1 - The Self Flashcards
Content Analysis
- examine qualitative data by converting it into quantitative data
Schema and Self-Schema
Schema = a cognitive structure that organises thoughts and beliefs, stores relationships between those thoughts and beliefs, and guides the processing of incoming information relevant to that schema
Self-schema = a schema with information about ourselves, developing from past experience
- all our self-schemas together form our global self-concept
Many different schemas relating to different aspects of ourselves (i.e. gender - this self schema will filter out information irrelevant to your identified gender)
This gives us a continuous sense of self
Schematic vs. Aschematic
Aspects of the self that are held to be important in our self-concept are Schematic
Aspects of the self that aren’t felt to be important are Aschematic
(a priest is schematic about being a christian, and aschematic on promiscuity)
This system allows us to quickly give attention to relevant information, and quickly dismiss the irrelevant
Markus, Hamil and Sentis (1987) study on the function of self-schemas
Female participants completed a questionnaire asking to what extent they believe the descriptor ‘overweight’ is applicable to them
- also asked how important their weight is to them
Of the participants, the ones measured as overweight or obese were split into 3 categories:
- schematic on weight and were overweight
- schematic on weight and were obese
- aschematic (weight was not seen as particularly descriptive of who they were)
> these 3 groups were given a list of words describing fatness or thinness and had to quickly push a button if the word described them
Research Question:
- will overweight people schematic on weight identify schema-relevant words more quickly than those aschematic on weight
Results:
> schematic-obese and schematic-overweight both (groups) identified more words relating to fatness as descriptive of them
+ these groups were also quicker to identify this information
> no significant difference between relevance of fat and thin descriptors for aschematic group
+ also no significant difference between speed of identification of relevant words
Thus:
- having a self-schema allows you to orientate towards relevant information qickly
Markus, Crane, Bernstein and Siladi (1982) study on the function of self-schemas
- participants had to rate how descriptive a list of words were to themselves
> 20 words each describing masculinity, femininity and gender neutral words
Data used to divide participants into 4 groups:
- masculine
- feminine
- high androgenous
- low androgenous
- Participants then asked to recall as many words as possible
Research Question:
- will those that are schematic on gender better remember the information relevant to their schema?
Results:
- those schematic on masculinity better remembered words associated with masculinity
- the same was true for those schematic on femininity
> participant were also found to better recall memories that fitted with their self schema
Thus:
- self schema’s help us to better remember information thought relevant to oneself
Working Self-Concept
Global self concept = a collection of all our self-schemas
Working self-concept = a collection of (currently) activated self-schemas
(global self-concept is relatively stable)
(working self-concept is dynamic, as it changes according to our environment)
Possible Selves and their 2 functions
Markus and Nurius (1986)
- desired possible self
- feared possible self
These possible selves help to guide our behaviour
- incentive to behave in ways towards the desired self
- devalues behaviours closer to the feared self
Possible selves act as a source of motivation and affect
Temporal Selves
Past self
Current self
Possible (future) self
Priming
Exposing someone to a particular stimulus so that it affects their responses in some way
Priming can be done to activate certain schemas
(Markus and Wurf, 1987)
Higgins et al (1986/7) on the consequences of self-discrepancies
- discrepancies between selves causes emotional consequences
- Actual self
- Ideal self (our desired self)
- Ought self (that which we believe others desire us to be)
Discrepancies between:
- Actual and Ideal self = disappointment / dejection
- Actual and Ought self = agitation / frustration
Study:
- university students generate the attributes of their current, ideal and ought selves
- then reported how strongly they thought others wanted them to have these attributes
> so the discrepancies are quantifiable
- the study went on to show that focussing on the discrepancy between our current selves and our ought or ideal selves has emotional impacts
> either agitation or dejection
Theory of objective awareness
Duval and Wicklund, 1972
- our attention can be directed outward or inwards - when attention is directed inwards we achieve self-awareness
> when we are self aware, we focus on context-appropriate behaviour standards and adjust behaviour to fit these standards
Study showing the effects of activating self-awareness
Beaman, Klentz, Diener & Svanum, 1979, Experiment 1
- real world study on halloween on children
- child invited in and then asked their name and where they live (develops accountability)
- adult says ‘here is a bowl of sweets, take one and go’ and left before they could take one
> researcher is hidden watching
Conditions:
- either a mirror next to the sweet bowl or no mirror
- unrestricted access to the sweets
Results:
- the presence of the mirror caused children to behave better
Study showing different effects of activating public vs private self-awarenss
(Froming, Walker & Lopyan, 1982, Experiment 2)
Public self-awareness = aware of aspects of ourselves that others can observe
Private self-awareness = aware of non-observable aspects
Research Question:
- different stimuli draw attention to different aspects of self
> mirror activates private self-awareness
> audience activates private self awareness
Study:
- based on views of acceptability of physical punishment, those chosen thought:
- they themselves thought physical punishment is acceptable
- but that other’s thought it was unacceptable
- then had the participants act as an experimenter and deliver electric shocks to someone if they get the question wrong
> some did this in front of an audience (publicly self-aware)
> some did this in front of a mirror (privately self-aware)
> some (control) had no mirror or audience - mirror group delivered the strongest electric shocks
- control group delivered slightly weaker shocks
- audience group delivered the weakest shocks
Thus:
- mirror activates private self-awareness, causing adherence to own standards, causing increased shock level
- audience activates public self-awareness, causing adherence to (believed) social standards, causing decreased shock level
Applications:
- cut out of a policeman outside a supermarket decreases theft by activating public self-awareness (specific to laws)
Social comparison theory
Festinger, 1954
- we are innately driven to evaluate ourselves in two ways:
> objective evaluation (measuring height)
> social evaluation (attributes that can’t be objectively measured have to be measured against others) - we socially compare against others we think are similar to us on the target dimension (using extreme examples doesn’t help), so we look for the comparison that gives us the most accurate evaluation (don’t have to be real people)
- we only compare ourselves on the aspects of our person that are important to us
> thus social comparison is a motivated process
Functions of social comparison (4)
- functions for self improvement
- self evaluation
- self-esteem enhancement
- information seeking (how did those better off become that way?)
