J. Showers1
1
Department of Psychology, University of Oklahoma
2
Department of Psychology, University of Arkansas

Abstract
Most people hold both positive and negative beliefs about themselves. The way individuals organize,
or structure, these beliefs in their self-concepts can facilitate realistic acceptance and confrontation of
negative self-beliefs (integration), or defensive avoidance and denial of negative self-beliefs
(compartmentalization). This article focuses on the distinction between individuals with a realistic,
secure self and a defensive, fragile self. We present evidence that compartmentalization is associated
with several indicators of a defensive, fragile self, such as contingent self-esteem and unstable
self-evaluations. In addition, individuals with this structure are likely to engage in defensive processes
that enhance or protect the self. This model of self-organization can provide a window on the
defensive self, allowing researchers to observe the process by which individuals think about and
defensively avoid negative self-beliefs.

People accumulate knowledge about themselves throughout their life experiences; some of
which is positive and some of which is negative. Although it is typically easy for people to accept
positive self-beliefs, it is considerably more difficult for them to cope with negative self-beliefs.
This article focuses on the idea that people can organize self-knowledge in ways that either
facilitate acceptance and confrontation of negative self-beliefs (realistic self-perception; integra-
tive organization) or, alternatively, enable avoidance, distortion, or denial of negative self-beliefs
(defensive perception of self; compartmentalized organization). Past research on this model of
self-organization has focused on the associations between these types of self-organization and
self-esteem or mood (e.g., Showers, 1992, 2002). The present article focuses on linking the
organization of self-knowledge to indicators of an easily threatened, defensive self versus a
stable, secure self. Both the theoretical model of self-organization and its empirical findings pro-
vide a window on the defensive self, allowing researchers to observe directly how individuals
think about and cope with their negative self-beliefs.

Background on Self-Knowledge Organization

Most current approaches to studying the self-concept consider the self to be multifaceted
(e.g., Markus & Wurf, 1987), although this idea is not new. During the infancy of
psychological science, James (1890) suggested that people do not necessarily display the
same “self” across situations or with different people. For example, people may display a
fun-loving self when they are with friends and a serious-minded self when they are with
work colleagues. Indeed, individuals represent the self in terms of multiple self-aspects that
are important components of their identities, such as different roles, relationships, or
contexts (e.g., Cantor et al., 1986; McConnell, 2011). People may also activate different
selves in order to reach personal goals, such as feeling good about themselves. We refer to
the cognitive representations of these multiple selves as self-aspects or self-aspect categories. Each
self-aspect consists of self-knowledge in the form of self-beliefs, attributes, or episodic
© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
720 Compartmentalization and the Defensive Self

memories. These elements may overlap across different self-aspects or may be largely distinct
(cf. Linville, 1987). Some self-aspects may be more important than others, and some more
positive or negative than others. Additionally, some self-aspects may be more evaluatively
complex than others, meaning that some self-aspects may contain a mixture of both positive
and negative self-knowledge rather than purely positive or purely negative self-knowledge.
According to Showers’s (1992) model, the organization of self-knowledge (i.e., self-structure)
exists on a continuum from evaluatively integrative to evaluatively compartmentalized based on
how positive and negative self-beliefs are distributed across a person’s self-aspect categories. In a
compartmentalized self-structure, an individual’s positive and negative self-beliefs, referred to here
as “attributes”, are separated into distinct self-aspect categories. For example, Sara, a compartmen-
talized individual, has two different self-aspects: a “student” self and an “athlete” self. She describes
her student self as hardworking, organized, and competent, and she describes her athlete self as insecure,
worthless, and inferior. In this type of self-organization, positive and negative attributes are
experienced in separate contexts. Only positive attributes are accessible when her student self is
made salient, and only negative attributes are accessible when her athlete self is made salient.
Alternatively, in an integrative self-structure, positive and negative attributes exist in the same
self-aspect categories. Andy, an integrative individual, whose self-aspects are “myself at home”
and “myself in class”, uses the attributes loveable and fun but also lazy to describe himself at home
and the attributes immature and disorganized but also intelligent to describe himself in class. Each self-
aspect contains both positive and negative attributes. Regardless of which of Andy’s self-aspects is
activated, both positive and negative attributes are accessible. Table 1 displays more detailed
illustrations of compartmentalized (Panel A) and integrative (Panel B) self-structures.
Some domains of the self-concept are more important to a person’s identity than others.
Hence, a model of self-organization must also take into account the perceived importance
of each self-aspect (cf. Pelham & Swann, 1989). Individuals’ assessments of their perceived
positivity, negativity, and importance of each self-aspect are used to create an index of
relative importance. The terms positively compartmentalized or positively integrative describe
individuals whose positive self-aspects are more important than their negative self-aspects;
similarly, the terms negatively compartmentalized or negatively integrative describe individuals
whose negative self-aspects are more important than their positive self-aspects (Showers,
1995, 2002). Because their positive and negative attributes exist in separate self-aspect
categories, compartmentalized individuals think of themselves in either largely positive or
negative terms depending on the importance of each self-aspect. Positively compartmental-
ized individuals think about themselves in mostly positive terms, while negatively compart-
mentalized individuals think about themselves in mostly negative terms. On the other hand,
integrative individuals think about themselves in both positive and negative terms, regardless
of which self-aspect is activated at a given time. For instance, although a negatively
integrative person may have important negative attributes that are always accessible, they also
always have access to positive attributes. For integrative individuals, the importance of each
self-aspect has less impact on how they think about themselves than it does for compartmen-
talized individuals.

Compartmentalization: The Basic Model

The basic model of evaluative organization predicts that compartmentalization is advantageous
as long as positive self-beliefs are most important and regularly brought to mind, i.e., as long as a
person’s positive compartments are the important ones. Positively compartmentalized
individuals typically report high self-esteem and positive mood (Showers, 1992). Sara, the com-
partmentalized individual described earlier, should experience positive self-feelings as long as

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 719–731, 10.1111/spc3.12061
 Compartmentalization and the Defensive Self 721

Table 1. Examples of actual card sorts illustrating compartmentalization and integration

School Relationship With family With friends

Panel A: compartmentalized organization

Indecisive Optimistic Giving Energetic
Hardworking Fun & entertaining Successful Friendly
Insecure Happy Needed Intelligent
Tense Mature Communicative Fun & entertaining
Irritable Comfortable Lovable Outgoing
Lovable Comfortable Happy
Hardworking Happy Comfortable
Communicative Fun & entertaining Needed
Needed Giving
Successful
Panel B: integrative organization

With other people When learning When I’m alone

Fun & entertaining Hardworking Isolated

Lovable Organized Comfortable
Friendly Indecisive Lazy
Giving Interested Organized
Insecure Intelligent
Communicative Tense

Note. Negative attributes are signified by a minus sign. In Panel A: compartmentalization = .88 on a scale
from 0 to 1 and in Panel B: compartmentalization = .28 on the same scale.

her “student” self, which contains only positive attributes, is more important than her “athlete”
self, which contains only negative attributes. If Sara is currently a college student, we can assume
that her “student” self is frequently activated, and her positive self-beliefs are easily accessible.
Hence, she should be able to avoid her negative self-beliefs most of the time.
On the other hand, integration is associated with more moderate self-esteem and mood.
Regardless of which self-aspect is salient, both positive and negative self-beliefs are accessible.
When Andy, the integrative individual, is in class, he thinks of himself as lazy and immature,
but also intelligent. Positive and negative self-beliefs are linked together in his memory.
Although Andy is always confronting some negative self-beliefs, they are linked with positive
ones, cushioning their impact on his self-worth. Thus, integration is an effective strategy of
dealing with important negative self-beliefs. Even though integrative individuals may not
possess the relatively high levels of self-esteem and positive mood of positively compartmen-
talized individuals, their self-feelings are more stable and less likely to be acutely affected by
activation of negative self-beliefs. Whenever negative self-beliefs enter awareness, positive
self-beliefs are also accessible, which diminishes some of the consequences of important
negative self-beliefs.
Contributions of the Compartmentalization Model
The model highlights the thought processes associated with an individual’s positive and negative
self-beliefs. This approach allows for direct assessment of structural features that other models
only hypothesize. For example, Beck’s (1970) cognitive theory considers the process of
depression to be a downward spiral of negative thinking about oneself. Using the model

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 719–731, 10.1111/spc3.12061
722 Compartmentalization and the Defensive Self

of evaluative organization, we can gain some understanding of how this process may work. A
compartmentalized individual who encounters a situation in which a negative self-aspect is
brought to mind is suddenly forced to think about that aspect. Because this self-aspect is
largely negative, the individual must think about multiple negative attributes and may not
be able to access any positive attributes, perpetuating a cycle of negative thinking.
The model of compartmentalization offers an explanation as to why people typically feel
good or bad about themselves. Traditional approaches to studying self-worth focus on
describing a person’s level of self-worth, such as self-reported self-esteem on the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965). Although responses to the RSES tell
researchers how people feel about themselves, they do not explain why people feel that
way. In contrast to traditional descriptive approaches, the model of compartmentalization
can shed light on why people exhibit positive or negative self-worth. For example, positively
compartmentalized people typically feel good about themselves because they think about
themselves in mostly positive terms. Self-aspects containing positive self-knowledge are most
important and frequently accessible, so these individuals rarely think about themselves in
negative terms. Having easy access to positive self-knowledge may be one reason why these
individuals report mostly positive self-feelings.
This approach is consistent with a conceptualization of individual differences in terms of
the cognitive strategies that serve a person’s goals (Mischel, 1973). Trait theories of personality
have hypothesized a passive process of the influence of personality on behavior, i.e., a person
possesses a fixed personality trait which influences how they will behave in a given situation.
In contrast, the cognitive strategies approach emphasizes what people do, rather than what
traits they possess (Cantor, 1990). The model of compartmentalization does not focus on
the fact that people possess negative attributes but rather what they do with those negative
attributes: avoid them (compartmentalization) or accept them (integration). For example, a
person who has negative attributes that he wants to avoid can use the strategy of compart-
mentalization so that those attributes are activated only in certain situations (e.g., when
stressed). In this way, the individual actively avoids his negative attributes unless he is under
stress. The strategies people use to structure negative self-beliefs within their self-concepts
can help them reach intrapersonal goals. For example, compartmentalization appears to serve
self-enhancement goals by facilitating the avoidance of negative attributes (e.g., not wanting
to think about having lied to my spouse), whereas integration is more consistent with goals of
realism or accuracy (e.g., wanting to be sure I don’t overestimate my karaoke skills).
Compartmentalization allows people to enhance their positive qualities by cordoning off
their negative qualities, but doing so may lead to overconfidence and self-enhancing denial.
On the other hand, integration requires confrontation and acceptance of negative self-beliefs,
even though confrontation of negative self-beliefs may be unpleasant, which provides a more
accurate description of self-knowledge.
In the case of integration, negative attributes are frequently accessed thereby minimizing
the likelihood of overconfidence or self-enhancing denial. People with an integrative self-
structure are constantly reminded of their negative attributes. These attributes are accessible
no matter which self-aspects are activated at any given time. Hence, integrative individuals
should be less likely to engage in self-enhancement or denial of their negative characteristics.
Because negative characteristics are never far from awareness, it is difficult for integrative
individuals to avoid them.
Consistent with a cognitive strategies perspective, these types of self-organization are
expected to display both stability and change (Showers & Cantor, 1985). Although individuals
may have “favorite” self-structures or strategies that they fall back on, they may also show the
ability to shift to a different strategy in specific or extreme contexts (e.g., in response to stress).

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 719–731, 10.1111/spc3.12061
 Compartmentalization and the Defensive Self 723

For instance, a positively compartmentalized person may shift to an integrative self-structure if

one of her negative compartments becomes important over time. Since the negative compart-
ment is no longer avoidable because of its importance, integration offers an advantageous
strategy of dealing with that important self-aspect. Shifting to an integrative self-structure
minimizes the impact of the important negative self-aspect, as negative self-beliefs become
cognitively linked with positive ones, rather than existing in isolation.
One additional advantage of the present program of research on self-organization is that
self-structure is assessed implicitly. Self-structure is measured using a self-descriptive card
sorting task. In this task, participants think about themselves and create groups of traits that
describe the different aspects of their lives. They receive a deck of 40 cards, and each card
contains an attribute, half of which are positive and half of which are negative. Participants
sort the cards so that each group of cards describes a different aspect of themselves or their
lives. In this way, the researcher can see whether participants separate positive and negative
attributes into distinct self-aspect categories (compartmentalization) or whether they place
positive and negative attributes within the same self-aspects (integration). Although
participants are fully aware of the attributes they endorse, they are not likely aware of the
researcher’s interest in the underlying evaluative structure (i.e., compartmentalized or
integrative) of their attributes. Moreover, the task is largely idiographic – participants
generate their own self-aspect categories and assign their own attributes. The realistic,
multifaceted structure they generate, which allows for multiple self-aspects, makes it easy
to report one’s negative attributes, because those attributes can be linked to a particular
context. For example, an individual who places most of her negative attributes within the
self-aspect “me before exams” is acknowledging that she possesses negative characteristics
but only right before she takes a test, which makes it easier for her to admit to having those
negative characteristics. In this way, individuals may feel more comfortable accurately
describing their self-concepts, rather than succumbing to self-presentational concerns.
Compared to other implicit measures (e.g., cognitive response latencies), the cognitive
structures that underlie people’s evaluations of their self-worth are easily observed by the
researcher, even though they are not recognized by the participant.

The Hidden Vulnerability of Compartmentalization

As indicated above, positively compartmentalized people report relatively high levels of self-
esteem and positive mood (Showers, 1992). However, compartmentalization contains a
hidden vulnerability (Zeigler-Hill & Showers, 2007). If a negative self-aspect is activated
suddenly, the compartmentalized person only has access to self-beliefs that are negative. Sara,
our compartmentalized individual, should report high self-esteem and positive mood as long
as her positive “student” self is important and currently activated by her environment.
However, if Sara’s friends suggest an impromptu volleyball match, her negative “athlete” self
is suddenly made salient, flooding her thoughts with negative self-beliefs, which negatively
impacts her self-esteem and mood. It is in this way that compartmentalization contains a
hidden vulnerability. When negative self-beliefs are activated, the individual has difficulty
accessing positive self-beliefs because positive self-beliefs exist only in self-aspects that are
not relevant in the current context. The hidden vulnerability shared by compartmentalized
individuals may be one symptom of a fragile, defensive self.

Secure Versus Fragile Sense of Self

There is considerable controversy in the literature about the extent to which self-reported
high self-esteem represents a truly stable and secure sense of self-worth. The concern is that

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 719–731, 10.1111/spc3.12061
724 Compartmentalization and the Defensive Self

self-reported high self-esteem may sometimes be defensive or inflated. Such a self is presumed
to be fragile and is easily overwhelmed by negative circumstances, such as failure, and is prone
to change based on feedback from the environment. For example, contingencies of self-worth
constitute a form of self-fragility (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). College students rated their
self-esteem on days when they heard whether or not they were accepted into graduate school.
Participants whose self-worth was highly contingent on academic success reported higher self-
esteem on days when they were accepted into graduate school and lower self-esteem on days
when they were rejected (Crocker et al., 2002). These findings show that a fragile self is highly
reactive to the experience of a setback or a boost in an important domain.
The fragility of the self is also captured by the fluctuations, or instability, of self-esteem.
Kernis et al. (1993) argue that level of self-esteem is less important than stability of
self-esteem in determining peoples’ reactions to negative feedback. Participants rated
their self-esteem over a period of several days, creating an index of how much their
self-esteem fluctuated day-to-day. In the laboratory, participants received bogus feed-
back, either positive or negative, about their social skills. Individuals with high, unstable
self-esteem reacted positively to positive feedback but reacted defensively to negative
feedback by making excuses for their ostensibly poor performance and by negatively evalu-
ating the person who gave the feedback. Moreover, a fragile, unstable self is associated with
defensiveness, and it may lead to the increased tendency to experience anger and hostility
exhibited by individuals with high, unstable self-esteem (Kernis et al., 1989).
Discrepant high self-esteem is another indicator of a fragile self. Individuals with discrepant
high self-esteem report relatively positive self-feelings when they are asked explicitly how
they feel about themselves. However, these individuals display negative self-feelings when
they are exposed to measures that tap into self-feelings that are outside of conscious awareness
(Jordan et al., 2003). The mismatch between the positive self-feelings these individuals openly
endorse and the negative self-feelings that lie below their conscious awareness signifies a
defensive, fragile self, as the inconsistency implies that negative self-feelings are being
suppressed. In other words, individuals with discrepant high self-esteem may be able to
consciously avoid or minimize negative self-information, but their underlying, unconscious
self-esteem still reflects their negative self-feelings. When threatened, these individuals tend
to behave defensively by adopting various self-enhancement strategies (Bosson et al., 2003).
Moreover, discrepant high self-esteem may explain the characteristically defensive
responses associated with narcissism (Jordan et al., 2003; Zeigler-Hill, 2006). Some
researchers claim that narcissism is characterized by unstable, high self-esteem and an
addiction to seeking high self-esteem (e.g., Baumeister & Vohs, 2001; cf. also Crocker &
Park, 2004 and Sedikides et al., 2004). Both narcissists and individuals with high, unstable
self-esteem are prone to display relatively high levels of aggression and anger when their
self-image is threatened (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Kernis et al., 1989). When faced
with a threat, these individuals can behave in socially disruptive ways, presumably as a
defensive response to their fragile, vulnerable self-concepts. Interestingly, in a daily diary
study, narcissists with compartmentalized self-structures displayed particularly unstable
self-esteem (Rhodewalt et al., 1998).
We propose here that compartmentalization of the self is one index of a fragile self that is
vulnerable to self-threats and that compartmentalized self-structures may underlie a contin-
gent sense of self-worth and unstable self-esteem. A compartmentalized self-structure
allows individuals to isolate their negative attributes so as to avoid or deny them. Thus,
compartmentalization can be a defensive response to threatening self-relevant information,
even though it is correlated with self-reported positive mood and high self-esteem. As a
measure of cognitive structure, it may offer unique insight into the vulnerabilities of

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 719–731, 10.1111/spc3.12061
 Compartmentalization and the Defensive Self 725

defensive persons, especially because defensiveness is revealed not through the presence or
absence of negative attributes in an individual’s self-concept, but rather through the
organizational structure.
Evidence for the Fragility and Defensiveness Associated with
Compartmentalization
In this section, we review empirical evidence that, like other indices of self-fragility,
compartmentalization is associated with vulnerability to self-threats, whereas integrative
self-structures offer greater resilience to threat. We review evidence for associations with
contingencies of self-worth, self-esteem stability and accessibility, and self-report measures
of defensiveness.

Vulnerability to threat
Despite the fact that individuals who display a positively compartmentalized self-structure
report the most positive mood and the highest trait self-esteem, several sets of findings
suggest that these individuals have a hidden vulnerability (Zeigler-Hill & Showers, 2007).
When compartmentalized people’s negative compartments are activated, they are flooded
with negativity, consistent with Beck’s downward spiral. To test this, Showers and Kling
(1996) put people in a sad mood and found that compartmentalized individuals took longer
to recover from that mood if they spent time thinking about themselves after the mood
manipulation (Showers & Kling, 1996). In contrast, integrative individuals, who have easier
access to positive self-beliefs, recovered from the sad mood more quickly. Similarly,
compartmentalized people felt especially rejected after being socially excluded in a virtual
game of catch (Zeigler-Hill & Showers, 2007). They described being excluded as a more
negative experience likely because being excluded made their negative compartments more
accessible. These intense feelings of rejection lasted and were captured in reports at 10 p.m.
that same evening. Presumably, compartmentalized individuals experienced the rejection all
over again while reflecting on their day.
In the same vein, compartmentalized people with high self-esteem experienced more
unstable self-esteem in a daily diary study (Zeigler-Hill & Showers, 2007). Participants
reported their self-esteem daily as well as any positive or negative events that took place.
Compartmentalized individuals’ self-esteem changed each day based on whether good or
bad things happened to them. Because compartmentalized individuals’ self-structure makes
them especially sensitive to negative events, they should report contingencies of self-esteem,
with respect to everyday outcomes. On the Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale (Crocker
et al., 2003), positively compartmentalized individuals reported contingent self-esteem com-
pared to positively integrative individuals in five of seven life domains (Showers et al., 2013).
Thus, compartmentalized people acknowledge that their overall feelings about the self
fluctuate substantially with a variety of outcomes and events.

Accessibility of self-evaluations
To the extent that the self-esteem of compartmentalized individuals is a moving target, it
may be hard for them to make judgments about their overall self-worth. Showers et al.
(2013) analyzed response times to self-esteem items and found that compartmentalized
people took longer to respond to the items, presumably because it was more difficult for
them to make overall ratings for their disparate feelings of self-worth (cf. DeMarree et al.,

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 719–731, 10.1111/spc3.12061
726 Compartmentalization and the Defensive Self

2010). An interesting question is how conditions of self-threat may alter these response times.
On one hand, the experience of self-threat may create self-doubt that disrupts easy access to
positive self-beliefs, lengthening the response time; alternatively, a defensive response to
threat could cordon off disruptive negative beliefs and grease a path to a rapid, unrealistically
positive response.

Defensive denial
The compartmentalization of negative attributes into isolated compartments seems to imply a
willingness to avoid, deny, or minimize the possible impact of negative characteristics that
one may sometimes display. In contrast, integrative individuals may seek to maintain
awareness of any negative attributes – they may actively monitor any acknowledged
weaknesses with a goal of remedying, accommodating, or counteracting them. Such individ-
ual differences may reflect the distinctive goals of self-enhancement (compartmentalization)
versus realism or accuracy (integration). Moreover, the realistic strategy of integratives is
likely self-protective (cf. Tice, 1993).
von Hippel et al. (2005) reason that common self-serving strategies represent a form of
self-deception, involving a willingness to distort the truth one knows about the self. In other
words, self-enhancement may often be inherently dishonest. Similarly, Paulhus and Trapnell
(2008) claim that individuals engage in self-deception as a way of shielding the self from
threatening information. This defensive strategy allows individuals to deny or avoid informa-
tion that may have negative consequences for the self-concept, which in turn enhances the
overall positivity of the self-concept.
Compartmentalized individuals, then, may show similar strategies of defensive denial. We
tested this in two ways: First, we correlated compartmentalization on the self-descriptive card
sorting task with defensiveness as assessed by the self-report scales of optimistic denial (e.g., “I
find it easy to assure myself that bad things won’t happen to me”) and avoidance denial (e.g.,
“Hearing information about threats makes me more stressed so I avoid it”; Thompson et al.,
2006). Participants who completed these scales had experienced one of two value-reflection
conditions or a no-reflection control condition. Although it makes sense that people with
more positive self-concepts would engage in more optimistic denial about risks than those
with more negative self-concepts, what is noteworthy is that, across all conditions, negatively
compartmentalized individuals reported greater optimistic denial than did negatively
integrative individuals (Figure 1). Although compartmentalized individuals can see their
negative traits, they may be denying their implications, such as vulnerability to risks and
negative outcomes. In contrast, negatively integrative individuals were able to acknowledge
their negative attributes without also resorting to the use of defensive denial strategies
(Thomas et al., 2012). Consistent with the overall hypothesis, both negatively and positively
compartmentalized individuals were high in avoidance denial, but only within the no-
reflection condition.
Secondly, we correlated compartmentalization on the card sort with self-deception as
assessed by the two subscales of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding
(Paulhus, 1991): Impression Management (e.g., “I never cover up my mistakes”) and
Self-Deceptive Enhancement (e.g., “I am a completely rational person”). The difference
between these scales is that Impression Management represents conscious self-enhancement,
i.e., the person purposely endorses statements that make him look like a better per-
son than he actually is, whereas Self-Deceptive Enhancement takes place outside of
awareness and reflects overly positive characteristics that a person actually believes
he possesses.

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 719–731, 10.1111/spc3.12061
 Compartmentalization and the Defensive Self 727

Low Negative Content High Negative Content

5
-.23, ns
4.5

Optimistic Denial
4

3.5

3
p < .01
2.5

2
Integration Compartmentalization
Self-Structure

Figure 1. Predicted values for optimistic denial, or defensiveness, illustrating the interaction of evaluative organization
and proportion of negative self-attributes, β = .35, p < .001, at values that are 1 SD above and below their respective
means (N = 124; Thomas et al., 2012). Scores on the optimistic denial scale range from 1 to 7.

Although our predictions were primarily for non-conscious self-deception (SDE), the
clearest result was that integratives with relatively negative self-concepts scored lower on
Impression Management than all other groups (Thomas et al., 2012). What was surprising,
then, was the high Impression Management scores of negatively compartmentalized
individuals, which may represent a defensive response (Figure 2). In this article, the BIDR
scales followed the self-descriptive card sorting task. Compartmentalized individuals would
have just acknowledged a set of negative self-attributes, and so may have been consciously
motivated to compensate for a negative self-description by bolstering their image on the
Impression Management scale. In contrast, negative integratives appeared to give realistic,
self-effacing responses consistent with their card sorts. They may have accepted their negative
self-aspects rather than avoided them, whereas negatively compartmentalized individuals
were defensively presenting an overly positive view of themselves to others.

Genuine Compartmentalization
Previous research on the hidden vulnerability of compartmentalization has highlighted
findings that positively compartmentalized individuals (i.e., those with compartmentalized
self-structures and important positive self-aspects or high self-esteem) have difficulties
associated with how they know the self (Showers et al., 2013). Positively compartmentalized
individuals display contingent self-esteem, feel relatively inauthentic in their multiple selves,
and their positive self-evaluations are relatively inaccessible. In contrast, the present findings
for self-report measures of defensiveness and denial show that all compartmentalized
individuals score high on these scales, whereas negative integratives are less likely to engage
these strategies. Our interpretation is that positively compartmentalized people tend to reveal
fragility in reports of their introspective self-knowledge, whereas negatively compartmental-
ized people are more likely to reveal their defensiveness in public self-presentations. An
additional factor may be the challenging performance task that preceded the card sort in
the present studies, potentially increasing the perceived importance of negative self-aspects

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 719–731, 10.1111/spc3.12061
728 Compartmentalization and the Defensive Self

Low Negative Content High Negative Content

Impression Management
5

0
Integration Compartmentalization
Self-Structure

Figure 2. Predicted values for impression management, illustrating the interaction of evaluative organization and pro-
portion of negative attributes, β = .27, p < .01, at values that are 1 SD above and below their respective means (N = 124;
Thomas et al., 2012). Impression management scores can range from 0 to 20, and only extreme responses to scale
items are scored.

for vulnerable compartmentalized individuals. Consistent with this interpretation, the

relative importance of self-aspects is known to change over time. The correlation between
people’s reports of the relative importance of their self-aspects at measurements taken almost
2 years apart is close to zero (Showers, Abramson, & Hogan, 1998).
Our ongoing studies of defensiveness, denial, and unethical behavior (see below) suggest
that the proportion of genuinely compartmentalized individuals is surprisingly low. We identify
genuinely compartmentalized individuals as persons with important positive compartments
whose self-concepts are particularly stable and secure and who do not experience large
fluctuations in the relative importance of positive and negative self-aspects. These individuals’
positive self-views may stem from the successful navigation of life experiences and consistent
positive outcomes. They truly possess few, if any, important negative attributes; thus, their
compartmentalization of negative attributes is not defensive. Hence, these individuals’
compartmentalized structures should not be so vulnerable to the emergence of important
negative characteristics and their compartmentalization of minimally important negative
attributes would not be likely to change over time.
Although we hope that there is a substantial proportion of genuinely compartmentalized
individuals who are resistant to most threats, it is still possible that under extremely negative
circumstances (e.g., being fired from a job, going through a painful divorce, etc.), even they
may engage in defensive strategies if their negative self-aspects become magnified. As noted,
the frequency in the population of genuinely compartmentalized individuals is clearly not so
high as to preclude the correlational results we find between compartmentalization and a
variety of indices of defensiveness and fragility.

Future Directions: Applications to Unethical Behavior

Based on the findings presented above, we can conclude that the model of compartmentalization
provides additional understanding of the cognitive strategies that vulnerable, defensive individuals

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 719–731, 10.1111/spc3.12061
 Compartmentalization and the Defensive Self 729

are likely to utilize. Individuals who structure their self-concepts in a way that allows them to
minimize access to their negative attributes may be doing so to protect the self from the negative
feelings and thoughts that accompany negative self-beliefs. Furthermore, individuals who
compartmentalize may even dismiss the possibility that they possess any negative attributes. This
defensive minimization of negative attributes may have implications for ethical behavior. An in-
dividual who defensively avoids their negative attributes by compartmentalizing the self-concept
may also defensively avoid the implications of unethical behavior. For example, when faced with
the temptation to cheat on a test, a compartmentalized person may avoid the implication that
“wandering eyes” constitute cheating and instead reframe the behavior as “checking answers”.
From the perspective of the self-concept, this individual is avoiding consideration of the self-
knowledge that one is a “cheater”. In contrast, integrative individuals, with their willingness to
confront negative self-attributes, may consciously examine the possibility that letting one’s eyes
wander makes one a cheater and thus be deterred from that behavior (cf. Bryan et al., 2012).
We have preliminary evidence of an association between compartmentalization and
unethical behavior. In four separate studies, Thomas et al. (2013) and Thomas and Showers
(2012) have found positive correlations between compartmentalization and cheating on a
mental math task. These effects are sometimes moderated by other individual difference
variables such as impression management, self-control, or beliefs in free will (cf. Vohs &
Schooler, 2008). These individual difference variables may reflect the distinction between
genuine and defensive compartmentalization. Presumably there are some individuals who
truly have very few important negative attributes and do not defensively compartmentalize
their self-concepts.

Conclusion
This article introduces the compartmentalization model of self-organization as a way to bet-
ter understand the cognitive processes underlying defensiveness. Some individuals who com-
partmentalize their positive and negative attributes do so defensively in order to avoid or
minimize negative attributes. Here, we reviewed evidence that compartmentalized
individuals display a vulnerability to self-threat; they are also emotionally reactive to negative
life events, possess self-esteem that is contingent and unstable, and have difficulty reporting
self-evaluations. Moreover, negatively compartmentalized individuals are prone to optimistic
denial of risks and endorse unrealistically positive self-statements. Compartmentalized indi-
viduals’ defensiveness in the face of threat may facilitate the kinds of unethical behaviors that
less defensive individuals are prone to avoid. In contrast, by confronting negative self-beliefs
and other non-defensive approaches to risk, integrative individuals may be deterred by the
negative implications of risky or unethical behaviors that stay salient in their minds. These
findings point to important links between the organization of self-knowledge and the
likelihood of ethical behaviors that go beyond insights generated by traditional models of
personality and self-esteem.

Short Biographies
Jenna S. Thomas is a PhD candidate in Social Psychology at the University of Oklahoma where
she is an OU Foundation Fellow. She holds a BA in Psychology from Butler University and an
MS in Psychology from the University of Oklahoma. Her research interests are in the formation
and maintenance of the self-concept, as well as in ethical behavior and moral licensing. She has
taught courses in introductory and social psychology, statistics, and research methods.

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 719–731, 10.1111/spc3.12061
730 Compartmentalization and the Defensive Self

Christopher P. Ditzfeld is a lecturer at the University of Arkansas and PhD candidate in Social
Psychology at the University of Oklahoma. He holds a BA in Psychology from the University
of Arkansas and an MS in Psychology from the University of Oklahoma. His focal research in-
terests include self and emotion processing at the cognitive-affective interface. He has taught
courses in research methods, social, developmental, and general psychology.

Carolin J. Showers is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Oklahoma. She holds a BSE
from Princeton University and an MS from University of California at Berkeley (both in Civil
Engineering) and a PhD in Psychology from the University of Michigan. Her research exam-
ines the structure of the self-concept and its implications for mood and self-esteem. Other areas
of interest include emotionality, defensive processes, implicit cognition, and most recently eth-
ical behavior. She teaches both undergraduate and graduate seminars in social psychology on
topics related to self, relationships, and emotion.
Endnotes
* Correspondence: Department of Psychology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019, USA. Email: jenna.s.
thomas-1@ou.edu
1
The work was supported by National Institute of Health grant 5R21 HD075308.

References
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Narcissism as addiction to esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 206–210.
Beck, A. T. (1970). Depression: Causes and Treatment. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bosson, J. K., Brown, R. P., Zeigler-Hill, V., & Swann, W. B. (2003). Self-enhancement tendencies among people with
high explicit self-esteem: The moderating role of implicit self-esteem. Self and Identity, 2, 169–187.
Bryan, C. J., Adams, G. S., Monin, B. (2012). When cheating would make you a cheater: Implicating the self prevents
unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0030655.
Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced
aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219–229.
Cantor, N. (1990). From thought to behavior: “Having” and “doing” in the study of personality and cognition.
American Psychologist, 45, 735–750.
Cantor, N., Markus, H., Niedenthal, P., & Nurius, P. (1986). On motivation and the self-concept. In R. Sorrentino & E.
Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior (pp. 96–121). New York: Guilford Press.
Crocker, J., & Park, L. E. (2004). The costly pursuit of self-esteem. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 392–414.
Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108, 593–623.
Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette, A. (2003). Contingencies of self-worth in college students:
Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 894–908.
Crocker, J., Sommers, S. R., & Luhtanen, R. K. (2002). Hopes dashed and dreams fulfilled: Contingencies of self-worth
and graduate school admissions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1275–1286.
DeMarree, K. G., Petty, R. E., & Strunk, D. R. (2010). Self-esteem accessibility as attitude strength: On the durability
and impactfulness of accessible self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 628–641.
von Hippel, W., Lakin, J. L., & Shakarchi, R. J. (2005). Individual differences in motivated social cognition: The case of
self-serving information processing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1347–1357.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jordan, C. H., Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., Hoshino-Browne, E., & Correll, J. (2003). Secure and defensive high self-
esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 969–978.
Kernis, M. H., Cornell, D. P., Sun, C., Berry, A., & Harlow, T. (1993). There’s more to self-esteem than whether it is
high or low: The importance of stability of self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1190–1204.
Kernis, M. H., Grannemann, B. D., & Barclay, L. C. (1989). Stability and level of self-esteem as predictors of anger
arousal and hostility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 1013–1022.
Linville, P. W. (1987). Self-complexity as a cognitive buffer against stress-related illness and depression. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 663–676.
Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychol-
ogy, 38, 299–337.

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 719–731, 10.1111/spc3.12061
 Compartmentalization and the Defensive Self 731

McConnell, A. R. (2011). The multiple self-aspects framework: Self-concept representation and its implications.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 3–27.
Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review,
80, 252–283.
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver & L. S. Wrightsman
(Eds.), Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes (pp.17–59). San Diego: Academic Press.
Paulhus, D. L., & Trapnell, P. D. (2008). Self-presentation: An agency-communion framework. In O. P. John, R. W.
Robins & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 492–517). New York: Guilford.
Pelham, B. W., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (1989). From self-conceptions to self-worth: On the sources and structure of global
self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 672–680.
Rhodewalt, F., Madrian, J. C., & Cheney, S. (1998). Narcissism, self-knowledge organization, and emotional reactivity:
The effect of daily experiences on self-esteem and affect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 75–87.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Child. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sedikides, C., Rudich, E. A., Gregg, A. P., Kumashiro, M., & Rusbult, C. (2004). Are normal narcissists psychologically
healthy?: Self-esteem matters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 400–416.
Showers, C. J. (1992). Compartmentalization of positive and negative self-knowledge: Keeping bad apples out of the
bunch. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 1036–1049.
Showers, C. J. (1995). The evaluative organization of self-knowledge: Origins, processes, and implications for self-
esteem. In M. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, Agency, and Self-Esteem (pp. 101–120). New York: Plenum Press.
Showers, C. J. (2000). Self-organization in emotional contexts. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and Thinking: The Role of
Affect in Social Cognition (pp. 283–307). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Showers, C. J. (2002). Integration and compartmentalization: A model of self-structure and self-change. In D. Cervone
& W. Mischel (Eds.), Advances in Personality Science (pp. 271–291). New York: Guilford Press.
Showers, C. J., Abramson, L. Y., & Hogan, M. E. (1998). The dynamic self: How the content and structure of the self-
concept change with mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 478–493.
Showers, C. J., & Cantor, N. (1985). Social cognition: A look at motivated strategies. Annual Review of Psychology, 36,
275–305.
Showers, C. J., & Kling, K. C. (1996). Organization of self-knowledge: Implications for recovery from sad mood. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 578–590.
Showers, C. J., Ditzfeld, C. P., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2013). Self-Concept Structure and the Quality of Self-Knowledge.
Manuscript in preparation.
Thomas, J. S., & Showers, C. J. (2012). A defensive response to negative self-beliefs predicts unethical behavior. Poster
session presented at the 13th Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Thomas, J. S., Showers, C. J., & Grundy, C. S. (2012). [Threat, affirmation, and compartmentalization]. Unpublished
raw data.
Thomas, J. S., Showers, C. J., & Grundy, C. S. (2013). [Compartmentalization as a defensive response: Implications for
ethical behavior]. Unpublished raw data.
Thompson, S. C., Schlehofer, M. M., & Bovin, M. J. (2006). The measurement of threat orientations. American Journal of
Health Behavior, 30, 147–157.
Tice, D. M. (1993). The social motivations of people with low self-esteem. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-Esteem: The
Puzzle of Low Self-Regard (pp. 37–53). New York: Plenum Press.
Vohs, K. D., & Schooler, J. W. (2008). The value of believing in free will: Encouraging a belief in determinism increases
cheating. Psychological Science, 19, 49–54.
Zeigler-Hill, V. (2006). Discrepancies between implicit and explicit self-esteem: Implications for narcissism and self-
esteem instability. Journal of Personality, 74, 119–143.
Zeigler-Hill, V., & Showers, C. J. (2007). Self-structure and self-esteem stability: The hidden vulnerability of
compartmentalization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 143–159.

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7/10 (2013): 719–731, 10.1111/spc3.12061