333 final

Question 1

four features of the attachment system

Answer 1

• proximity seeking and maintenance
• separation distress
• safe havden
• secure base

Question 2

what happens if kid perceives their caregiver is not near, attentive, or responsive?

Answer 2

• activation of attachment system (it’s not always activated—it turns on with a threat)
• triggers separation distress = proximity seeking
• if caregiver attends to needs = used as a safe haven (caregiver soothes the infant and regulated distress = child feels safe and secure and loved)
• if attachment system is activated = exploration behaviour is inhibited

Question 3

Strange Situation

Answer 3

• Paradigm designed to systematically assess children’s attachment to a specific caregiver
• Caregiver and child play in a room together
• Examines how children react to: separations from caregiver, reunions with caregiver, meeting a stranger (if caregiver is present, then if caregiver is absent)

Question 4

secure attachment style

Answer 4

• 60%
• Child distressed when parent left, but able to be soothed by stranger and seeks comfort upon reunion with parent; explores the room when parent is present
• parents’ behaviour: generally supportive/sensitive to child’s needs, affectionate, expresses positive emotions toward child, fosters autonomy and exploration (encouraging them to explore new things)
• child learns that proximity seeking is a good strategy to soothe distress/have needs met

Question 5

avoidant attachment style

Answer 5

• 15%
• Child does not display signs of distress upon separation from parent, plays by themselves, and disinterested in parent upon reunion
• doesn’t matter if the parent or the caregiver are present (very unusual)
• parents’ behaviour: consistently insensitive to child’s signals (avoids close contact, rejects bids for contact, may be angry or impatient, discourages displays of emotion) OR parent is consistently over-bearing and intrusive (controlling, stifling autonomy and independence—this isn’t meeting child’s needs for autonomy)
• in real life: parent might not be physically present a lot of the time or emotionally distant
• child learns that: proximity seeking is not a good strategy to soothe distress/to have needs met
• deactivation of the attachment system (avoiding proximity, but physiologically similar distress)

Question 6

deactivation of the attachment system

Answer 6

• attention diverted away from threat, avoid proximity of caregiver when distressed, cope with distress by suppressing it or avoiding situations that elicit distress
• physiologically, they’re showing just as much distress as secure kids (heart rate, cortisol, etc.) but they cope with it by not showing that they’re upset

Question 7

anxious/ambivalent attachment styles

Answer 7

• Child extremely distressed upon separation, not soothed by stranger, but takes a long time to be soothed upon reunion with parent/resists parent’s attempt to soothe; stays close to parent when parent is in the room and doesn’t explore much
• clingy, opposite of avoidant
• parents’ bx: inconsistent in reacting to child’s distress, sometimes soothing and attentive and other times insensitive (dismissive or critical or angry)
• child learns that proximity is sometimes a good strategy to soothe distress, but not always
• hyperactivation of the attachment system

Question 8

hyperactivation of attachment system

Answer 8

• hypervigilance to threat and exaggerated perceptions of threat, excessive proximity-seeking of caregiver when distressed, cope with distress by heightening it

Question 9

disorganized attachment style

Answer 9

• Behaviour is contradictory. Seems to want to approach parent but also sees them as a source of fear. Frequently appear dazed and dissociated.
• this wasn’t observed initially by Ainsworth
• might behave very differently within and between sessions
• parents’ bx: frightens the child, may be harsh or abusive, often struggle with severe mental health issues
• child learns that: proximity seeking often results in feeling scared, caregiver is unpredictable and cannot be trusted
• attachment system motivates them to seek proximity, but they are also motivated to withdraw because of fear = contradictory pattern = daze and dissociation

Question 10

other factors that influence attachment in childhood

Answer 10

• infant temperament: Infants vary in sensitivity and how easy they are to soothe, Infants that are more sensitive are more likely to develop anxious attachment (emotional needs are greater and difficult to meet—more demanding on the parent), Those that are less sensitive are more likely to develop secure or avoidant attachment
• socialization of gender roles: Males are more likely to develop avoidant (vs. anxious) attachment, Females more likely to develop anxious (vs. avoidant) attachment
• safety vs. danger of environment: More likely to develop insecure attachment when growing up in more dangerous environment (insecure attachment may be more adaptive in these settings—hypervigilance to threat, concealing emotikonal reactions)

Question 11

how does attachment style differ in function in adulthood

Answer 11

• attachment relationships have similar functions in adulthood as they do in childhood: Proximity seeking/maintenance, separation distress, safe haven, secure base
• Romantic partners are most common attachment figures in adults (and best friends)
• Adult attachment style is related to childhood experiences due to internal working models

Question 12

internal working models

Answer 12

• mental represnetations of the self, of attachment figures, relationships in general that are constructed as a result of experiences with caregivers
• filter interpretations of interactions wih attachment figures, guide expectations about relationships and social situations throughout life

Question 13

two dimensions of internal working models

Answer 13

• anxiety dimension: vigilance and concerns about rejection and abandonment, to what extent is the self worthy of love? (low anxiety = self is worthy of love, high anxiety = concerns about rejection)
• avoidance dimension: discomfort with closeness and intimacy, to what extent are others reliable? (low avoidance = others are reliable)

Question 14

low avoidance, low anxiety

Answer 14

• secure (comfortable with closeness and interdependence, but also seeks autonomy)
• self is worth and others are trustworthy
• problem with attachment figure = able to bring it up and able to receive feedback

Question 15

low avoidance, high anxiety

Answer 15

• anxious attachment (fear rejection and abandonment, value closeness, believe the self isn’t good enough)
• heightened need for reassurance, risk of becoming overly controlling/clingy

Question 16

low anxiety, high avoidance

Answer 16

• dismissive-avoidant (avoid seeking closeness to protect self from being let down by others, don’t trust that others can meet needs)
• emotionally distant, prioritize independence, find it difficult to rely on others

Question 17

high anxiety, high avoidance

Answer 17

• fearful-avoidant/disorganized (strong need for closeness but distrusts others and sees self as deserving of rejection)
• inconsistent way of meeting attachment needs, behaving contradictorily
• like seeking relationships, then disengaging when they get one
• or not seeking relationships, then getting really clingy when they meet someone or withdrawing on other days

Question 18

study: does attachment style influence support-seeking behaviour in couples?

Answer 18

• method; heterosexual couples
• woman told she will have to complete an anxiety provoking activity, women’s bx toward her partner coded for anxiety and support-seeking
• results: more anxiety related to more support seeking for secures, but less support seeking for avoidants (consistent with children’s bx in the strange situation)
• positive linear for secure, but negative linear for avoidant
• it’s only under threat that the attachment system is activated
• at low anxiety, avoidant people were actually seeking more support

Question 19

dismissive vs. fearful avoidant

Answer 19

• may look very similar on the surface
• dismissive: deactivate both overt attachment bx AND covert (internal) attachment system
• dismissive = reduced physiological response when imagining separation from partner (both overt and covert responses)
• fearful: only deactivate overt attachment bx BUT are unable to deactivate covert attachment system
• fearful = elevated physiological response when imagining separation from partner

Question 20

adult attachment styles distribution

Answer 20

• 56% secure (vs. 60% in kids)
• 25% avoidant (vs. 15% in kids)
• 19% anxious (vs. 10% in kids)

Question 21

measures of attachment

Answer 21

• continuous measurement of attachment: researchers no longer categorize people into attachment styles (categorically)
• attachment measured continuously
• degree of attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance measures separately
• anxiety: “My desire to be very close sometimes scares people away.” “I often worry that my partner doesn’t really love me.”
• avoidance: “I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down.” “I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on romantic partners.”

Question 22

secure attachment correlations

Answer 22

• Higher self-esteem
• Greater tendency to seek out social support
• Better conflict-resolution skills
• Higher life satisfaction
• Better relationship satisfaction
• most adaptive pattern

Question 23

study: How does attachment style influence partner selection and relationship stability?

Answer 23

• method: heterosexual couples longitudinal for 3yrs
• time 1 results: no anxious-anxious or avoidant-avoidant pairs, relationship satisfaction lower in relationships with at least one insecurely attached partner, lowest relationship satisfaction in anxious-avoidant couples
• anxious-avoidant pair: chronic relationship dissatisfaction (anxious partner wants more closeness than avoidant is willing to provide = feeling like ‘too much’, avoidant partner wants more independence than anxious partner is willing to accept = feeling suffocated), attachment needs fundamentally at odds
• at 3 yrs FU: avoidant-anxious pairs were most likely to still be together (despite lower relationship satisfaction results from Time 1)

Question 24

what explains why anxious-avoidant couples stay together?

Answer 24

• despite lower relationship satisfaction, were more likely to still be together in a 3yr FU study
• familiarity: Each partner’s attachment pattern is consistent with internal working model (For anxiously attached partner, avoidant’s distance mirrors their experience of inconsistent caregiving, triggering their pursuit of closeness + For the avoidant partner, anxious partner’s pursuit of closeness mirrors their experiences of attachment figures being intrusive or not meeting their needs (e.g. for autonomy), triggering their instinct to retreat and protect independence)
• complimentary dynamic: Anxious partner’s pursuit of closeness feeds into the avoidant’s tendency to withdraw, creating a maladaptive cycle

Question 25

study: do caregiving experiences in childhood predict adult attachment style? (Fraley et al., 2013)

Answer 25

• method: longitudinal study from childhood to age 18
• assessed quality of caregiving experiences at various points in childhood; maternal sensitivity, maternal depression, father’s absence
• assessed adult attachment style at age 18
• results: less supportive parenting and family instability predicted attachment insecurity in adulthood
• avoidance at age 18 predicted by: lower maternal sensitivity, father’s absence, either consistently or inconsistently (so matches the theory of inconsistency = avoidance)
• anxiety at age 18 predicted by: higher maternal depression (matches the theory of attentiveness-inattentiveness = anxiety)
• evidence that there’s an association between childhood caregiving experiences and attachment in adulthood
• but across longitudinal studies, average correlation of 0.15 between childhood caregiving experiences and adult attachment

Question 26

how consistent is the relationship between childhood caregiving + adult attachment, and what else impacts adult attachment?

Answer 26

• average correlation of 0.15 between childhood caregiving experiences and adult attachment
• suggests that the effect is small and that some people exhibit incongruent patterns (positive early caregiving but insecure attachment in adulthood or negative early caregiving but secure attachment in adulthood)
• we are shaped by early caregiving experiences, but these foundations are not fate
• less supportive parenting, family instability, AND lower quality of friendships in childhood/adolescence predicted attachment style

Question 27

study: factors influencing adult attachment (Fraley et al., 2013)

Answer 27

• less supportive parenting, family instability, and lower quality friendships in childhood/adolescence predicted attachment
• avoidance at age 18 predicted by: lower quality friendships (in addition to other factors)
• anxiety at age 18 predicted by: lower quality friendships (in addition to other factors)
• the size of the effect of friendship experiences is similar to the size of the effect of caregiving experiences
• parenting isn’t necessarily more important (like attachment theory would predict)
• friendships provide opportunities for internal working models to be tested and to have expectations either reinforced or disconfirmed (testing internal working models outside of their families for the first time)

Question 28

how do internal working models contribute to attachment stability?

Answer 28

• act like self-fulfilling prophecies
• confirmation bias: people are likely to interpret ambiguous social information in ways that are consistent with their internal working model
• selection effect: people tend to select partners that are consistent with their internal working models (partner selection study; anxious and avoidant romantic partners staying together)

Question 29

study: stability in adult attachment

Answer 29

• method: assessed people’s attachment style at 2 time points a few weeks apart
• at time 2, 70% of people classified with same attachment style as time 1
• 30% classified with a different attachment style
• suggests that attachment is less stable than would be theoretically predicted
• specifically, the insecurely attached people (anxious and avoidant) were more likely to change attachment at time 2

Question 30

study: life events and changes to attachment

Answer 30

• method: longitudinal study of people over 6-40 months
• at multiple time points, reported on: life events experienced since last time point, attachment avoidance and anxiety
• results: many life events lead to temporary changes in attachment security
• decreased attachment security: getting into an argument with partner, being physically apart from partner, being sick
• increased attachment security: dating someone new, partner did something special for the person, work promotion, going on vacation

Question 31

how enduring are changes to attachment style due to life events?

Answer 31

• more insecure prior to the event that is slowly decreasing, then negative event = more insecure suddenly, then gradually decreases again
• eventually, according to prediction of attachment based on security before event, they revert back to their typical level of attachment security
• but, about 25% of events led to a more enduring change in attachment
• breaking up with a romantic partner = more insecure attachment that does not revert to more secure attachment (longer lasting insecure attachment)
• getting engaged = longer lasting attachment security
• getting pregnant = longer lasting attachment security
• person passing away = increase in attachment insecurity
• going to university: more insecurity for a longer time
• life event is big an important enough = enduring attachment change (internal working model can also be altered by new experiences)

Question 32

increasing attachment security

Answer 32

• age: people become less anxiously attached as they get older (similar to SCC, SE), less clear results for avoidance—mixed effects for age
• wanting to become more securely attached is associated with increases in attachment security for a 4-month period
• fostering more secure working models
• anxiously attached: foster a secure model of self by learning to rely on others less for validation and learning to feel capable and valued in personal domains
• avoidantly attached: foster a secure model of others by challenging self to depend on others and self-disclose more
• psychotherapy is associated with increased attachment security (relationship with therapist = corrective experience (attentive, not abandoning, supportive, etc.))

Question 33

study: do we have the same attachment style across relationships?

Answer 33

• method: listed 10 most impactful relationships, rated attachment style in each specific relationship, assessed general attachment style
• everyone has relationships characterized by all 3 attachment styles
• regardless of general attachment style, the majority of a person’s relationships are secure
• general attachment style is related to the prevalence of your relationships fitting a specific attachment style relative to other people
• general avoidant attachment = they have more avoidant relationships than the anxious people or the secure people
• general anxious attachment = they have more anxious relationships than the avoidant people or the secure people
• secure attachment = more secure relationships than avoidant or anxious
• it’s about the proportion of relationships they have that shapes general attachment style

Question 34

within-person fluctuations in attachment styles

Answer 34

• everybody has relationships characterized by all 3 attachment styles
• suggests that these fluctuations in attachment style may be a function of which attachment model is most cognitively accessible at a given moment
• different relationship partners or events prime different attachment styles

Question 35

study: does priming a specific attachment model affect coping with stress?

Answer 35

• method: recruited female students, assigned to: secure relationship: primed warm/supportive relationship, insecure: primed critical/judgmental relationship, control: no prime
• imagine themselves with unplanned pregnancy + assessed: coping strategy, general attachment style
• people primed with secure were more likely to seek emotional support (behaving with secure attachment) than control
• people primed with insecure = less likely to engage in growth-oriented coping (emphasizing learning from challenged) than control
• coping responses unrelated to general attachment style
• shows that attachment styles can be primed and influence behaviour in theoretically consistent ways

Question 36

stability of attachment moderators

Answer 36

• Attachment style is more stable in longer relationships (more entrenched patterns, developing habits about what we believe about ourselves, how we relate to the person, etc.)
• implies that people will have more stable (not necessarily more secure) attachment styles with their parents and other people they’ve known for a long time than with romantic partners or newer friends

Question 37

attachment style at any given moment determined by:

Answer 37

• chronic attachment style: influences by caregiver experiences, past important relationship like childhood friendships, some major life events, age
• state level of attachment: current and recent life events, most recent interaction with an attachment figure (priming), relationship length

Question 38

social identity theory

Answer 38

• personal identities: self-aspects that make a person unique
• social identities: self-aspects based on group membership
• the more a person values a group, the more strongly they identify with it
• we have control over some social identities (like our major) and not over others (like ethnicity)

Question 39

cognitive processes in social identity formation

Answer 39

• social categorization: people automatically categorize themselves and others into social groups (race, gender, etc.)
• social identification: once people categorize themselves as part of a group, they adopt the identity of that group (self-stereotyping: a person adopts the values and norms of the group, creates an emotional bond with other ingroup members)
• social comparison: people make comparisons between groups and do so in a way that tends to be favourable to their ingroup (ingroup favouritism and outgroup bias)

Question 40

minimal group paradigm

Answer 40

• participants are randomly assigned to a group based on arbitrary criteria (like which painting you prefer, coin toss)
• in a later resource allocation task, participants tend to allocate more resources to ingroup members than outgroup members
• suggests: people readily identify with a social group, group categorization, even if based on meaningless criteria, tends to trigger ingroup favouritism

Question 41

contextual identity salience

Answer 41

• the extent to which personal vs. social identities are salient depends on the social context (consistent with working self-concept)
• personal identity is more salient when interacting with ingroup members (explained by distinctiveness theory)
• social identity/ingroup identity is more salient when interacting with outgroup members, especially in an inter-group context (distinctiveness theory)
• when social identity is salient, people think and behave in ways that are consistent with ingroup norms

Question 42

outgroup homogeneity effect

Answer 42

• people tend to perceive outgroup members as more similar to each other and ingroup members as more diverse
• explained by the context shifts in the salience of people’s identities (people tend to behave more similarly to their ingroup in intergroup contexts because of identity salience)
• the other group perceives this similarity in behaviour and concludes that the rival group members are all similar to each other
• intergroup context = salient ingroup identity = behaviour consistent with ingroup norms = outgroup perceives ingroup members as similar
• outgroup homogeneity effect partly explained by prejudice and partly by social identity salience in intergroup contexts

Question 43

why do we identify with groups?

Answer 43

• evolutionary perspective: in our evolutionary past, humans were in competition for resources, so it was useful to form groups to increase safety and secure resources (implies that ingroup favouritism is a result of competition between groups for resources)
• self-enhancement function: individuals gain personal self-esteem from associating with a successful/positive group (leads to: elevating the ingroup over the outgroup by focusing on positive qualities and achievements of the ingroup + devaluing positive qualities and achievements of an outgroup)
• uncertainty reduction: individuals seek to gain certainty about themselves and the world

Question 44

study: basking in reflected glory

Answer 44

• method: field study on several american university campuses, recorded what clothing students were wearing the Monday after a football match + asked students’ opinion about their team’s performance
• students were more likely to wear clothing associated with their university if their team won the match
• more likely to use first person pronouns if the team won and third person pronouns if the team lost
• to maintain strong SE, people tend to closely associate themselves with a group when it is successful and establish distance from a group when it fails

Question 45

study: threat to self led to prejudicial attitude against outgroup member (Jewish candidate)

Answer 45

• threat to self = prejudice = increase SE
• suggests that prejudice partly stems from a desire to restore self-integrity
• support for self-enhancement function of group identification

Question 46

group identification and status improvement

Answer 46

• self-enhancement will generally motivate people to maintain/gain status for their group
• higher-status group members are motivated to maintain status quo
• lower-status group members are motivated to improve their status (how they accomplish this depends on the permeability of group boundaries (to what extent is it possible to change groups))

Question 47

permeable group boundaries

Answer 47

• individual mobility
• lower-status group members seek to individually transfer into the higher-status group
• individual will focus more on their personal identity and accomplishments and distance themselves from their group membership

Question 48

impermeable group boundaries

Answer 48

• strong identification with the group
• social creativity: lower-status group members will modify their perception of their ingroup’s standing
• adopt dimensions of comparison that emphasize the positivity of the ingroup (placing value on kindness and humor rather than money and power)
• downward comparison with a different outgroup in order to make the current standing of the ingroup appear more positive
• social competition: lower-status group members band together and advocate for reducing the status difference between groups

Question 49

token

Answer 49

• when a higher-status group takes in an individual member from a lower-status group
• being a token leads to heightened awareness of how one is different from the group they’ve been accepted into (consistent with distinctiveness theory)
• creates added performance pressure and can have cognitive consequences

Question 50

study: how does being a token influence cognitive processing?

Answer 50

• method: participants led to believe that they were sharing their opinions on everyday topic with 3 other students via video (actually pre-videotaped confederates)
• token condition: other students are all of a different gender than the participant
• non-token condition: other students are all the same gender as the participant
• tested memory for this interaction: received a list of opinions and had to identify whose opinion belonged to whom
• it was pre-recorded to ensure that the token participant was treated the same, so that results would be due to diminished cognitive processing
• results: token had poorer memory for the interaction than non-tokens (remembered fewer of the opinions that they had expressed and fewer of the opinions that others had expressed)
• everyone remembered more of their own opinions (which makes sense)
• being a token interfered with cognitive processing of the interaction

Question 51

implications of being a token

Answer 51

• being a token may shift attention to self-presentation concerns and away from the task at hand leading to disrupted cognitive processing
• impairments to cognitive processing shown in the absence of differential treatment
• for organizations: increasing the number of minority members in an organization should reduce their self-consciousness, decrease pressure, and improve cognitive processing

Question 52

uncertainty reduction function

Answer 52

• identifying with a group accomplishes this goal by prescribing group norms and offering a framework for how one should be and how to understand others
• prototype: ingroup’s central characteristics, values, and norms for behaviour (prototypical members: people that are most representative of the ingroup prototype + peripheral members: less typical of the ingroup (but still part of the ingroup)

Question 53

prototypicality and self-certainty

Answer 53

• being a peripheral member of an important group leads to experiencing self-uncertainty
• motivates greater conformity to ingroup norms in order to become more prototypical and gain greater self-certainty
• peripheral = self-uncertainty = greater ingroup identification = behaviours consistent with ingroup prototype

Question 54

study: does feeling peripheral in a group increase self-uncertainty?

Answer 54

• method: American participants completed a test assessing artistic vs. scientific personality
• peripheral condition: participant’s score is closer to the French average than American average
• prototypical: participant’s score is closer to the American average than French average
• measured self-uncertainty with a self-concept clarity scale
• results: peripheral participants experienced more self-uncertainty than prototypical participants
• this should motivate them to identify more with their ingroup and behave in a more prototypical way

Question 55

study: does self-uncertainty increase ingroup favouritism in peripheral members?

Answer 55

• method: American students
• uncertainty condition: write about 3 aspects that make you feel uncertain about yourself and your future
• certainty condition: write about 3 aspects that make you feel certain about yourself and your future
• personality test: prototypical condition: profile is similar to other students at your university OR peripheral: profile is more similar to students at a rival university
• evaluated essays about students’ view of their university (how much do they prefer a positive essay over a negative essay?)
• for peripheral participants, high self-uncertainty led to more in-group bias, but self-certainty did not
• for prototypical participants, self-uncertainty did not affect ingroup bias

Question 56

implications of self-certainty and prototypicality

Answer 56

• sometimes peripheral members may identify with an important ingroup more strongly than prototypical members (as an attempt to gain self-certainty)
• this reasoning has been used to explain why extreme groups and behaviour are attractive to some people (extremist groups provide a certain, very clear, and prescriptive direction for the self)

Question 57

factors determining identification with a group

Answer 57

• importance of the group: more = more identification
• social context: inter-group = more identification
• status and permeability: lower-status + permeable = less identification
• prototypicality

Question 58

definitions of empathy

Answer 58

• from the german for “feeling into”
• an affective response more appropriate to someone else’s situation than to one’s own
• the drive to identify another person’s emotions and thoughts, and to respond to these with an appropriate emotion
• no clear and consistent definition of empathy

Question 59

three-part model of empathy

Answer 59

• cognitive empathy: empathic accuracy, mentalizing, perspective-taking
• affective empathy: emotion contagion, emotion sharing, personal distress
• prosocial motivation: empathic concern, helping bx

Question 60

affective empathy

Answer 60

• sharing another person’s emotional state (can be a negative or positive emotional state (i.e. not just distress, guilt, anxiety, but also happiness))
• emotion contagion (frequently used synonym for affective empathy): spontaneous spread of emotions from one person to another
• spontaneous: automatic process that just happens

Question 61

assessing affective empathy

Answer 61

• most commonly via self-report
• basic empathy scale also assesses cognitive empathy
• limitations: socially desirable to report higher empathy

Question 62

mimicry

Answer 62

• good evidence for affect sharing being spontaneous
• mimicry: reflexive mirroring another person’s behaviour; facial expressions, body posture)
• emerges in infancy (around 9mo) and apparent throughout life
• in humans, mimicry contributes to emotion contagion by eliciting the corresponding emotions associated with the mimicked behaviour
• most animals also show spontaneous mimicry

Question 63

study: facial expressions influences humor judgments

Answer 63

• method: participants watched funny cartoons while holding a pen in their mouth
• teeth: participants held a pen in their teeth without letting their lips touching it = smiling muscles
• lips: participants held a pen in their mouth making sure that their lips touched it = inhibits smiling muscles
• rated level of amusement while watching cartoons
• results: participants in the teeth condition found the cartoons funnier
• facial expressions = how we feel

Question 64

study: facial expressions influences humor judgments (pt2)

Answer 64

• method: participants watched emotional video clips pre and post cosmetic procedure
• botox (partial facial muscle paralysis), restylane (no facial paralysis), self-reported emotional intensity
• results: botox group reported decreased emotional intensity, but only to mildly positive videos
• partially supports the idea that facial expressions influence emotions

Question 65

neural resonance

Answer 65

• the same neural systems are activated when we experience an affective state as when we simply observe another person experiencing that same affective state
• shown for motor intentions, physical, and disgust

Question 66

simulation theory

Answer 66

• to understand others’ minds, we use our own motor, neural, and mental processes as a model to simulate the experiences of others
• low-level/bottom-up simulation (automatic and rapid): mimicry and neural resonance, perception of target’s expressions = shared neural activation = automatic mimicry = emotional contagion = understand the emotions of another
• blocking mimicry impairs emotion recognition (botox impaired recognition of positive and negative emotional facial expression compared to control group, blocking facial muscle mimicry by biting on a pen impaired recognition of emotional expressions, specifically happiness and disgust, conveying fear and sadness = eyebrows, which isn’t being impeded by holding a pen in your mouth)
• high-level/top-down (controlled, slow): mentally putting oneself in someone else’s situation

Question 67

cognitive empathy

Answer 67

• understanding another person’s mental/emotional state
• synonyms: theory of mind, mentalizing, empathic accuracy
• can be accomplished via: emotion contagion, perspective-taking (explicitly imagining oneself in another person’s situation)

Question 68

development of cognitive empathy

Answer 68

• in children, assessed using false-belief tasks (Sally-Anne task)
• emerges around age 4 (most 3 yo fail and most 5 yo pass false belief tasks)

Question 69

assessing cognitive empathy

Answer 69

• self-report: basic empathy scale
• limitations: social desirability, how we know their accuracy (they could be incorrectly assessing someone else’s state)?
• behavioural measures assessing empathic accuracy (Reading the Mind in the Eyes + empathic accuracy task)

Question 70

Reading the Mind in the Eyes

Answer 70

• guessing the emotion based on the eyes
• this was only recently diversified
• may be too easy (we’re given response options of emotions), also static images when in real life emotions evolve over time, only seeing the eyes when usually we have access to the entire face

Question 71

empathic accuracy task

Answer 71

• target phase: target is filmed while talking about an emotion event, watch the video and continuously rate how they were feeling
• perceiver phase: separate participant watches target’s video and continuously rates how they think the target was feeling
• empathic accuracy: time-series correlation between the target’s emotions and the perceiver’s inference of the target’s emotions
• high correlation = good empathic accuracy, low correlation = poor empathic accuracy

Question 72

empathic accuracy correlations

Answer 72

• associated with a variety of positive relationship outcomes
• targets feeling understood
• better support provision
• greater romantic relationship satisfaction
• better quality friendships

Question 73

how are affective and cognitive empathy related

Answer 73

• affective empathy influences cognitive empathy; affective empathy provides information; feeling what the target is feeling = understanding their experience (low-level simulation)
• cognitive empathy also influences affective empathy; informs more accurate emotion sharing (you share the correct emotion), high-level simulation

Question 74

why are some people more empathetic than others

Answer 74

• there is more variability in target’s ability to accurately express themselves than in perceiver’s ability to accurately read target’s emotions
• the target needs to be sufficiently expressive for individual differences in empathy between perceivers to emerge

Question 75

characteristics of empathic perceivers

Answer 75

• trait affective empathy: self-reported affective empathy is positively correlated with empathic accuracy, but only for expressive targets
• alexithymia: difficulties describing and recognizing emotions within oneself (associated with lower cognitive and affective empathy)
• emotion regulation skills: perspective-taking is more accurate when emotional arousal is modulated rather than overwhelming (associated with increased personal distress when confronted with another’s arousal)

Question 76

gender differences in empathy

Answer 76

• women consistently self-report higher affective and cognitive empathy (true difference or social desirability?)
• on behavioural measures, women tend to show higher affective empathy but there are no gender differences on cognitive empathy
• biologically based explanation?
• socialization or gender roles
• also in men socialized to be less emotionally expressive = lower self-reported empathy, but good cognitive empathy

Question 77

situational and state moderators of empathy

Answer 77

• knowledge of the target: more emotion sharing and empathic accuracy for close others (easier to accurately simulate what a person is feeling when we are familiar with them)
• similarity to the target: more emotion sharing and empathic accuracy for in-group vs. out-group members (use of self as a model to simulate others’ experience is more likely to be accurate when the target is similar to us)
• motivation to empathize: less empathy when it is perceived as costly (i.e. cognitive effort, experiencing distress), more empathy when it is perceived as beneficial to the perceiver (i.e. socially rewarding)
• explains the other two factors: more effortful to empathize with someone we don’t know well or that is very different from us (it’s a more difficult task)

Question 78

prosocial motivation

Answer 78

• empathic concern: other-oriented response inducing motivation to help
• synonyms: compassion, sympathy
• generally considered the desired outcome of empathy
• help either via emotional support or instrumental support

Question 79

empathic concern vs. personal distress

Answer 79

• personal distress is a self-focused, aversive reaction, often leading to withdrawing from the situation to alleviate one’s own discomfort
• PD is a form of emotion contagion that is not helpful

Question 80

self-other merging

Answer 80

• psychological overlap in the mental representation between the self and other
• common in close relationships
• the outcome/basis of empathy
• BUT too much seems to be problematic
• high self-other merging is associated with personal distress
• inverted U-shape, where too little = low prosocial motivation, too much = low prosocial motivation, in-between = good prosocial motivation

Question 81

Katie Banks paradigm

Answer 81

• radio broadcast about katie banks —plea for financial help from Katie
• participants self-report: empathic concern (to what extent did you feel compassionate, sympathetic, moved, warm, soft-hearted, tender?) + personal distress (to what extent did you feel worried, alarmed, grieved, troubled, distressed, perturbed, upset, disturbed?) + self-other merging with Katie + self-concept clarity
• given a small bonus payment and can choose how much to donate to Katie
• mediation analyses

Question 82

results of Katie Banks paradigm

Answer 82

• lower SCC associated with less empathic concern which was associated with less money donated to Katie (lower SCC = low empathic concern = less prosocial bx)
• lower SCC associated with more personal distress, which was associated with less money donated to Katie (lower SCC = high personal distress = less prosocial)
• lower SCC associated with more self-other merging which in turn was associated with more personal distress
• empathic concern, resulting from empathy, motivates us to help others in distress
• although empathy involves some level of self-other merging, maintaining a clear distinction between self and other is important for mature empathic responding
• having a clear sense of self may help with maintaining adequate self-other distinction in empathy

Question 83

how are the three parts of empathy related

Answer 83

• affective empathy affects cognitive empathy (provides info (you’re feeling what the target is feeling = understanding their experience, low-level simulation))
• cognitive empathy affects affective empathy (informs more accurate emotion sharing (sharing the correct emotion, high-level simulation))
• cognitive empathy informs prosocial motivation (what am I helping with? more effective emotional support or instrumental help)
• affective empathy informs prosocial motivation (why should I help? emotion sharing often triggers empathic concern, feeling emotionally compelled to help the other person, or personal distress = less prosocial motivation)

Question 84

mental disorders and empathy

Answer 84

• many mental health disorders linked to difficulties in either affective OR cognitive empathy (despite being related, these can be independent concepts)
• psychopathy often conceptualized as a deficit in affective empathy, although not always related to changes in cognitive empathy (pretty good at understanding others’ emotions, but not sharing emotions)
• autism spectrum disorder often linked to difficulties with cognitive empathy, but not always related to changes in affective empathy (the automatic contagion is fine, but perspective taking is impaired, may struggle with false belief tasks (esp. moderate-severe end of spectrum))
• gender differences: on behavioural measures, men and women show equal cognitive empathy but differ on affective (women showing more emotion sharing)

Question 85

high cognitive + low affective empathy

Answer 85

• will understand partner’s emotional reaction, but not feel it themselves
• more likely to analyze feelings, rather than be emotionally connected with it
• struggle to provide emotional support
• might come off as cold or detached

Question 86

high affective + low cognitive empathy

Answer 86

• could become overwhelmed with personal distress leading to withdrawing
• partner is crying = unable to provide support because they’re trying to avoid it
• could misread partner’s emotional reaction (missing the mark)
• understanding that they’re sad, but maybe for the wrong reasons

Question 87

four main themes of course

Answer 87

• self shaped by social world
• self is dynamic
• the unity project of the self
• the self-concept contains inaccuracies

Question 88

self shaped by social world (theme #1)

Answer 88

• need to belong
• identification with groups
• different cultures create different selves
• looking-glass self
• self-presentation
• authenticity when behaving in socially desirable ways
• sociometer theory

Question 89

self is dynamic (theme #2)

Answer 89

• working self-concept: situational activation, distinctiveness and relevance to the situation
• personal vs. social identities dependent on social context (ingroup vs. outgroup interpersonal interaction)
• cultural frame switching
• multiple attachments styles in different situations
• auto-motive interpersonal goals
• changing the self to be liked—changing self-presentation to suit audience (traditional/attractive women at princeton study)

Question 90

unity project of the self (theme #3)

Answer 90

• strive for unity in the self: continuity over time, consistency, predictability, work-in-progress that is never fully complete
• self-presentations (creating a good reputation)
• narrative identity
• self-verification motive (creating social environments (identity cues, selective interaction, interpersonal prompts), low SE = choose person with negative view, anxious-avoidant partners in the service of uniting the self, cognitive biases (selective attention, selective memory, selective interpretation))
• self-regulation: imagine a future version of ourselves to unite the self in time
• self-concept clarity

Question 91

self-concept contains inaccuracies (theme #4)

Answer 91

• positive illusions about the self (better-than-average on more desirable traits)
• usually a best-case version of us
• self-deception (adaptive for mental health, believing good things about ourselves = moving closer to desired reputation to gain social approval)

Question 92

Who is considered the father of North American psychology?

Answer 92

William James

Question 93

What are the two aspects of the self according to William James?

Answer 93

Me and I

Question 94

Define ‘me’ in the context of William James’s theory of self.

Answer 94

The objective self or sense of self as an object of reflection
Includes the material self, the social self, and the spiritual self

Question 95

What does the ‘material self’ encompass?

Answer 95

Physical entities that belong to a person, including:
* Your body
* Material possessions (money, belongings, house)

Question 96

Why is a physical body considered a prerequisite for the self?

Answer 96

Without a physical body, no self is possible

Question 97

What is the ‘social self’ shaped and expressed by?

Answer 97

Interactions with others

Question 98

How many selves do we have according to the ‘social self’ concept?

Answer 98

As many selves as people we have interactions with

Question 99

What constitutes the ‘spiritual self’?

Answer 99

Inner qualities such as:
* Personality
* Core values
* Emotions
Anything that cannot be observed, but exists in you and in your mind (your core)

Question 100

Define ‘I’ in the context of William James’s theory of self.

Answer 100

The subjective part of the self, our experience of ourselves, the part of ourselves that thinks, experiences, and perceives (consciousness)

Question 101

What does the ‘I’ enable us to do?

Answer 101

Have a sense that our experiences belong to us (that we’re experiencing the world from a first person perspective)

Question 102

What continuity does the ‘I’ provide?

Answer 102

Continuity between the past, present, and future self (I remember doing this, and I can think about myself in the future)

Question 103

What is Baumeister’s definition of the self?

Answer 103

Your social identity and your inner processes that enable you to operate your body successfully in society

Question 104

What are the components of the self according to Baumeister?

Answer 104

Social self, spiritual self, material self

Question 105

True or False: The self is static and unchanging.

Answer 105

False; the self is dynamic and in flux, dealing with new situations, learning, and adapting

Question 106

What is the self-concept as an associative network?

Answer 106

Knowledge is organized as a metaphorical network of cognitive concepts interconnected by links where each concept is a node/piece of self-knowledge. There can be contradictory nodes in a self-concept.
*self-concept implies a fixed, unitary, integrated idea of the self, but people tend to have many different ideas about themselves

Some concepts are more central, and links between concepts vary in strength.

Question 107

What does the term ‘working self-concept’ refer to?

Answer 107

The subset of self-knowledge that is the current focus of awareness

This is created moment to moment.

Question 108

What is situational activation in relation to self-concept?

Answer 108

Different situations can activate different pieces of self-knowledge, creating different working self-concepts.

Question 109

Define ‘spreading activation’ in the context of self-concept.

Answer 109

When a specific self-aspect is activated, other self-aspects that are linked with it are also activated. More strongly linked nodes are more easily activated.

Question 110

What determines the accessibility of the working self-concept?

Answer 110

Accessibility is determined by:
* Distinctiveness in a situation (situational activation, recency effect, what comes to mind)
* Relevance to the situation/activity (situational activation and recency effect); being detail-oriented at an interview, but not at a party
* Frequency of activation; very important self-aspects are ones we engage in often so are likely to ocme to mind regardless of the situation

Question 111

What is the distinctiveness theory?

Answer 111

A person’s unique, distinctive characteristics are more salient to them than characteristics they share with others. This is an automatic process, we naturally think of things that make us distinct.

Question 112

What does the study involving 6th graders reveal about self-description?

Answer 112

• Students with distinctive features mentioned these more often than those with more typical features.
• Situational context onfluences what comes to mind when describing yourself (what makes you distinctive in this particular situation)
• Foreign-born kids were more likely to mention this in their description, older/younger, eye colour, over/underweight, white kids less likely to mention race because they’re in the majority

Question 113

Implications of the working self-concept

Answer 113

• It explains why we behave differently in different situations
• self-concept is malleable and dependent on context
• non-central self-aspects can enter the working self-concept
• allows for contradictory self-aspects to simultaneously exist because we’re different in different contexts

Question 114

Describe the study manipulating working self-concept

Answer 114

• study presented as aiming to validate a new questionnaire to reveal elements of personality
• experimentally manipulated working self-concept (extroversion: what would you do to liven things up at a party / introversion: what don’t you like about parties)
• In the extrovert condition, participants described themselves and acted more extroverted when interacting with a confederate
• so working self-concept depends on situational activation and influences behaviour

Question 115

Is there a ‘true self’?

Answer 115

• We have some sense that we have a core/not radically different in various situations
• also have the sense that the true self is somehow different than what we present to the world

Question 116

List elements common to theories about the true self.

Answer 116

• Natural endowment: already born with a true self (like potential to be fulfilled)
• Feels authentic: actions are consistent with internal states (thoughts, feelings, desires) that are subjectively experienced as one’s own
• People want to be true to themselves: living in accordance with true self = fulfillment
• Competes with external influences: true self leads one way and environmental influences lead another so it’s difficult to follow our true selves

Question 117

Study: do people believe in a true self and use it as a guide to make decisions?

Answer 117

• method: rating each factor when it comes to making decisions (true self, ideal self, past self, future self, actual self, ought self, info from others, rational processing, intuition, religion, supernatural)
• Ps rated the true self as most important for making decisions (but not significantly different from future self or rational processing)
• method: Ps had to describe true or actual self and how easy this was (true = who you really are, actual = in everyday life) and satisfaction with recent decisions
• subject ease was associated with decision satisfaction in the true self condition, but not the actual self condition (when people had difficulty accessing their true selves, they were less satisfied with their decisions)
• actual self group not significant, maybe because actual selves may/may not be in line with true selves

Question 118

What are the implications of a ‘true self’?

Answer 118

• this idea resonates with people
• but natural endowment isn’t provable (baby potential)
• self-beliefs are inaccurate (our self-concepts are distorted; better-than-average, etc.)
• true self seems to be more about what is ‘good’ and social desirability rather than about one’s unique characteristics

Question 119

study: when do people feel most authentic?

Answer 119

• Ps rated themselves on trait Big Five (OCEAN) and participated in small-group sessions (playing games), and rated on state Big Five and authenticity
• Authenticity was positively associated with extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability regardless of trait Big Five personality
• so people felt more authentic when behaving in socially desirable ways, rather than in line with their unique characteristics
• people assume that others are acting in line with their true selves when they’re being morally good, and are more likely to ascribe good traits to someone’s true self

Question 120

Define ‘desired reputation’ in the context of true self.

Answer 120

• What is valued by society (ideals) plus what distinctive role one’s own abilities and traits are best suited to.
• society values social skills, but the way each individual accomplishes that will be different
• using our strengths to accomplish societal ideals

Question 121

Why do people act differently in various situations according to the concept of desired reputation?

Answer 121

Slightly different desired reputations exist at school versus with family/friends.
* but these aren’t drastically different from each other

Question 122

What is the self-concept?

Answer 122

A cognitive representation of the knowledge and beliefs we have abour ourselves, including personality traits, abilities, social roles, values, goals/desires, physical characteristics, everything a person claims as “me” or “mine”. This shapes how we think and behave and is a cognitive representation. This is most similar to James’ concept of “Me”

Question 123

What is self-complexity?

Answer 123

• Number of self-aspects and the degree to which these self-aspects are distinct from each other
• Not about the content of the self-concept, but about its organization

Question 124

What characterizes high self-complexity?

Answer 124

Many self-aspects that are relatively distinct from each other

Question 125

What characterizes low self-complexity?

Answer 125

Few self-aspects with a high degree of overlap with each other

Question 126

What is affective spillover?

Answer 126

• Emotions associated with one self-aspect spill over to other self-aspects because of links between self-aspects and spreading activation

Question 127

How does self-complexity affect emotional spillover?

Answer 127

Low self-complexity leads to greater emotional spillover because self-aspects are intricately linked

Question 128

Implications of self-complexity

Answer 128

• affective spillover
• affect extremity
• self-complexity as a stress buffer

Question 129

Affect extremity and self-complexity, study: how does self-complexity affect the relationship between failure and emotional reactions

Answer 129

• low self-complexity = greater spillover = more extreme reactions and changes in self-esteem in response to positive and negative events
• high self-complexity = less spillover = less extreme reactions
• self-complexity measured via trait sort, then Ps given bogus success/failure feedback on a task, then rated state mood and self-esteem
• low self-complexity Ps in the failure condition = lower mood and self-esteem than in success
• high self-complexity Ps didn’t differ on mood or self-esteem in the conditions

Question 130

study: is low self-complexity also associated with more variation in mood over time?

Answer 130

• field study to look at mood swings over 2 weeks
• low self-complexity is associated with greater variation in emotion ratings over time (more fluctuations in mood)

Question 131

How does self-complexity act as a stress buffer?

Answer 131

• High self-complexity may protect against negative consequences of stressful life events
• may explain why some people are more resilient to stress

Question 132

study: does high self-complexity protect against the negative health effects of stress

Answer 132

• trait sort, stressful life events, negative health consequences measured at baseline and 2 weeks later
• High self-complexity was associated with less depression, less perceived stress, and fewer physical symptoms of illness despite having the same number of stressful life events

Question 133

Review regarding self-complexity and stress buffering

Answer 133

• 7 studies supporting the buffering effect, 4 found the reverse, others showed no effect (mixed findings)
• well-being measure as a DV: positive effects of self-complexity on mood and emotional stability, but mixed effects on depression or self-esteem
• the number of self-aspects is positively related to well-being (more is better) but the degree of overlap between aspects has no effect
• integration of self-aspects also matters; clear and coherent sense of self is important if you have high self-complexity

Question 134

What is self-concept clarity (SCC)?

Answer 134

• Extent to which the contents of self-concepts are clearly defined, consistent with each other, and stable over time
• high SCC = sense that you know who you are as a person
• unrelated to self-complexity, but also about the organization of the self-concept (you can be high in self-complexity and low in SCC or vice versa)

Question 135

What is associated with high self-concept clarity?

Answer 135

• More emotional stability
• Less rumination about the self
• Less loneliness
• Lower feelings of depression and perceived stress
• Higher self-esteem
• Higher perception of meaning in life
• Higher general life satisfaction

Question 136

study: SCC during the pandemic

Answer 136

• High SCC individuals experienced fewer negative emotions than low SCC individuals at the start of the pandemic
• high SCC may facilitate more adaptive responses during uncertainty
• high SCC reporting less negative emotions than low (better coping)
• external uncertainty = using internal certainty as a source of clarity?

Question 137

What factors influence self-concept clarity?

Answer 137

• Age: SCC is lowest in early twenties, clear around middle age, dips in 60s
• Social role transitions: degrees, jobs, families, relationships, hobbies (after middle age = more confusing events)

Question 138

study: SCC and role transitions

Answer 138

• collected writing samples from an online forum for new parents and analyzed them for degree of self-concept confusion (more confusion = lower SCC), amount of self-concept change (changing perception of who you are), and positivity of self-change (do you feel good about your role transition)
• SCC depends on the amount of self-change AND how positively you feel about that change (those who felt positively = amount of self-change didn’t affect confusion, but for those with mixed feelings = more self-change led to more confusion/lower SCC)
• this pattern is present in newlyweds, new parents, newly divorced

Question 139

Intrapersonal sources of self-knowledge

Answer 139

• self-perception: observing overt behaviour
• introspection: looking toward our internal states

Question 140

What is the implication of role transitions on SCC?

Answer 140

• Role transitions are only one factor affecting SCC
• Role transitions predict lower SCC if the person feels negatively about the changes

Question 141

What is self-perception?

Answer 141

• Observing our overt behaviours and using these observations to infer what we’re like
• drawing conclusions based on observing our past behaviour

Question 142

What is introspection?

Answer 142

Directing attention inwards to internal states (thoughts and feelings) to draw conclusions about oneself

It involves self-awareness.

Question 143

Which is prioritized more for self-knowledge: internal states or behaviour?

Answer 143

• Prioritization of internal states: people report knowing their internal states is better for understanding what they’re really like compared to knowing their behaviour or interviewing close ones
• just having access to thoughts and feelings for one day is thought of as more informative that observing behaviour or talking to friends and family for several months

Question 144

study: how does access to internal states vs. behaviour shape others’ impressions

Answer 144

• 60 participants listened to interviews with strangers describing themselves and rated them on a personality measure
• 3 conditions: -cognitive/affective (interviewee describing past thoughts/feelings), behavioural (interviewee describing past behaviour), control (interviewee describing mix of internal states and behaviours)
• interviewees rated themselves on the same personality measure so that a more accurate impression = higher correlation between interviewee’s own self-rating and participant’s rating
• Cognitive/affective interviews produced higher correlation with self-ratings than behavioural interviews
• the control condition actually got more information about the interviewee, but had a lower correlation with ratings, suggesting that the behavioural information is distracting somehow
• so knowing thoughts and feelings is most useful for knowing someone well

Question 145

Implications of intrapersonal sources of self-knowledge

Answer 145

• prioritization of introspection: actions can be influenced by external factors, making thoughts and feelings more revealing of the inner self (the same behaviour can be interpreted in many ways, depending on internal states)
• self-perception may be more useful for forming self-knowledge when people are unclear about their internal states (observing behaviour as a clue)
• assumption that introspection is a useful source of self-knowledge is shared by much of psychology research which relies on self-report

The same behaviour can be interpreted differently depending on internal states.

Question 146

study: are people aware of what impacts their mood?

Answer 146

• daily diary study of undergrads for 5 weeks (early evening rated—overall mood and possible predictors of mood like weather, relationships, workload, sleep, exercise)
• participants estimated the relationship between their mood and each predictor (how did sleep affect your mood?)
• 22 additional observers reported on what they thought the average relationship is between mood and each predictor
• researchers calculated the actual correlation between mood and each predictor (and then compraed these to the participants’ ratings and the observers’ ratings)
• average participant accuracy correlation = 0.42, average observer accuracy correlation = 0.46
• so people were fairly accurate at judging predictors, but no more accurate than an observer, suggesting that people were relying on shared theories about predictors of mood
• so people on’t have a genuine understanding of why they think and feel the way they do
• introspection may be useful for describing internal states, but not for explaining why we have these in the first place

Question 147

What does social comparison involve?

Answer 147

• Comparing ourselves with others to form conclusions about our relative standing on attributes and abilities (we tend to do this automatically)
• you can only conclude that you’re introverted by comparing yourself to others on introversion (introspection AND self-perception rely on comparison)
• direction of comparison influences self-esteem (upward = comparing to those that are better = decrease in self-esteem, downward = comparing to those that are worse = increase in self-esteem)

Question 148

symbolic interactionism

Answer 148

• the self-concept depends on our social interactions—no self without others
• the social world accounts for a majority of our self-knowledge

Question 149

Looking glass self as an interpersonal source of self-knowledge

Answer 149

• we infer how others view us using their direct feedback and their behaviours toward us
• cyclical process to shape our self-concept: observe reactions to us = infer their perceptions = internalize their perception into our self-concept = self-concept guides behaviour
• but research hasn’t found a consistent relationship between self-reports and observer reports on personality and behaviour
• but we find a strong positive relationship between people’s self-reports of their own personality and how they think they are perceived by others (especially for people that are important to us)

Question 150

What does social identity theory state?

Answer 150

• We place ourselves and others into social groups, shaping our self-concepts
• race, ethnicity, gender, major in university
• self-stereotyping: we take on and conform to the shared identity of a social group in order to be accepted as part of that group by others (we’re more likely to do this with groups that are important to us)

Major factors include race, ethnicity, and gender.

Question 151

Evidence for social identity theory

Answer 151

• Liberal Arts and Engineering majors rated ingroup and outgroup on 90 traits
• Me-not-me reaction time for traits as self-descriptive
• faster RTs for traits on which a person sees themselves as matching the ingroup than for traits in which there is a mismatch (conflict when traits for self and group are dissimilar)
• suggests that perception of self is linked with perception of ingroup
• group membership is also often defined in contrast to outgroups (trying to not be like an outgroup so you reject those traits)

Question 152

What determines self-description/behaviour in a social identity?

Answer 152

• Expectations/standards for that identity
• people’s unique strengths/preferences
• means that people don’t just rigidly adhere to an identity, but figure out how to make it their own (not only what is desirable, but what is unique about you)

Question 153

What happens when individuals incorporate close others into their self-concept?

Answer 153

• They take on the characteristics and perspectives of those close to them (usually hobbies and interests)

This can lead to confusion between one’s own traits and those of the partner.

Question 154

Determinants of self-concept change

Answer 154

• Changes to point of comparison: what are we comparing ourselves to will change our self-concept (not adventurous in comparison to family, but very adventurous in comparison to new friends)
• Social role changes: gains and losses of social roles trigger changes to self-concept (initially a period of self-concept confusion (low SCC) if lots of change and mixed feelings about it)
• Changing the looking-glass self: people can purposely initiate a change in their self-concept if they believe they are perceived by others in an undesirable way (focus is on changing perception of self by behaving differently until you think that others see the self in the desired way), desired reputation as the most important and authentic self
• Changes to close ones: since self-concept is partially a result of who we’re close to, this means that the self-concept will change when we become closer to new people

This is in relation to interpersonal sources of self-knowledge.

Question 155

study: do people confuse their partner’s traits for their own

Answer 155

• married graduate students rated traits for how descriptive they are of self and spouse + me-not-me task
• greater self-other confusion indicated by longer RTs for traits that are different between self and spouse (because you have to think whether this familiar trait is for you or for your partner) + more errors for traits that are different between self and spouse (confusion about what belongs to you and what belongs to your partner)
• participants were slower and made more mistakes on traits that differed between self and spouse (for both me and not-me judgments)
• suggests that close others and their characteristics become incorporated into the self-concept

Question 156

Interpersonal sources of self-knowledge

Answer 156

• Social comparison
• Looking-glass self
• Social groups we belong to
• Including close others in the self

Question 157

What is culture?

Answer 157

Culture is a loosely integrated system of ideas, practices, and social institutions that enable coordination of behavior in a population. It is not necessarily tied to ethnic or racial identities.

Question 158

What are key features of individualistic cultures?

Answer 158

• Common in Western countries
• Prioritize individual self-interest and self-expression
• Behavior driven by internal states (thoughts, feelings, desires)
• Foster an independent self-concept (focus on uniqueness and personal identity)
• Ingroup/outgroup boundaries are fluid because people are individuals so can easily move from ingroup to outgroup

Question 159

What are key features of collectivistic cultures?

Answer 159

• Common in East Asian countries
• Prioritize group harmony over self-interest
• Behavior driven by external factors (duties, norms, expectations)
• Foster an interdependent self-concept (focus on relationships and social roles)
• Clear ingroup/outgroup boundaries because the self is interrelated with people in the ingroup, so it’s clear who isn’t part of it

Question 160

How does culture shape self-concept?

Answer 160

• Culture provides a guide for what is “normal” and how to be a person
• This guidance is internalized and shapes self-identity
• Institutions (government, schools, family) transmit cultural values
• formative way of learning how to be a good person is in interactions (like with parents, and this can be very subtle and starts very young)

Question 161

How do parenting styles differ between individualistic and collectivistic cultures?

Answer 161

Individualistic cultures: Encourage independence (self-soothing, sleeping alone, emotional self-expression)
Collectivistic cultures: Encourage obedience and respect (co-sleeping, directive conversations, praising obedience)

Question 162

How does historical subsistence affect culture?

Answer 162

Farming cultures = interdependent (cooperation needed for harvest)
Herding/fishing cultures = independent (self-reliance, less negotiation)

Question 163

How does cognition differ between individualistic and collectivistic cultures?

Answer 163

Individualistic cultures: Analytical thinking (focus on objects, categorization, logic), focus on category
Collectivistic cultures: Holistic thinking (focus on relationships, patterns, context), focus on relationship

Question 164

How do causal attributions differ across cultures?

Answer 164

Americans: More likely to attribute events to individual responsibility
Japanese: More likely to attribute events to situational or collective responsibility

Question 165

How do emotions differ in individualistic vs. collectivistic cultures?

Answer 165

• Western cultures: More emotionally expressive, value maximizing positive experiences and minimizing negative experiences, emphasis on socially disengaging emotions (ones that focus on self and distinctiveness like pride, feeling superior, frustration, self-esteem) and that these are more important for happiness
• East Asian cultures: Emotionally restrained, value a balance of positive and negative emotional states, emphasis on socially engaging emotions (ones that relate to fitting in and connecting with others like wanting to feel closer, respect for others, guilt, shame) and that these are more important for happiness

Question 166

What are some cultural variations in collectivism?

Answer 166

• most research compares North Americans to East Asians and assumes that conclusions about individualism or collectivism can be extended to other countries
• Latin America: Collectivism expressed through emotional expressiveness which fosters communication (rather than valuing emotional restraint)
• Arab cultures: Assertive interdependence (self-assertion supports group needs), promoting interdependence and group needs through self-assertion ( in US, self-assertion is a way of getting your needs met vs. in East Asian where self-effacing is more common and self-assertion is seen as hindering ingroup harmony)

Question 167

What is a multicultural identity?

Answer 167

A sense of belonging to two or more cultural groups, often experienced by immigrants, ethnic minorities, and Indigenous peoples

Question 168

What is acculturation?

Answer 168

• The process of learning and adapting to a new culture while maintaining aspects of one’s heritage culture.
• over time, the more exposure to the dominant culture, the person’s identity gets pulled toward that dominant culture (this happens on a psychological level like with emotional expression)

Question 169

How does emotional acculturation occur?

Answer 169

• Over time, exposure to a dominant culture changes an individual’s emotional experiences and expressions to align with that culture.
• The more time immigrant women spent in the States, the more their emotional experiences and expression matched the States (being more expressive)

Question 170

What is cultural frame switching?

Answer 170

• Multicultural individuals shift cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses depending on the cultural context.
• response depends on which cultural identity is activated by the situation/context

Question 171

Acculturation strategies

Answer 171

• To what extent do people maintain their heritage identity (low-high) + to what extent do people take on their new cultural identity (low-high)
• Assimilation: Adopting the new culture, abandoning the heritage culture
• Separation: Maintaining heritage culture, avoiding the new culture
• Integration: Participating in both cultures (most adaptive)
• Marginalization: Rejecting both cultures (least adaptive)
• the strategy a person adopts isn’t necessarily conscious
• depends on whether they’re encouraged to hang onto heritage identity by larger society and/or family (learning language and foods? immigration policies?)
• how much exposure do they have to the mainstream culture (learning the language? which neighbourhood do they live?)
• how similar is the heritage identity to the mainstream identity (moving from collectivistic to individualistic vs. germany to canada)

Question 172

How do acculturation strategies affect well-being?

Answer 172

Integration = best psychological & sociocultural adaptation
Marginalization = worst adaptation
Separation = better psychological health than assimilation
Integration > separation > assimilation > marginalization

Question 173

Individualism worldwide

Answer 173

• Individualism is rising in most countries due to socioeconomic development (study of 78 countries over 51 years)
• more likely to live alone, less likely to personally care for elderly relatives, less emphasis on family (more emphasis on friends), increased importance of teaching children independence, increased preference for self-expression
• socioeconomic development was the biggest predictor of increased individualism (mediator of the relationship between time and individualism)
• exception is China: increased socioeconomic development, but a decrease in individualistic values

Question 174

Besides nationality, what other factors influence individualism vs. collectivism?

Answer 174

Individualism: West, Global North, men, high SES, businesses, liberal religious groups, coastal regions
Collectivism: East, Global South, women, low SES, governments, conservative religious groups, heartlands
Social orientation will depend on a person’s mix of cultures and what is salient in a given context

Question 175

Study: culture and causal attributions

Answer 175

• Researchers analyzed American and Japanese newspaper articles on “rogue trader” scandals.
• They counted how often responsibility was attributed to the individual (dispositional) vs. the organization (situational)
• American newspapers made more attributions to the individual and Japanese newspapers made more attributions to organizations (even if they were talking about the same scandal)

Question 176

What is the implication of the causal attribution study?

Answer 176

People from individualistic cultures focus on personal responsibility.
People from collectivistic cultures focus on situational or group responsibility.
Even when covering the same event, cultural perspectives shape interpretations.

Question 177

Study: Rod and Frame test

Answer 177

• Participants had to determine when a line inside a tilted frame was truly vertical.
• The test measured field dependence (perceiving based on context) vs. field independence (perceiving without influence from context).
• East Asians (collectivistic) were more field-dependent (influenced by surrounding context).
• Westerners (individualistic) were more field-independent (focused on the object itself).

Question 178

What is the implication of the Rod and Frame Test?

Answer 178

Cultural differences influence how people perceive and process information.
Collectivistic cultures emphasize context and relationships.
Individualistic cultures emphasize individual stimuli

Question 179

Study: Emotional suppression and well-being

Answer 179

• Researchers examined whether suppressing emotions led to worse mental health.
• greater emotional suppression was related to poorer psychological functioning only for European Americans, but not Hong Kong Chinese
• more suppression = more depression and less life satisfaction ONLY for European Americans
• more suppression = same depression and same satisfaction for Hong Kong Chinese
• Hong Kong Chinese are reporting more depression and less life satisfaction (group-level baseline differences), perhaps due to measurement bias OR:
• in Western countries, we expect ourselves to be happy and to experience pleasant emotions, so as soon as we experience something negative we catastrophize (vs. East Asian countries, there may be more acceptance of things not being great all the time)

Question 180

Implications of cultural differences

Answer 180

• field of psychology has found these psychological differences based on culture, but most research focused on WEIRD populations
• but only 15% of the world’s population is WEIRD
• most research compares North Americans to East Asians and assumes that conclusions about individualism or collectivism can be extended to other countries (but it’s likely that these look different in different cultures)

Question 181

study: individualism/collectivism across cultures? (Salvador et al.)

Answer 181

• Compared European Americans, Colombians, and Japanese on cognition, attributions, and emotion experience.
• Field dependence: US < Colombia < Japan.
• Attributions: Americans = more dispositional, Japanese = more situational, Colombians = in between.
• Japanese: More socially engaging emotions.
• Americans: Balanced between socially engaging and disengaging.
• Colombians: Express more socially engaging emotions than disengaging, but are overall more expressive than Japanese (about equivalent to Americans).

Question 182

Assertive interdependence in Arab culture

Answer 182

• still collectivistic, but expressed differently
• promoting interdependence through self-assertion
• in US, self-assertion is a way of getting your needs met vs. in East Asian where self-effacing is more common and self-assertion is seen as hindering ingroup harmony
• Arab culture where self-assertion is a way of promoting group needs

Question 183

Study: Assertive interdependence in Arab culture

Answer 183

• Compared European Americans, Saudis, Lebanese, and Japanese on cognition and self-assertion.
• Arabs showed holistic cognition similar to Japanese (way more than US)
• Arabs shows similar self-assertion to Americans (significantly more than Japanese)

Question 184

Study: Emotional experience in independent cultures

Answer 184

• examined differences in reaction to grief (imagined reactions to a close friend losing a loved one) in US and in Germany
• US showed desire to avoid negative emotions (not acknowledging the negative, trying to put a positive spin on it)
• differences in how sympathy was expressed: US more likely to send card that focuses on positive (beautiful life, celebrate, etc.), Germans more likely to acknowledge the negative with their card (have black backgrounds; a severe loss, condolences, take time to grieve)

Question 185

Implications of independence vs. interdependence differences in different countries

Answer 185

• independence vs. interdependence looks different in different cultures (we can’t just study North America and East Asia)
• emotional restraint and conformity to achieve interdependence in East Asia
• expressive interdependence in Latin America
• assertive interdependence in Arab cultures

Question 186

Study: generational emotional acculturation

Answer 186

• Compared Turkish people in Turkey, first/second-gen Turkish immigrants in Belgium, and Belgians.
• Measured how much their emotions aligned with Belgian norms.
• More exposure to Belgian culture = more emotional acculturation.
• Second-gen Turkish immigrants were indistinguishable from Belgians.
• Turkish majority in Turkey had the least emotional similarity to Belgians.
• evidence of emotional acculturation from one generation to the next (the more contact with the culture = the more they adapt themselves to that dominant culture)

Question 187

What is the implication of the generational emotional acculturation study?

Answer 187

• Cultural exposure gradually shifts emotional experience and makaes people more psychologically similar to majority culture
• Heritage identity may fade over generations.

Question 188

Study: cultural fram switching *Turks and Belgians

Answer 188

• same Turkish and Belgian study, examined 2nd gen emotional experience only
• work/school emotions more consistent with characteristic belgian pattern (home emotions fit characteristic belgian AND turkish patterns equally well)
• suggests that multicultural individuals flexibly shift behaviour to fit the more salient culture according to the situation

Question 189

Study: do multicultural individuals engage in cultural frame-switching in their self-descriptions?

Answer 189

• european-canadian and chinese born students in canada wrote open-ended self-description
• coded for references to other people and collective self-statements (’making my family proud’ ‘support my family’), questionnaire for endorsement of chinese cultural views
• experimental manipulation for chinese students: study done in english or chinese (where language acts as a cultural prime)
• Chinese doing the study in chinese: endorse more chinese views than euro-canadians
• chinese doing the study in english primes a more canadian/individualistic set of value so are somewhere in the middle
• chinese doing the study in chinese = more references to others and more collective statements than euro-canadians
• chinese doing the study in english = somewhere in the middle again

Question 190

What is the implication of the cultural frame switching study?

Answer 190

• even though multicultural individuals undergo acculturation, their heritage cultural identity and mainstream cultural identity can co-exist
• can flexibly shift between cultural selves depending on which is most salient
• this is an example of the working self-concept

Question 191

Study: multicultural identity and well-being

Answer 191

• Studied immigrant youth from 26 backgrounds in 13 countries, assessed multicultural identity strategy
• Assessed psychological adaptation (mental health, self-esteem) & sociocultural adaptation (school behavior, crime).
• integration was most common (the other 3 were very similar, and integration wasn’t a large majority)
• integration strategy more common the longer a person lives in the mainstream/new culture (acculturation)
• integration associated with best psychological and sociocultural adaptation
• marginalization associated with the worst adaptation
• separation associated with better psychological adjustment than assimilation, but both had similar sociocultural adaptation

Question 192

What did the study on multicultural youth and psychological well-being find?

Answer 192

Youth who retained their cultural heritage had better mental health than those who fully assimilated.
Integration (balancing both cultures) was the most adaptive strategy, but separation was better than full assimilation.

Question 193

What are the implications of the study on separation vs. assimilation?

Answer 193

People are more psychologically resilient when they maintain their heritage culture.
Forcing assimilation can lead to identity struggles and worse psychological adjustment.
Multicultural individuals thrive when they balance both cultures rather than abandoning one.

Question 194

What are the three main self-evaluation motivations?

Answer 194

• Self-assessment – Motivation to see oneself accurately.
• Self-enhancement – Motivation to see oneself positively.
• Self-verification – Motivation to confirm one’s existing self-concept.

Question 195

What is self-assessment?

Answer 195

• The motivation to seek objective, accurate self-knowledge.
• leads people to seek objective feedback about abilities, characteristics in order to reduce uncertainty about the self-concept
• pragmatic because it helps reduce uncertainty and set realistic goals.

Question 196

What is self-enhancement?

Answer 196

• The motivation to maximize positive self-views and boost self-esteem.
• Leads people to seek information that is flattering, even if unrealistic.
• Guides people toward situations where they can excel and feel competent

Question 197

When self-assessment and self-enhancement conflict, which one wins?

Answer 197

• Self-enhancement dominates – people prefer positive self-information over accurate self-information.
• Leads to illusory beliefs about the self.

Question 198

What is the triad of illusions?

Answer 198

1. Overly positive self-evaluations – Thinking we are better than we really are.
2. Illusions of control – Believing we have more control than we actually do.
3. Unrealistic optimism – Believing the future will be better than is statistically likely

Question 199

What are some overly positive self-evaluations?

Answer 199

• People describe themselves with more positive traits than negative traits.
• Forget negative feedback but remember positive feedback.
• Remember successes more easily than failures.
• Engage in downward social comparisons more than upward social comparisons.
• Self-serving attributional bias: Taking credit for successes, blaming failures on external factors
• We see our talents as unique, but our weaknesses as common
• the above are indirect sources of evidence (maybe they aren’t illusions, but are actually true)

Question 200

What is the better-than-average effect?

Answer 200

• Most people rate themselves as above average in abilities, which is statistically impossible.
• the more desirable a trait, the more people see themselves as better than average on this trait (r = .77)
• the more desirable a trait, the more likely people see this trait as descriptive of themselves (r = .92)
• the above are very strong effects (especially in psychology)
• a person may indeed be above average in a certain category, but on a group level, it’s impossible for everyone to be above average

Question 201

What traits do people most strongly self-enhance on?

Answer 201

People rate themselves as better than average in intelligence, attractiveness, reliability, kindness, wisdom, etc.
The more desirable a trait, the stronger the self-enhancement bias.

Question 202

Other than the better-than-average effect, what is another piece of direct evidence for illusory overly positive self-evaluations?

Answer 202

• we rate ourselves better than objectively warranted
• people consistently overestimate their ability in various domains, especially those that are below average in a domain
• in tests of logical reasoning, grammar, humour, people estimating their ability (perceived test score) = everyone thinks they’re between the 50-70th percentile regardless of their actual test score
• the people who were in the lower quartiles were more mistaken (really overestimating their abilities), but the people who were actually good on the test were more or less accurate

Question 203

Is self-enhancement universal?

Answer 203

• More consistent with individualistic cultures (Western societies) because of uniqueness and self-assertion values
• Less consistent with collectivistic values so may be less evident (East Asian societies)
• But this is a fundamental need so may just look different in different cultures

Question 204

Study: American and Japanese self-enhancement

Answer 204

• American and Japanese students rated how well individualistic traits (free, unique, leader) and collectivistic traits (agreeable, cooperative, loyal) described them compared to a typical cultural group member
• Americans self-enhanced more on individualistic traits (independent, leader).
• Japanese self-enhanced more on collectivistic traits (loyal, cooperative).
• and everyone self-enhanced for all the traits regardless of whether they’re collectivistic or individualistic

Question 205

Self-esteem in American and Japanese samples

Answer 205

• Western samples report higher self-esteem (positively skewed curve) than Japanese samples (normal distribution)
• so maybe this self-esteem phenomenon is contained to individualistic cultures
• acculturation effect: the more exposure Japanese sample had to North American Culture, the higher they rated self-esteem (3rd gen Asian-Canadians were identical to Euro-Canadians)

Question 206

What is the unrealistic optimism bias?

Answer 206

• People believe bad things are less likely to happen to them and good things are more likely.
• illusory because, on a group level, not everyone can have a bright future
• Less likely: Car accidents, crime, illness, divorce.
• More likely: High salary, to have a gifted child, live a long life
• smokers underestimate their risk of lung cancer compared to non-smokers but also compared to the average smoker (even people smoking a lot underestimate risk)

Question 207

What are some examples of unrealistic optimism?

Answer 207

Less likely: Car accidents, crime, illness, divorce.
More likely: High salary, gifted child, long life

Question 208

study: can the unrealistic optimism bias be eliminated when confronted with their own risk factors for a health problem

Answer 208

• undergrads reflected on their risk of developing a drinking problem
• risk-increasing condition: list the risk factors that you possess that increase your chances of developing a drinking problem
• control: did not list their own risk factors (no self-identification)
• rated their own risk of developing a drinking problem vs. average college students
• Even after listing risk factors, students still believed they were less likely than peers to develop a drinking problem.
• everyone is just as optimistic about their futures (control equivalent to risk-increasing)

Question 209

Study: do individual differences in self-esteem, beliefs about control, and optimism about the future predict adjustment to college

Answer 209

• Assessed positive illusions (self-esteem, personal control, optimism) and outcomes: psychological adjustment (mood and perceived stress) and productive work (GPA)
• examining mechanisms: coping strategies, social support, motivation
• Higher self-esteem = higher motivation = higher GPA
• Higher self-esteem and optimism → better coping = better psychological adjustment.

Question 210

Study: adaptive vs. maladaptive consequences of unrealistic optimism

Answer 210

• recruited HIV+ and HIV- men, measured AIDS-specific optimism (I feel safe from AIDS because I’ve developed an immunity)
• the HIV- people should be more optimistic than HIV+ people (HIV+ should be more realistic about them dying soon)
• HIV+ men showed more AIDS-specific optimism than HIV- men, and this optimism was associated with higher perceived control, more active coping, more healthy behaviours
• follow-up study in men who didn’t know their HIV status showed no differences in AIDS-specific optimism between HIV+ and HIV- groups
• this unrealistic optimism is an adaptive response and doesn’t compromise health behaviour

Question 211

Study: AIDS unrealistic optimism

Answer 211

• recruited men diagnosed with AIDS for 1 year
• assessed realistic acceptance (not unrealistic optimism) of their diagnosis to see how it affected outcome
• estimated survival time 9 months shorter for individuals showing a high degree of acceptance (optimism was associated was longer life)

Question 212

How can we explain the (lack of) correlation between self-concept and how others see us?

Answer 212

• Others rarely provide full, honest feedback (it’s often ambiguous, so we need to interpret this feedback, or it’s contradictory)
• We often dismiss or rationalize away negative feedback
• healthy that we don’t incorporate all feedback because this would lead us to constantly change our self-concept and this would be confusing
• implication: self-concept is shaped by how we think others see us, not how they actually see us

Question 213

Self-enhancement strategies

Answer 213

• self-advancement: increasing how positively you see yourself (overly positive self-evaluations)
• self-protection: limiting how negatively you see yourself by avoiding or deflecting threats to self-esteem (self-serving attributional bias, avoiding situations that could lead to failure, downplaying the importance of negative events, self-handicapping)

Question 214

how does self-enhancement depend on self-esteem

Answer 214

• self-enhancement is universal, but the strategies we use look different based on self-esteem
• high self-esteem = more likely to use self-advancement strategies
• low self-esteem = more likely to use self-protection strategies (because self-esteem feels fragile, so we need to protect it)

Question 215

illusions of control

Answer 215

• the idea that we have control over our lives (agency, autonomy) is central to most theories of self-esteem and well-being
• people believe they have more control over outcome of dice if they’re allowed to throw them than if someone else throws them (or choosing their own lottery tickets)
• taking the “free will is an illusion” philosophy to the extreme

Question 216

“free will is an illusion” neuroscience

Answer 216

• participant told to press a button when they feel like it, to report when they feel the ‘urge’ to press the button (the conscious decision to press the button)
• neurons in motor area begin firing 1500ms before the decision to move
• based on neural firing in motor area, able to predict a person’s decision to move with 80% accuracy 700ms before they were consciously aware of deciding to move
• suggests that decisions to move are not made consciously even though it feels that way

Question 217

Is the unrealistic optimism bias adaptive?

Answer 217

• illusions appear to positively impact our adjustment to life and challenging major life events
• adaptive and pervasive
• when informed of illusions and biases, people think they are less prone to them—this is self-enhancing (we think we’re less susceptible than the average, but on a group level, that’s impossible)

Question 218

What are two possible explanations for positively biased self-perceptions?

Answer 218

• Cognitive bias in self-perception:
• Overly charitable view of self: We see ourselves as superior to others.
• Overly cynical view of others: We see others as inferior, while our own self-assessment is accurate.

Question 219

What is the holier-than-thou effect?

Answer 219

• People believe they are more moral and kind than others.
• It is a specific application of the better-than-average effect to moral behavior.
• across 4 studies, people overestimate the likelihood that they would choose the kinder action by an average of 32% (but only by 4% for others)
• means that seeing self as uniquely kind is due to having overly favourable views of self and not due to being overly cynical about others

Question 220

Study: Holier-than-thou daffodils

Answer 220

• Participants predicted how many daffodils they and their peers would buy for charity.
• Predictions: 83% said they would buy at least one flower. 56% predicted their peers would buy at least one flower. They predicted buying 2 flowers on average, and their peers 1.5 flowers.
• Actual behavior: Only 43% bought a flower.
• Predictions for peers were more accurate than predictions for self.
• suggests that the holier-than-thou effect is due to error in judgments about self, not in judgments about others

Question 221

What are the two types of information we use to predict behavior?

Answer 221

1. Case-based information (specific to an individual case): Used when making predictions about ourselves.
   * Leads to biased predictions because it ignores statistical trends.
2. Distributional/Base-rate information (distributional trends): Used when making predictions about others.
   * More accurate, but not used for self-predictions (maybe because the ‘average person’ is an abstract concept so we lack case-based info)

Question 222

base rate fallacy

Answer 222

• we tend to assign greater value to case-based info and often ignore distributional info

Question 223

Study: do we use case-based info to predict own behaviour and base-rate info to predit others’ behaviour?

Answer 223

• Participants received $5 and received info about charities, then asked about a hypothetical future study in which participants could donate compensation to charity
• After making an initial prediction, they were told what 3, 7, and 13 people had “actually” donated, then could revise their predictions
• Predictions: They expected to donate $2.75 on average. Expected peers to donate $2.25.
• When given base rate info from 3 people that the actual donations = 1.5, people didn’t change their predictions
• When given base rates for 7 people, people estimated their average peer prediction as lower (closer to 1.5), BUT didn’t update predictions for themselves
• same pattern for base rate info from 13 people
• So we prefer case-based information even when presented with base-rate and it’s only when we lack case-based information that we start using distributional information
• This study doesn’t rule out self-enhancement motive

Question 224

Study: does presence of any case-based info prompt ignoring of distributional info

Answer 224

• same as donation study, but added a third prediction
• participants were given a peer’s self-description (individuated) and asked how much she would donate
• people ignored base rate information for the individuated peer so that their predictions matched those made for themselves
• so feeling holier than thou (better than average) isn’t necessarily due to self-enhancement motivation, but base-rate fallacy
• when asked what info they used, they said personality assessment (case-based) for their own AND for the individuated peer’s predictions, but base rates for the average peers

Question 225

What is the worse-than-average effect?

Answer 225

• some better-than-average studies show that there are some domains where people tend to rate themselves as worse than others
• concentration, artistic ability, acting ability, mechanical ability
• hypothesis: anchoring bias responsible for both better and worse-than effects

Question 226

How does anchoring bias explain the worse-than-average effect?

Answer 226

• People first think about their own difficulty with a task (anchor).
• They fail to consider that others also find the task difficult.
• Easy tasks → overestimation of ability (better-than-average effect).
• Difficult tasks → underestimation of ability (worse-than-average effect)
• Our judgments of ourselves will be biased towards how we perceive our own ability in a given domain

Question 227

anchoring

Answer 227

• common human tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information that comes to mind/is offered to us (serves as the anchor) when making a decision
• subsequent decisions will be based on our initial anchor

Question 228

which domains showed the better-than or worse-than effects

Answer 228

• better: ability to get along with others, written and spoken expression, leadership
• worse: arts, sales, acting, mechanics

Question 229

study: test of ‘integrative ability’ for the anchoring effect

Answer 229

• experimental manipulation: Ps either got a very easy test or a very hard test, then rated their own ability compared with peers’ ability (0-99 percentile)
• Easy test: Participants rated themselves in the 62nd percentile.
• Hard test: Participants rated themselves in the 41st percentile.
• difficulty determined whether people saw themselves as better- or worse-than average

Question 230

Why are our self-views biased?

Answer 230

• motivational bias (self-enhancement motive)
• cognitive biases: anchoring bias and base rate fallacy

Question 231

How do positive illusions benefit people?

Answer 231

• better adjustment to college
• more adaptive coping and survival rates in HIV/AIDS patients
• higher subjective well-being
• higher achievement
• more relationship satisfaction and commitment (people are happier in relationships if they see their partner in an idealized way)
• coping with challenges

Question 232

How can self-enhancement be harmful?

Answer 232

• Excessive boasting → social alienation.
• Overconfidence → ignoring medical risks (e.g., smoking study).
• Unrealistically high goals → frequent failure and discouragement.

Question 233

What did the meta-analysis of 200 self-enhancement studies find?

Answer 233

• positive illusions about the self are good for personal adjustment (subjective well-being and less depression)
• positive illusions have mixed effects for relationships (depends on how long you know someone, ie. for strangers, self-enhancement helps make good first impressions, but no association for longer-term relationships
• self-enhancement on collectivistic traits were seen as more likeable/warm
• self-enhancement on individualistic traits (independence, power, achievement) seen as more competent, but also less likeable/warm

Question 234

What is self-verification?

Answer 234

• The motivation to confirm one’s existing self-concept, even if negative.
• Helps people feel predictability and stability in life.

Question 235

How does self-verification fulfill the epistemic need for coherence?

Answer 235

• Stable self-views provide predictability and control over experiences.
• stable sense of self guides our perceptions and behaviours, so when things happen that are consistent = things are as they should be
• Example: Leaving a religion disrupts self-views, leading to a sense of lost identity and confusion

Question 236

How does self-verification help social interactions?

Answer 236

• Stable self-views make behavior predictable, which smooths social interactions.
• Others can respond predictably, reinforcing consistent behavior.
• People prefer interacting with predictable people whose behaviors make sense.

Question 237

How do people shape their social environments to confirm self-views?

Answer 237

• Displaying identity cues (symbols, appearance, communication style).
  Example: Wearing a sports jersey signals an athletic identity.
• Selective interaction (choosing relationships that reinforce self-views).
• Interpersonal prompts (eliciting confirming feedback from others).

Question 238

Study: How do people choose social interactions that verify self-views?

Answer 238

• Participants chose an interaction partner based on how they were evaluated. (Two possible evaluators: One positive, one negative)
• High self-esteem people (75%) chose the positive evaluator.
• Low self-esteem people (80%) chose the negative evaluator.
• Implication: People prefer interactions that confirm their self-views, even if negative.

Question 239

How does self-verification influence intimate relationships?

Answer 239

• Spouses feel greater intimacy when their partner shares their self-views—even if negative.
• Roommates prefer living with people who confirm their self-concept.
• People withdraw from relationships that contradict their self-views (even if positive, ie. if spouses had overly positive evaluations)

Question 240

How do people elicit self-verifying feedback from others?

Answer 240

• Directly asking for feedback (e.g., “Do you think I’m good at solving problems?”).
• Guiding conversations to reinforce a self-view (e.g., mentioning knowledge to be seen as knowledgeable).
• Self-fulfilling prophecies (e.g., believing oneself to be socially awkward → avoiding social situations → reinforcing belief).

Question 241

What happens when people receive feedback that contradicts their self-view?

Answer 241

• Symbolic self-completion: People intensify behaviors consistent with their self-concept to compensate.
• Example: A dominant person receiving submissive feedback will become more dominant to prove their identity.

Question 242

Study: How do people respond when their self-view is challenged?

Answer 242

• Participants rated themselves as dominant or submissive.
• Interacted with a confederate who gave consistent or inconsistent feedback during a game, then judges rated their behaviour during a follow-up interaction
• If feedback contradicted their self-view, they amplified behavior consistent with their identity.
• Example: Dominant people became more dominant, submissive people became more submissive.
• Implication: People defend their self-views rather than changing them.

Question 243

Journalism Study: How do people respond when an important identity is threatened?

Answer 243

• Participants were journalism students
• Confirm condition: “You fit the ideal profile of a journalist.”
• Threat condition: “You don’t fit the ideal profile.”
• Told they would meet Debbie (attractive student) who preferred modest guys OR confident guys, then Ps had to provide a self-description for Debbie
• If identity was affirmed, students adapted to Debbie’s preference (if she liked modest, they were self-deprecating, and if she liked confident, they were more confident)
• If identity was threatened, they resisted adapting and reinforced their self-view (trying to compensate for the threat by reaffirming their journalist identity)
• Implication: People reinforce threatened identities rather than changing them.

Question 244

What cognitive biases contribute to self-verification?

Answer 244

1. Selective attention: Focusing more on feedback that confirms self-views.
2. Selective memory: Better recall for self-consistent feedback.
   * Example: Likeable people remember being called likeable. Dislikeable people remember being called dislikeable.
3. Selective interpretation: Ambiguous feedback is interpreted in line with self-views (high self-esteem interpret as more positive, low self-esteem interpret as more negative)

Question 245

Is self-verification present across cultures?

Answer 245

• Manifests differently
• Western cultures: Seek verification of global attributes (e.g., “I am intelligent”).
  East Asian cultures: Seek verification of contextualized self-views (e.g., “Person A sees me as kind, Person B sees me as reserved”).

Question 246

Why don’t people change self-views when given contradicting evidence?

Answer 246

• Self-views are very resistant to change
• Self-verification provides predictability and psychological comfort (it’s generally adaptive)
• Cognitive biases make people filter out disconfirming feedback, which also may explain why people’s self-concepts don’t align with others’ perceptions of them

Question 247

How can self-verification be both beneficial and harmful?

Answer 247

• Predictability in how we see the world.
• Stronger social connections when self-views are verified (workplace and research with spouses)
• Workplace productivity improves when colleagues validate self-views.
• Negative self-views → harmful relationships. (Abusive relationships then reinforce negative self-concepts)
• Low self-esteem can trap people in self-destructive environments

Question 248

What are the differences between self-verification, self-enhancement, and self-assessment?

Answer 248

• self-verification focus is consistency and stability = prefers feedback that confirms self-views even if negative
• self-assessment focus is accuracy = prefers objective feedback, even if it contradicts self-views
• self-enhancement focus is positivity and esteem = prefers feedback that makes the self look good, even if inaccurate

Question 249

How does the type of information affect whether people choose self-verification or self-enhancement?

Answer 249

• In most circumstances, people prefer self-enhancement
• Next, people use self-verification
• Self-assessment is only prioritized when the stakes are low or when accurate information is critical for decision-making
• Cognitive load: Under pressure, people default to self-enhancement (self-enhancement is emotional and automatic, while self-verification is controlled and cognitive)
• cognitive-affective crossfire: cognitively, people seek self-verification for a consistent self but emotionally, people seek self-enhancing feedback to boost mood and esteem (we try to avoid this, but when it happens, we choose self-verification)

Question 250

How does self-view certainty affect whether people engage in self-verification or self-enhancement?

Answer 250

Strongly held self-views reject contradicting feedback. (for less central, uncertain self-views, people are more accepting of contrasting feedback)

Question 251

How does the importance of a relationship affect whether people engage in self-verification or self-enhancement?

Answer 251

• people tend to seek more self-verifying (vs. self-enhancing) feedback in long-term relationships
• in short-term social interactions, people prefer self-enhancement
• even people with negative self-views seek more positive feedback on relationship relevant qualities (attractiveness) because we don’t want to get rejected, but we still seek self-verifying feedback on non-relationship relevant qualities like artistic abilities
  *

Question 252

What influences whether people engage in self-verification vs. self-enhancement

Answer 252

1. The kind of info that is accessible
2. Centrality of self-view
3. Importance of relationship

Question 253

Who was John Vasconcellos, and how did he influence the self-esteem movement?

Answer 253

• A California politician who met Carl Rogers and was inspired by unconditional positive regard.
• Became convinced that self-esteem was the key to solving societal problems.
• Developed an expensive task force to “Promote Self-Esteem and Personal and Social Responsibility”

Question 254

What was Vasconcellos’ conclusion based on his task force about self-esteem and social problems?

Answer 254

• High self-esteem correlated with: Happiness, productivity, success, and even state budgets.
• Low self-esteem correlated with: Crime, teen pregnancy, pollution.
• Claim: Self-esteem causes these outcomes (not just correlates).

Question 255

How did the self-esteem movement influence culture?

Answer 255

• Schools and programs prioritized boosting self-esteem over actual skill development.
• Popular media (e.g., Calvin and Hobbes) criticized the idea of self-esteem as a cure-all.

Question 256

What are the methodological issues in measuring self-esteem?

Answer 256

• Different scales may not measure the same construct.
• This construct is difficult to define
• Studies often fail to define which type of self-esteem they are measuring (the report didn’t state which type of SE they were measuring)
• Individual differences in SE relate to interpersonal strategies

Question 257

Defining self-esteem according to William James

Answer 257

• Self-esteem is the ratio of Success / Pretensions
• pretensions are personal standards and judgments for evaluating success
• we can increase this ratio by increasing the numerator (successes) or decreasing the denominator (pretensions)

Question 258

What are the different types of self-esteem?

Answer 258

• Trait self-esteem: Stable, long-term self-evaluation (High trait SE: Confident, assertive, seeks attention. Low trait SE: Defensive, avoids standing out, rejection-sensitive.)
• State self-esteem: Temporary, fluctuates based on situation.
• Global self-esteem: Overall sense of self-worth.
• Specific self-esteem: Self-evaluation in specific areas (e.g., academic, athletic).
• Implicit self-esteem: Unconscious self-evaluation.
• Explicit self-esteem: Conscious self-evaluation.

Question 259

How does self-esteem change over a lifetime?

Answer 259

• Before age 8: Self-esteem is generally high.
• Adolescence: Declines due to self-concept instability.
• Adulthood: Peaks around 60, then declines after 70. (Why? Social role changes like retirement, loss of loved ones)

Question 260

What predicts self-esteem in adulthood according to the longitudinal study by Orth et al.?

Answer 260

• Quality of home environment at age 8 predicts self-esteem at age 27.
• Factors involved in quality of home environment: Parental support, cognitive stimulation, physical environment.

Question 261

Is self-esteem an antecedent or an outcome of success?

Answer 261

• High self-esteem does not reliably predict:
• Physical attractiveness (only self-perceived attractiveness).
• Academic success (grades improve self-esteem, not vice versa).
• Job performance (weak correlation).
• Social success (high SE people can be socially dominant but also overconfident).
• Only strong effect: High self-esteem predicts social initiative (willingness to speak up and engage).

Question 262

What are the main theories explaining the function of self-esteem?

Answer 262

• Self-Verification Theory: People seek feedback that confirms their self-view, even if negative (not widely supported)
• Dominance Theory: Self-esteem signals status and dominance (not everyone uses SE in this way)
• Terror Management Theory: Self-esteem acts as a buffer against fear of death (a distraction)
• Sociometer Theory (most supported)

Question 263

Explain sociometer theory in relation to SE.

Answer 263

• SE monitors social inclusion, so is a measure of our ‘relational value’
• SE isn’t a need, but the output of a system that monitors and responds to events through acceptance or rejection (how well are we doing?)
• sociometer sensitivity: when people receive netural or negative feedback, SE stays low, but getting better feedback improves SE (only up to a plateau)
• social influence: it’s rare for people to be immune to social influence (SE is likely to be impacted by rejection/acceptance)
• trait self-esteem is correlated with people’s perceptions of the degree to which they are valued, accepted, supported by others

Question 264

Study: Does acceptance and rejection impact state SE?

Answer 264

• Method: participants in groups of 5 wrote self-descriptions which were given to other participants, then received bogus feedback about whether they were selected to work with others or alone (told that this was either (1) random or (2) based on preferences of others)
• results: not being chosen for group work significantly lowered state SE (no effect for random exclusion)

Question 265

establishing directionality in claims made about SE

Answer 265

• claim: high SE makes people physically attractive (not accurate)
• no significant correlation between ratings of attractiveness and self-esteem, but self-reported physical attractiveness was strongly related to self-esteem
• claim: high SE leads to improved academic performance (not accurate)
• doing well in school = higher SE the next year, but high SE doesn’t result in good performance the next year
• claim: high SE improves job performance (not accurate)
• weak positive correlations between job performance and SE (if high SE consistently improved performance in lab tasks, this would be easy to demonstrate)
• claim: high SE results in social success (fail to objectively demonstrate this)
• high SE people can be jerks in social situations (not seeing feedback) which erodes social skills BUT high SE predicts speaking up and taking social initiative (tendency to initiate interpersonal contact)
• SE not the antecedent to most adaptive outcomes (except initiative)
• directional issues (SE being caused by other antecedents) and weak correlations
• motivational factor: high SE = more persistent in the face of failure

Question 266

What is the relationship between self-esteem and aggression?

Answer 266

• Early theory: Low SE = aggression.
• New evidence: High (but unstable) SE is linked to aggression.
• Low SE people are not likely to take risks or stand out given their interpersonal strategies of not speaking up, initiate, or risk rejection
• Why? Threats to ego trigger hostility.

Question 267

How does high self-esteem relate to violent behavior?

Answer 267

• Criminals, dictators, and serial killers often report high SE.
• Unstable SE predicts violent offences (ego-threats = aggression).
• Men (higher SE) tend to be more violent than women.
• Depressed individuals (low SE) are less violent than controls.
• Inflated favourable self-views = antisocial behaviour (lack of regard for others and unmitigated agency)

Question 268

How does self-esteem relate to narcissism?

Answer 268

• Narcissism = extreme need for high SE (sense of entitlement and grandiosity pursued by achieving power and status)
• Grandiose narcissism → High explicit SE, no link to implicit SE.
• Vulnerable narcissism → Low explicit SE, no link to implicit SE (no evidence of the “inner hatred” hypothesis)
• Often linked to social problems via unmitigated agency: High SE people may pursue power at any cost (manipulation, lack of empathy).

Question 269

How does high self-esteem predict both prosocial and antisocial behaviors?

Answer 269

• High SE predicts both:
  Bullying & defending against bullies.
• Cheating & moral integrity.
• Conclusion: SE amplifies existing personality traits (intensifying both prosocial and antisocial tendencies)

Question 270

is it the quantity of SE that matters or where you get your SE from?

Answer 270

Contingencies of self-worth: people tie SE to success in specific domains (where they stake their self-worth) like academic, relational, physical (external things that they don’t always have control over)

Question 271

What is the motivational trade-off in contingent SE?

Answer 271

• increased drive but higher emotional vulnerability (you’re more motivated to do well, but if you fail, you get a worse reaction)
• focus on ‘proving oneself’ (external validation) can undermine learning and relationships

Question 272

Contingencies of self-worth in academic success and adolescents

Answer 272

• more fluctuations in SE when people stake their self-worth in academic success, but they don’t necessarily do better in school
• adolescents more vulnerable to this: self-report on the extent of their self-worth across four domains = higher reliance on external validation predicts future depressive symptoms
• diathesis of social domain contingencies + social stressors predicting depressive symptoms (care a lot about social world, then failure = depression)

Question 273

What are the conclusions regarding the Dark Side of SE?

Answer 273

• high SE seems to enhance our social tendencies (both prosocial and antisocial)
• SE tied to specific domains relates to fluctuations and vulnerability to stressors
• SE enhancement programs may not be having beneficial effects

Question 274

Researcher bias in Vasconcellos report

Answer 274

• Vasconcellos had his political career tied to his theory of SE
• task force seemed aware of how muddy their findings were, but still reported positive effects (and then also contradicted themselves)
• Vasconcellos indirect pressure—got a very large budget for his task force and everyone was expecting good results
• data in the study was misinterpreted and exaggerated to fit researcher expectations

Question 275

According to Baumeister’s review, what are the benefits and limits of high SE?

Answer 275

• Benefits: Increases initiative (confidence to take action), Improves mood (people feel better about themselves).
• Limits: No clear link to success (often an outcome, not a cause), Potential link to aggression (when high SE is unstable).

Question 276

What distinguishes stable vs. fragile self-esteem?

Answer 276

• Stable SE: Consistent, independent of external validation.
• Fragile SE: Fluctuates, easily threatened by ego threats, attached to contingent domains (can be high SE)

Question 277

How is stable/fragile SE related to SCC?

Answer 277

• stable low SE associated with low SCC (may explain why adolescents are low vulnerable because they tend to have lower SCC and no stable sense of self)
• stable high SE associated with high SCC (this may be psychologically optimal)

Question 278

What is optimal SE?

Answer 278

• distinct from high SE, instead it’s derived from a sense of authenticity
• authenticity: awareness, unbiased processing, action, relation
• non-contingent SE: self-as-process (vs. self-as object), so it’s when your SE is not salient to you (you’re not aware of it and not thinking about it) and your successes and failures do not implicate your self-worth

Question 279

Paths to optimal SE

Answer 279

• mindfulness: less mindful = poor decision making and less stable SE
• flow activities
• increased SCC

Question 280

What is self-integrity, and why do we need it?

Answer 280

• Self-integrity is the perception of oneself as morally and adaptively good.
• Everyone has a fundamental need to maintain self-esteem and view themselves as decent people.

Question 281

What is psychological threat, and what are some examples?

Answer 281

• Psychological threat is the perception of an environmental challenge to one’s self-integrity.
• Examples: failing a test, not achieving a goal, health scares, everyday conflict, rejection.
• Can also come from close people (e.g., friends or parents doing something ‘bad’, sports teams losing).
• It is ubiquitous—so how do we maintain our positive self-view?

Question 282

What is the least-used method of dealing with psychological threat?

Answer 282

• acknowledge the inadequacy to improve it
• self-assessment is the least-used method, so we don’t usually do this
• instead, people react defensively to protect their self-view

Question 283

What are defensive reactions, and what are some types?

Answer 283

• negative, hostile, or distorted reaction to anything bad about the self to protect self-integrity
• Denial & minimization (“That class doesn’t matter anyway!”)
• Compensatory conviction (doubling down on beliefs/behaviors)
• Symbolic self-completion (bolstering identity superficially)
• Self-serving bias (blaming others)
• Rationalization (justifying actions to make them acceptable)
• Avoidance
• Aggression
• Benefits: maintains positive self-views.
• Limitations: prevents learning from setbacks (we’re getting feedback that we should be learning from, but aren’t)

Question 284

What is self-affirmation theory?

Answer 284

• we are motivated to maintain self-integrity, so when the integrity is threatened we are motivated to repair it
• We can repair self-integrity by engaging in self-affirmation, which is an act that demonstrates one’s adequacy
• we are motivated to maintain overall, global self-integrity, rather than integrity in a specific domain (one self-aspect)
• self-integrity is flexible, and we can affirm a role or identity in an important domain that is unrelated to the threat to repair self-integrity
• low self-complexity = threat to one domain has a widespread effect on SE
• high self-complexity = more aspects to draw on to restore self-integrity
• our motive is to be good enough, not excellent or superior (foster a sense of adequacy in a personally valued domain, not a perception of overall excellence)

Question 285

How do we restore self-integrity according to self-affirmation theory?

Answer 285

• through meaningful acts or reminders of such acts
• praising oneself in the absence of evidence will not work (empty self-affirmation)
• “I am a good friend” = demonstrate that by listening to a friend or reminding yourself of an action

Question 286

How does self-affirmation differ from self-enhancement?

Answer 286

Self-affirmation maintains a sense of adequacy (“good enough”).

Self-enhancement means seeing oneself more positively than objectively warranted.

Self-affirmation requires meaningful acts, not empty praise.

Question 287

What are some ways people engage in self-affirmation?

Answer 287

Accomplishments (awards, praise).

Meaningful activities (spending time with pets, helping others).

Reflecting on values & strengths (writing about important values–this way is most often used in research settings), taking a moment to gain perspective on what really matters to them so that a threat can seem less threatening

Question 288

How do self-affirmation and symbolic self-completion differ?

Answer 288

Symbolic self-completion: bolstering the specific self-aspect that was threatened to ‘complete’ the threatened self-aspect
* Usually defensive, superficial signals to prove identity.
* Happens when the domain is central to self-concept.

Self-affirmation: bolsters global self-integrity.
* More effective if the threatened domain is less central.
* Can reduce the need for symbolic self-completion (reminding ourselves of overall goodness = no need for a defensive reaction)

Question 289

How does self-affirmation help people learn from threats?

Answer 289

Buffers against threats by reassuring people of their self-integrity.

Reduces defensiveness, making it easier to accept feedback.

Question 290

What is stereotype threat, and how does it affect education?

Answer 290

Fear of confirming a negative stereotype increases anxiety, reducing performance.

Example: minority students underperforming when race is emphasized before a test.

helps explain why students from minority groups show an achievement gap compared to students from majority groups

Question 291

Study: Can self-affirmation help close the achievement gap in education?

Answer 291

• Latino & White middle school students assigned self-affirmation or control task.
• Did the experimental condition 4 times over the course of a year (before a test)
• Self-affirmation condition: write about a value that is important to you
• Control: why a particular value that you don’t care about might be important to someone else
• Result: Minority students’ (not white students’) GPA improved in the self-affirmation (not control) condition (gap closed by 22%).
• The poorest performing students benefitted most from the intervention
• Effects persisted for 2 years after (after transitioning to high school)
• So self-affirmation can improve the academic performance of minority students by broadening their self-worth beyond the immediate threat (test)
• Intervention was simple but had long-lasting effects.
• has been replicated in female STEM students

Question 292

How does self-affirmation create long-term change?

Answer 292

Sets off a positive feedback loop between self-perceptions, positive outcomes, and social environment:
1. Self-affirmation → better GPA.
2. Better GPA reinforces self-integrity (it feels good to get good grades)
3. Teachers expect more from students (due to higher GPA)
4. Higher expectations → better performance.
5. Positive reinforcement from others.
6. Student alters the social world in ways other than through better outcomes (asking for help, choosing difficult courses)

Question 293

How does self-threat lead to prejudice?

Answer 293

• threats to self may lead people to endorse prejudicial attitudes in an attempt to restore self-integrity (a defensive response)
• feeling bad about yourself = denigrate an outgroup to make yourself feel better
• hypothesis: providing people with another way to self-affirm should reduce prejudicial attitudes

Question 294

Study: do threats to self increase prejudice?

Answer 294

• part 1: intelligence test with bogus feedback (threat to self = negative feedback, no threat = positive feedback) and assessed state SE
• part 2: evaluated job candidate based on work experience, academic record, skills, photo (some participants led to believe the candidate was Jewish, others that they were Italian), rated how favourable they viewed the candidate, and re-assessed state SE
• threat to self led to prejudicial attitude against outgroup member (Jewish candidate) and subsequent increase in self-esteem
• in positive feedback group, people had similar ratings for both candidates
• in negative feedback group, eliciting negative attitudes toward minority group
• for the people that got positive feedback, state self-esteem didn’t change
• for the people that got negative feedback AND had given a negative evaluation to the Jewish candidate, they had the largest increase in self-esteem (and largest overall state self-esteem)
• suggests that prejudice partially stems from a desire to restore self-integrity

Question 295

Study: does affirming the self reduce prejudice?

Answer 295

• part 1: all participants threatened with negative feedback on an intelligence test
• self-affirmation condition: write about a particular value that is most important to you
• control: write about why a value that isn’t important to you could be important to someone else
• part 2: evaluate employees for hiring (Jewish and Italian)
• self-affirmation eliminated prejudicial attitudes
• not self-affirmed = exactly the same pattern as study 1 (prejudicial evaluations)
• self-affirmed = same pattern as getting positive feedback in study 1 (eliminating the prejudice)

Question 296

What is terror management theory?

Answer 296

• Awareness of mortality creates existential dread and terror
• to manage this, we cling to our cultural worldviews, self-esteem, close relationships because they allow us to see ourselves as a person of value living in a meaningful world (and that this world will exist when we’re gone = symbolically living forever)
• Mortality salience (thinking about death) leads to worldview protection: More ingroup bias, Negative evaluations of those who criticize culture, Increased aggression, More rigid, dogmatic, and prejudiced attitudes.

Question 297

Study: does self-affirmation eliminate negative effects of mortality salience?

Answer 297

• mortality salience condition: answered questions about their own death (how do you think you will die, etc.)
• control: answered questions about dental pain (also thinking about something distressing, but not due to mortality)
• self-affirmation: wrote about an important value
• no affirmation: wrote about less important value
• American participants read an anti-American essay
• no affirmation + mortality salience = less favourable rating of the essay (this is the basic terror management effect)
• self-affirmation + mortality salience = more positive rating of the essay than those in the control condition (reversed the terror management effect)
• people in the control condition didn’t differ in affirmation or no affirmation
• self-affirmation eliminated typical terror management defense strategy of derogating people that don’t share worldview (helped people engage with the threatening information and try to learn from it)

Question 298

How do we maintain a sense of self over time, even though we don’t remember everything?

Answer 298

• We construct a narrative identity—a personal, internalized, evolving life story.
• Our memory is selective and biased, reconstructing past events based on later experiences, and imagining a possible future.
• Our sense of self is a work in progress, constantly shifting with new experiences.
• Different roles (student, friend, employee) contribute to our overall identity (different, perhaps contradictory, stories create the narrative self)
• Despite gaps in memory, we create a sense of continuity and unity by connecting past, present, and future.
• this is another way of thinking about the self-concept

Question 299

What is narrative identity?

Answer 299

• A person’s internalized and evolving life story that gives coherence to their life.
• Like other narratives, it includes:
  Beginning, middle, and imagined end (future self).
• Key events that shape the plot.
• Heroes, villains, and supporting characters.
• Highly subjective and selective, influenced by memory and later experiences.
• Multiple, sometimes contradictory, stories make up one’s identity (e.g., as a student, partner, worker).

Question 300

What are the main functions of narrative identity?

Answer 300

• Continuity & unity of the self: Organizes the self in time by connecting the past, present, and future.
• Meaning & purpose: Helps explain how we became who we are (people will interpret events in different ways to fit into their narrative identity)

Question 301

How does William James’ concept of the self relate to narrative identity?

Answer 301

• I as the storyteller: We actively construct and reconstruct our life stories.
• Me as the story: The product of storytelling—our life narrative.
• the narrative self exemplifies the I (reconstructing events and memories)

Question 302

How does narrative identity develop in adolescence? (Erikson 1963)

Answer 302

• 8 stages of life with their own conflicts/goals
• Adolescence is a critical period for identity formation.
• Erikson’s model: Adolescents work to craft a coherent identity.
• This occurs in adolescence due to societal pressures that influence this process (career, values, etc.).
• Also due to cognitive development allows for causal coherence—understanding how events are connected (this causal coherence is necessary for autobiographical memory)

Question 303

How does social interaction shape narrative identity?

Answer 303

• Parents influence early storytelling by using elaborated conversation style (probing them, asking about causes of events, highlighting emotions) = results in kids that have strong storytelling skills
• as adults, our life narratives are edited and reinterpreted by talking with others (people are more likely to hold onto a personal story and to incorporate it into their more general understanding of who they are when important people in their life agree with the interpretation of the story ie. validate your perspective)
• Life stories are dynamic: We reinterpret them through social interaction.

Question 304

How do researchers study narrative identity?

Answer 304

• Life Story Interview:
• 2-3 hour interview structuring life as a book with chapters (give a plot summary)
• Focuses on key scenes: high points, low points, turning points, childhood memories, the next chapter in life
• Stories are coded for themes (agency, communion, redemption, etc.).

Question 305

What are common themes in personal narratives?

Answer 305

• Agency: the degree to which protagonists are able to affect change in their own lives or influence others in their environment, through demonstrations of self-mastery, empowerment, achievement, or status (highly agentic stories = accomplishment and ability to control fate = mastery oriented)
• Communion: degree to which protagonists demonstrate/experience interpersonal connection through love, friendship, dialogue, connection to a broad collection (emphasize intimacy, caring, and belongingness)
• Redemption: scenes in which a ‘bad’ event leads to a clearly ‘good’ or emotionally positive outcome (initial negative state is redeemed by the good that follows = ‘necessary for growth’)
• Contamination: scenes in which a positive event turns bad, such that the negative affect overwhelms or erases the effects of the preceding positivity
• Coherence: narratives with clear causal sequencing, thematic integrity, and appropriate integration of emotional responses

Question 306

Study: How do life stories change over time?

Answer 306

• 3-year longitudinal study recalling 10 key scenes on 3 occasions
• consistencies in the level of narrative complexity, agency, and positive emotional tone in the stories
• Significant change:
• Only 28% of original key memories were recalled again after 3 months.
• By 3 years, only 22% of original memories remained.
• People shift which events feel meaningful (what feels important now doesn’t 3 years later)
• at the end of the study, young adults constructed stories that were more positive, emotionally nuanced, and showed greater personal understanding compared to the stories at time 1

Question 307

How do life stories change as we age?

Answer 307

• Older adults have stories that are:
• More complex & coherent (which SCC research agrees with)
• More positive in tone.
• More summarized, less detailed.
• Over time, stories become more meaningful and integrated and ‘warm and fuzzy’

Question 308

How does narrative identity relate to Big Five personality traits?

Answer 308

• Neuroticism: More negative emotions, contamination themes.
• Agreeableness: More communal themes.
• Openness: More complex, multi-layered stories.

Question 309

how does narrative identity relate to the 3-part model of personality?

Answer 309

• narrative identity encompasses characteristic adaptations, which encompasses personality traits
• personality traits: broad individual differences (Big Five) which account for consistency in behaviour
• characteristic adaptations: values, goals, personal projects, defenses (avoidance, control, critical, etc.) which capture more socially contextualized and motivational aspects of individuality
• narrative identity: internalized and evolving life stories, tell what a person’s life means in time
• different kinds of people construct different kinds of stories (links between personality, goals, values, life stories)
• correlation, not causation (the directionality of this effect is unclear: personality influencing life storytelling OR storytelling style allows us to infer our personality)

Question 310

How is narrative identity related to characteristic adaptations?

Answer 310

• high power motivation (seeking opportunities to exert power) associated with: emphasizing agentic themes, analytic and differentiated narrative style, focusing on differences, separation, opposition, themselves as individuals
• high intimacy motivation associated with: communal themes, holistic and integrated narrative style (focusing on similarities and connections between different scenes)

Question 311

How does narrative style relate to mental health?

Answer 311

• Resilience = Two-step process of meaning making:
  1. Exploration of a negative event (understanding it). Staying at this step can turn into rumination.
  2. Commitment to a positive resolution/redemption sequence (finding meaning). Going directly to this step is emotional avoidance and doesn’t help people integrate the event into their sense of self (making the same mistakes over again)
• Depression = more contamination themes, less redemption in life stories
• Psychotherapy is an avenue to change life stories

Question 312

How does psychotherapy relate to the narrative self?

Answer 312

• Psychotherapy is a prime venue for challenging life stories—exploring and creating life stories (regardless of a therapist’s orientation)
• theme of personal agency in life story appears to be the most important predictor of therapeutic efficacy
• former psychotherapy patients who report current higher levels of well-being tend to narrate heroic stories in which they bravely battled their symptoms
• in a prospective study, increases in themes of agency in narratives preceded and predicted improvements in mental health

Question 313

What does it mean to be “generative”?

Answer 313

• people with a strong commitment to promoting the well-being of future generations and improving the world they live in (leaving a legacy, caring for future society)
• generativity vs. despair is the last life stage (Erikson model)

Question 314

what is the redemptive self?

Answer 314

• highly generative midlife (or older) adults tend to see their own lives as stories of redemption
• five features: early advantage, sensitivity to suffering of others, moral steadfastness, redemption sequences, prosocial goals
• when midlife adults have this redemptive self, they associate positively with psychological well-being and generativity
• no association with depression, EXCEPT with early advantage (people with depression don’t see advantages OR lack of advantage = depression)

Question 315

what are the five features of the redemptive self?

Answer 315

• early advantage (EA): narrator reports something that singles them out in a positive way (advantage or distinction; physical, material, psychological, social)
• sensitivity to the suffering of others (SS): sympathy for the problems of others or societal injustice as a child
• moral steadfastness (MS): strong value system that is central to identity and stable and motivates their behaviour
• redemption sequences (RS): movement from a negative situation to a positive outcome
• pro-social goals (PG): positively contributing to others’ well-being, beyond their own families

Question 316

why is the redemptive self so common?

Answer 316

• sets up a moral challenge that encourages the person to help the next generation (I am blessed, but others suffer)
• redemption sustains hope in the face of challenges and setbacks
• culturally valued: pervasiveness of the redemptive self suggests that it is an American prototype of what it means to have a ‘good life’
• people use this prototype to make sense of their lives (adapt and shape their life and narrative to be consistent with this culturally valued protoype of a good life)
  *American Dream of upward mobility

Question 317

How does culture shape narrative identity?

Answer 317

• we construct our narrative identities according to norms and scripts present in our culture
• culture tells us what events are meaningful, what is a ‘tellable’ story, and provide a blueprint for how to make sense of events (which life milestones we should be having)
• even if we’re opposing this script, we’re defining ourselves in contrast to this norm

Question 318

Western and Eastern culture and narrative self

Answer 318

• North American (vs. East Asian) adults tend to
• report earlier age of first memory
• have more detailed memories of childhood
• have memories more focused on own personal experiences and emotions
• Chinese adults recall more social/historical events (using these as landmarks and milestones to situate themselves) and memories place greater emphasis on social interactions and loved ones
• differences in memories reflect cultural differences in prioritization of individual vs. collective

Question 319

What is self-regulation?

Answer 319

• Self-regulation is the ability to alter one’s own responses (thoughts, emotions, impulses, behaviors) based on standards.
• It is used interchangeably with “self-control.”
• It involves monitoring and adjusting behavior to align with personal or external standards.

Question 320

What are standards in self-regulation?

Answer 320

• Standards are ideas about how things should or shouldn’t be.
• Can be personal or imposed by others.
• How should we behave when…?
• What does it mean to be good/moral/ethical?
• Social expectations, ethical guidelines, personal values.

Question 321

What is a self-control dilemma?

Answer 321

• A conflict between an immediate urge/desire and a higher-order standard/goal.
• Example: Resisting junk food when dieting.
• People spend about 5-6 hours per day resisting desires and urges.
• Good self-regulation involves resolving these dilemmas by overriding urges in favour of long-term goals.

Question 322

What did Mischel’s Marshmallow Test show about self-regulation?

Answer 322

• one of the first measures of self-regulation, specifically testing children’s ability to delay gratification
• Delaying gratification is difficult and is only successful depending on the implementation of self-regulation strategies (distraction, cognitive reframing).
• Better self-regulation at age 4 predicted at age 14: Higher SAT scores, Better academic performance, Stronger social skills.
• suggests that better self-regulation is associated with better outcomes in adolescence

Question 323

What did the New Zealand study reveal about self-regulation?

Answer 323

• sample of 1000 children from birth to age 32
• measured self-control in children ages 5-6 using observational measures
• assessed physical health, finances, and criminal records at age 32
• results: children with poorer self-control had worse outcomes as adults, controlling for intelligence and SES background (worse health and more financial problems, more likely to be single parents and more likely to be convicted of a crime)
• these are replicated results
• self-regulation may be the key to a successful life

Question 324

What is the TOTE model?

Answer 324

• self-regulation feedback loop model
• Standard: identify what is the desired end state of self-regulation
• Test: monitor level of discrepancy between the current state and the standard
• Operate: control or adjust behaviour into the desired direction (assuming that there is some discrepancy found in (2))
• Test: result of (3) serves as an input for another test
• Exit: occurs if current state is in line with desired standard (no longer a discrepancy between current and standard)
• 3 main components to self-regulation, so good self-regulation involves efficient operation of all 3 (and difficulties with any one of these results in difficulties with self-regulation)
  1. Standards
  2. Monitoring (test)
  3. Willpower and capacity for change (operate)

Question 325

What two factors determine goal pursuit likelihood?

Answer 325

• Expectancy: Do I believe I can achieve this goal?
• Value: How important is this goal to me?
• Four factors that foster motivation and affect value
• High expectancy + high value = more likely to achieve goal.
• expectancy and likelihood are theoretically independent dimensions (high value, low expectancy = hopeless goal; low value, high expectancy = easy and boring)
• in reality, they’re highly correlated (high expectancy = high value–they reinforce each other), and negatively correlated with cost
• implications: to foster self-regulation, set good goals (realistic and achievable, make them valuable) and let go of goals that are too costly or don’t feel valuable to you

Question 326

Factors influencing value and motivation

Answer 326

1. Importance: Relevance to identity (how central is it to self-concept).
2. Intrinsic value: doing the goal for its inherent satisfaction.
3. Utility: how useful the goal is and its benefit (often its use toward a higher-order goal)
4. Cost: Effort required to achieve the goal (time, money, boredom, the other things you could be doing; procrastination is often due to cost)

Question 327

Factors that interfere with setting good goals

Answer 327

• lack of self-knowledge interferes with setting realistic standards (issue with expectancy or issue with value = lack of clarity about what standards are important or intrinsically motivating)
• perfectionism: associated with tendency to set unrealistic goals (issue with expectancy)
• self-control dilemma: increases cost of goal
• each of these increase the change of failing at a goal

Question 328

How does self-awareness affect self-regulation?

Answer 328

• capacity to direct attention to oneself (self-focused attention) and engage in thoughts about oneself
• self-awareness, unlike attending to other objects/people, automatically leads to a state of comparison (self vs. salient standards) and triggers self-evaluation
• so increasing self-awareness often leads to behaving in a way consistent with standards
• the presence of a mirror stimulates self-awareness: people use more first-person pronouns when sitting in front of a mirror than when not
• so self-awareness is critical for self-regulation: process of comparing self against a standard makes behaviour change possible (it’s difficult to regulate something without monitoring it)

Question 329

Study: does lack of self-awareness lead to more misbehaviour

Answer 329

• method: halloween trick-or-treaters (children) were told to take only one candy but left alone (had the opportunity to take more)
• condition 1: mirror in front of candy
• condition 2: no mirror
• results: children in the mirror condition were more likely to obey the instructions

Question 330

How do mirrors affect self-regulation?

Answer 330

• mirrors increase self-awareness, decreasing misbehaviour (Halloween study)
• presence of a mirror leads people to:
  1. work faster and harder on a task when instructed to do so
  2. behave more morally
  3. behave less aggressively
  4. behave in ways more consistent with previously stated personal values
• suggests that failure to behave in ways consistent with a standard may be due to a lack of self-awareness

Question 331

Study: alcohol reduces self-awareness

Answer 331

• when participants are given alcohol, they use fewer first-person pronouns than participants who consumed a non-alcoholic drink (index of self-awareness)
• in a lab setting, Ps given alcohol tend to
  1. behave more recklessly
  2. spend more money
  3. behave more aggressively
• suggests that poor behaviour may be due to a lack of self-awareness

Question 332

What is ego depletion theory?

Answer 332

• self-control/willpower is a limited and general mental resource
• after exerting effort on a task that requires self-control, self-control is impaired such that people will do worse on another task requiring self-control (even if the tasks are unrelated)
• meta-analysis suggests robust findings and well-replicated effect
• willpower is not domain-specific, it’s general, so we need to be careful about what we’re expending effort on

Question 333

how do researchers study ego depletion?

Answer 333

• participants perform 2 separate, independent tasks that both require willpower (tasks are performed one after another)
• people tend to do worse on the second task compared to control groups that didn’t do an initial self-control task

Question 334

study: does emotion regulation lead to poorer physical stamina?

Answer 334

• both emotion regulation and physical effort require willpower
• participants completed a baseline handgrip endurance measure and watched a sad movie
• increase emotion condition: let the movie affect you and express your emotions on your face as much as possible
• decrease emotion: avoid letting the movie affect you and express as little emotion on your face as possible
• no emotion control: no instructions
• handgrip endurance measured again
• results: evidence for ego depletion effect
• Ps who had to alter their emotional state had decreased handgrip endurance compared to people who did not have to control emotions (control)
• this effect occurred in both increase emotion AND decrease emotion conditions

Question 335

examples of ego depletion reducing performance on second self-control task

Answer 335

• looking for and crossing out a particular letter in a text leads to reductions in handgrip endurance
• writing an essay about attitudes one doesn’t believe in (cognitive dissonance) reduces persistence on a follow-up task
• suppressing forbidden thoughts leads to giving up more quickly on unsolvable anagrams

Question 336

evidence that ego depletion increases impulsive, disinhibited behaviour

Answer 336

• spend more money on impulsive purchases
• eating more junk food
• drink more alcohol
• fewer sexual inhibitions
• more aggressive responses to being provoked

Question 337

ego depletion moderation by automaticity

Answer 337

• mental processes are either automatic or controlled
• automatic: require few cognitive resources and occur outside of conscious awareness (common for familiar and highly practiced tasks)
• controlled: require active, conscious attention and effort, involved in learning new skills or complex situations
• ego depletion affects controlled processes, NOT automatic ones (not relying on willpower since we’re on autopilot)
• vocabulary performance (automatic) remains intact after ego depletion but logical reasoning (controlled) is impaired

Question 338

ego depletion moderation by motivation

Answer 338

• ego depletion can be overcome if people are given an important incentive to do well on the 2nd task
• told that their performance will help others or paid based on performance
• but people show even more depletion after the 2nd task
• suggests that ego depletion effects reflect conservation of willpower, not a complete absence of willpower (people are managing a limited energy supply by holding back in the present)

Question 339

implications of ego depletion

Answer 339

• willpower is costly in the short-term
• we can replenish by taking a break in between tasks that require willpower (don’t do many of these back to back)
• people tend to conserve their willpower unless highly motivated in the moment to expend it
• ego depletion explains why people may fail to sometimes achieve their standards/goals (if our willpower reserves are low in the moment)

Question 340

Controversies in ego depletion theory

Answer 340

• 2014 meta-analysis showed that the size of the effect is small and not significantly different from 0
• 2021 multi-lab replication study of 1-2 ego depletion studies found no reliable effect
• another 2021 multi-site replication conducted in 12 labs showed a small (but significant) effect (and over 600 studies have been published supporting the effect)

Question 341

why are there mixed results surrounding ego depletion

Answer 341

1. publication bias for positive results (studies that don’t produce the predicted outcome are not published = inflation of the effect)
2. there probably is an effect (intuitive and lots of findings) but have to figure out under what circumstances it exists
   * many studies assume the 1st task requires self-control without testing this (ego depletion won’t work for automatic tasks)
   * individual differences: perhaps ego depletion effects are stronger for some people or in some situations, but not others
3. reliance on lab studies which may not reflect what’s going on in the real world (lack of external validity)
   * field research would help clarify when this effect occurs

Question 342

What is trait self-control?

Answer 342

• Trait self-control refers to a stable, dispositional tendency to regulate one’s impulses and behaviors effectively over time.
• consistently better able to successfully deal with self-control dilemma (not give into the temptation and act in line with their standards)

Question 343

What are the benefits of high trait self-control?

Answer 343

• Meta-analysis shows that people with high trait self-control:
  1. better performance at school and work
  2. better sustaining healthy relationships
  3. less binge-eating
  4. higher overall psychological well-being

Question 344

What is the paradox of high trait self-control?

Answer 344

• we tend to thing that people high on trait self-control are good at effortfully resisting temptation/have more willpower
• so when they encounter the self-control dilemma, they exert willpower to inhibit the undesirable urge and choose to act in accordance with goal
• but in everyday life, people high on trait self-control experience fewer self-control dilemmas than low self-control people (fewer experiences of temptation)
• suggests that they’re not using effortful self-control

Question 345

Why do high trait self-control people experience less temptation?

Answer 345

• better at setting intrinsically rewarding goals (they enjoy activities that many struggle with (eating healthy, exercising, studying, etc.) so these come effortlessly)
• set-up and follow routines and habits (so they don’t have to consciously exert the mental effort of choosing to engage in these things, they’re more automatic = effortless)
• structure their lives in a way that they don’t experience temptation (avoiding the temptation before it has a chance to occur)
• identify self-control dilemmas earlier

Question 346

Study: how do high trait self-control people identify dilemmas? Methods

Answer 346

• participants presented with pictures of food on a computer, had to click positive when presented with healthy food and negative when unhealthy food
• measured:
  1. trait self-control
  2. reaction time to select an answer
  3. implicit self-control dilemma
• mouse trajectory from the bottom of the screen to select an answer
• intensity of dilemma = degree of mouse pull in direction of answer not selected and peak pull (earlier vs. later in the trajectory)
  4. explicit self-control dilemma: how conflicted do you feel about your answer

Question 347

Study: how do high trait self-control people identify dilemmas? Results

Answer 347

• predicted weaker feelings of conflict (explicit self-control dilemma—fewer temptations in everyday life) for high trait self-control people
• trait self-control people was NOT related to average degree of pull
• suggests that high and low trait self-control people experience same amount of temptation on an unconscious level
• higher trait self-control was related to earlier peak pull (as predicted), suggesting that they detected self-control dilemma earlier
• had faster RT for correctly classifying food, suggesting that they resolved self-control dilemmas faster

Question 348

implications of high trait self-control study

Answer 348

• detecting self-control dilemmas earlier which allows them to deal with them in a faster and more efficient way at an unconscious level
• so they don’t consciously experience the temptation
• exercising this ability effortlessly by relying on automatic processes
• habits and routines, reducing exposure to temptation, earlier temptation detection
• so make you behaviour as automatic as possible in order to improve your chances of completing a goal

Question 349

implementation intentions

Answer 349

• very specific plan about how you will achieve a goal in a particular situation (link a situation with a specific action)
• solves the problem of goals being too vague and increases your commitment by focusing on one method of achieving a goal
• we might intuitively think there should be more than one way of achieving a goal, but having too many ways to complete a goal reduces commitment to any one particular option = less likely to complete the goal
• implementation intentions = commitment to one action

Question 350

Study: Implementation intentions xmas report

Answer 350

• participants had to write a report about how they spent xmas eve that was due december 26
• implementation intention condition: think about when and where you will write the report
• control: just write the report
• results: implementation intention group had double the rate of completion for the report as the control group

Question 351

Study: implementation intentions exercise program

Answer 351

• recruited people who wanted to exercise more, participants tracked how often they exercised for 2 weeks
• control: track how often you exercise
• motivation: track how often you exercise + read about benefits of exercise
• implementation intention: track how often you exercise + read about benefits + implementation intention (set after week 1: during the next week, I will do 20mins of exercise on DAY at TIME in PLACE)
• results: no benefit of increased motivation intervention
• implementation intention group: no effect after week 1, but doubled rate of exercise after week 2
• suggests that when we don’t reach goals, it’s not because of a lack of motivation or lack of monitoring, but because of a lack of specific plan

Question 352

benefits of implementation intentions

Answer 352

• facilitates goal achievement
• exercising more
• eating a healthy diet
• writing a CV
• managing anger
• increasing perspective-taking
• increasing public transportation use
• increasing voter turn-out
• increasing flu shot rates

Question 353

Study: implementation intentions moderator

Answer 353

• goal difficulty as a moderator
• participants identified personal projects they intended to achieve during xmas break
• easy goal condition, difficult goal condition
• assessed implementation intentions (did they do this, not asked to do this)
• results: implementation intentions were useful for completing difficult goals, less relevant for completing easy goals

Question 354

why are implementation intentions helpful

Answer 354

• heightened accessibility of situational cues (”when”), improves ability to detect the situational cue relevant to our goal
• formation of a strong mental link between the situational cue and the planned response which automates action initiation
• implications: implementation intentions show that conscious planning can make goal pursuit more automatic over time
• removing need for a conscious decision to pursue a goal at the relevant time
• intended action is executed more effortlessly (not effortful self-control)

Question 355

how do we pursue goals without realizing it?

Answer 355

• auto-motive model: goal pursuit is not always deliberate, goals can be activated and pursued automatically without conscious awareness
• learned association: people for associations between situations, goals, and actions based on repeated past experiences
• automatic goal activation and pursuit: once these associations are established, encountering the situation can automatically trigger the goal and its associated action (pursuing the goal outside of conscious awareness)
• especially interesting for interpersonal goals (goal to be liked isn’t achieved consciously)

Question 356

auto-motive vs. implementation intentions

Answer 356

• auto-motive:
  1. situation-goal-action mental links created unconsciously via learned associations
  2. person is not necessarily aware the goal is being pursued
• implementation intention:
  1. situation-goal-action mental links created consciously via forming if-then plans
  2. person is aware they set up the goal pursuit

Question 357

study 1: what kind of goals do people pursue in different relationships?

Answer 357

• classmate = self-enhancement (not for a friend or romantic partner)
• friend = helping friend + having fun together
• mother = wanting to make mom proud (not the same goal as for a friend or romantic partner)

Question 358

study 2: automatic activation of goals

Answer 358

• method: randomly assigned to priming condition: form a vivid picture in your mind and write about…mom or friend or bedroom (control)
• then part 2 (told it was unrelated): read about Mark and form an impression—how motivated is Mark to succeed in school?
• hypothesis: mother prime should lead Mark to seem more motivated to succeed in school (vs. friend prime) because the goal “make mom proud” will be more accessible and attributed to Mark
• results: thinking about mother increased accessibility of participants’ own goal with mother which they projected onto Mark
• evidence that relationship-specific goals can be automatically activated by just thinking about that person
• people rated Mark’s motivation more highly in the mom group than in the friend and control groups
• implications: relationship partners can unconsciously activate interpersonal goals which are then pursued unconsciously (even if the person isn’t physically present, relationships influence our motivations and behaviour)

Question 359

What is the pervasive need to belong?

Answer 359

• Humans have a fundamental drive to form and maintain lasting, positive, and meaningful interpersonal relationships.
• Belonging is positioned just above the need for security in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.
• Many human behaviors and thoughts are influenced by this fundamental interpersonal motive.

Question 360

How can people satisfy their need to belong?

Answer 360

• Requires two components:
  1. Frequent pleasant interactions.
  2. Long-lasting, caring relationships.
• Interactions must occur with people we care about. Need both of the above:
• Pleasant chit-chat with an acquaintance is insufficient.
• Negative interactions with a loved one do not satisfy the need.

Question 361

How does the need to belong operate similarly to other fundamental needs?

Answer 361

• Like hunger or thirst, this need affects emotions and behavior:
• Satisfying it brings positive emotions.
• Unmet need results in negative emotions and motivates behavior to fulfill it.
• Follows principles of: Satiation: We continue to seek belonging until we feel satisfied + Substitution: Can be fulfilled in different ways.
• Chronic satisfaction/frustration impacts health.
• Universal across cultures and individual differences.

Question 362

How does the need to belong influence emotions?

Answer 362

Forming new social bonds = positive emotions (e.g., making a new friend, falling in love). Life satisfaction is strongly correlated with having some close relationships

Loss of social bonds = negative emotions (e.g., distress from breakups, loss of loved ones). Reluctance to end bad relationships due to anticipated distress.

Question 363

How does rejection signal an unmet need to belong?

Answer 363

• Social rejection = negative emotions.
• Social Reconnection Hypothesis: Rejection motivates forming new bonds, Similar to hunger prompting food-seeking (unmet need signalling motivation to satisfy it)
• negative emotions associated with rejection are adaptive because they prompt us to seek new connections/strengthen existing ones
• Study: ‘Future Alone’ paradigm demonstrated rejection increases motivation to connect with others.

Question 364

Study: does rejection lead to a desire for social contact?

Answer 364

• method: ‘future alone’ paradigm (personality test + bogus feedback)
• future alone: ‘you’re the type to end up alone in life…short-lived marriages…not form new relationships.’ and this feedback incorporates traits that they score highly on
• future belonging: ‘you’re the type to have good relationships…stable marriage…you’ll always have friends, etc.’
• future misfortune: “you’re the type to get into a lot of accidents” (still negative, but not social rejection-related, so control)
• ‘rejected’ (future alone) participants showed strongest desire to work with others on a follow-up task (future belonging and misfortune not different from each other)
• rejected participants also had: greater interest to meet and connect with new friends, desire to join student groups to connect with others, rate others as more attractive and sociable (perceive attributes in others that make them seem more approachable and are consistent with their own needs)

Question 365

What are some consequences of social rejection?

Answer 365

• Can lead to social withdrawal or aggression.
• Rejected participants rated others more negatively.
• Delivered longer and louder aversive noise to rejectors.
• Assigned rejectors disliked food (e.g., hot sauce punishment).
• Cyberball Study: Being accepted by just one person reduces aggressive responses.

Question 366

Study: intensity of rejection as a moderator?

Answer 366

• method: manipulated intensity of rejection using Cyberball paradigm
• condition 1: excluded by all 3 players, condition 2: excluded by 2 players, condition 3: excluded by 1, condition 4: included by all
• then prepared food for another participant (confederate) not involved in Cyberball (this person hates spicy food)
• results: being accepted by even one person greatly reduces likelihood of rejected person lashing out
• person excluded by 3 players = more hot sauce (more aggression), additional acceptance (more than one person) had decreasing incremental effect

Question 367

What is rejection sensitivity and what is it associated with?

Answer 367

• High rejection sensitivity (RS):
• Hypervigilance to rejection cues
• very accommodating of others when rejection is not perceived (attempt to prevent rejection)
• Overinterpreting ambiguous social signals as rejection
• Increased aggression when rejected (especially passive aggression, attempt at self-protection).
• people that are younger tend to be more rejection-sensitive (though it also varies between individual as a trait)

Question 368

method: study on ‘how people choose partners in dating services’ (RS and rejection)

Answer 368

• Ps wrote a biosketch that they were told would be emailed to a potential partner who would choose to meet them or someone else
• self-report of RS
• conditions: rejection (not chosen by the potential partner), control (internet down so email wasn’t sent)
• then Ps prepared food for potential partner who hates spicy food
• results: rejection elicited aggression only in those high in rejection sensitivity (low RS people = rejection didn’t affect hot sauce, high RS people = rejection = the most hot sauce (out of every group), high RS people = control = the least amount of hot sauce (out of every group))
• implications: rejection promotes affiliation only if we see connecting with others as a realistic and viable option (need to feel at least minimally accepted by others, need to not generally fear rejection/expect others to reject us (low rejection sensitivity))

Question 369

How do people regulate their need to belong over time?

Answer 369

• Seek out new relationships until the need is met (satiated): Average student’s meaningful interactions occur with six close individuals, people generally prioritize having a few close friends over having many, less close friends (less motivated to seek out relationships once they feel like they have a sufficient number of satisfying relationships)
• Relationship substitution: as a romantic relationship develops, people generally spend less time with other people, including old friends, people are more likely to cheat in relationships in which they feel lonely/rejected (need not being met), we replace relationships that have ended with new ones

Question 370

What happens when people are ‘hungry’ for new connections, but none are available?

Answer 370

• creative substitutions to fulfill the need
• look to parasocial relationships (one person is emotionally invested in another person, while the other person doesn’t know they exist)
• ascribing human characteristics to non-humans (anthropomorphizing pets, technology, objects)

Question 371

study: does unmet need to belong make us willing to lower bar for what we accept as social connection?

Answer 371

• method: manipulated feelings of connection/disconnection using future alone paradigm
• animacy task: 100% doll to 100% human faces = decide if the face is animate (human) or inanimate (doll)
• animacy threshold: point at which participant detects animacy (lower threshold = accept face with less human features as animate)
• hypothesis: feelings of social disconnection (future alone) should be associated with lower animacy threshold
• results: people who received future alone feedback had a lower animacy threshold than those who received future belong feedback
• suggests that social disconnection makes us lower the bar for acceptable social contact (at least temporarily)

Question 372

What are the long-term health effects of chronic belonging deprivation?

Answer 372

• Mental health: lack of adequate supportive relationships associated with increased stress, children who grew up not receiving adequate emotional attention from caregivers have poorer mental health, chronic bullying = poor mental health
• Physical health: Loneliness = take longer to recover from stress, illness (like a cold or flu), injury (lonely people take longer to recover from a paper cut in lab studies)
• Mortality: Meta-analysis: Strong social relationships increase survival rate by 50%. (controlling for age, sex, initial health status, cause of death, and follow-up period), Effect size of social relationships on mortality is similar to smoking or physical inactivity, BMI, high blood pressure

Question 373

Universality of the need to belong

Answer 373

• there are individual differences, but it’s still present across cultures
• social connection critical for survival, so evolutionarily necessary

Question 374

Social connection critical for survival–examples

Answer 374

• attachment system’s function is to ensure infants’ proximity to caregivers so that they survive (babies are helpless without their caregivers, so attachment makes caregivers take care of them)
• connection to group: we lack defenses that other animals have (teeth, claws, etc.), so evolutionarily, strength in numbers is good to fend off predators, to share labour, food, and care for young
• led to the development of biological mechanism to motivate us to seek belonging

Question 375

What is the implication of having a biological mechanism motivating us to seek belonging?

Answer 375

• hypothesis: pain system as biological mechanism underlying need to belong
• evolutionarily older physical pain system appropriated (adapted) to prevent separation from others
• shared vocabulary between physical and social pain (”they hurt my feelings” “she broke my heart”), and this overlaps between languages

Question 376

neural correlates of physical pain

Answer 376

• activation in dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) associated with the emotional aspect of physical pain (when we feel bothered by physical pain)
• an injury to this part of the brain = still feeling physical pain, but it doesn’t really bother them anymore

Question 377

Study: is social pain also processed in dACC?

Answer 377

• method: participants played cyberball while undergoing fMRI scan, assessed degree of distress after exclusion
• results: dACC activity associated with (correlated) subjective feelings of distress
• evidence that physical and social pain are processed in the same brain region
• more distress = higher dACC activation (positive linear association)
• people that tend to be more sensitive to physical pain is associated with sensitivity to social exclusion (subjective feelings of distress in cyberball)
• measure heat/pain threshold and correlate it with reported distress due to social exclusion (higher pain tolerance = less distress, lower pain tolerance = more distress)

Question 378

study: does easing physical pain also ease social pain?

Answer 378

• method: double-blind placebo-controlled study
• experimental group: daily dose of acetaminophen for 3 weeks
• control: placebo for 3 weeks
• feelings of social exclusions assessed via: daily evening self-report of feelings being hurt that day, cyberball with fMRI after 3 weeks
• hypothesis: tylenol would reduce feelings of social exclusion
• two groups are the same at baseline, and over time, the tylenol group is reporting less hurt feelings
• tylenol group reported fewer hurt feelings vs. placebo group
• tylenol group showed less dACC activation after exclusion in cyberball game

Question 379

moderation

Answer 379

When the strength and/or direction of the relationship between an independent and dependent variable depends on a third variable

It shows you for whom, when, or under what circumstances a relationship exists

example: implementation intentions (IV) effect on goal completion (DV) is moderated by goal difficulty

example: only people high in rejection sensitivity behave aggressively following rejection (people with low rejection sensitivity do not change their behaviour after rejection)

Question 380

mediation

Answer 380

Explains the mechanism that underlies a relationship between an independent and dependent variable via the inclusion of a third variable

example: age influences self-concept clarity via role commitments

example: link between threat to self and increased self-esteem is mediated by prejudicial attitudes

Question 381

What is self-presentation?

Answer 381

Any behavior intended to influence how others perceive you.

The process of constructing and maintaining a desired reputation (continuous, evolving over time).

Initially seen as manipulative, but often automatic rather than strategic.

Question 382

What is automatic self-presentation?

Answer 382

Relies on habitual behaviors that have been frequently rewarded. (smiling and listening attentively due to past positive reinforcement.)

More common with familiar people who already know us well.

Question 383

When is self-presentation more controlled?

Answer 383

people are self-conscious and intentionally shaping impressions.

More likely in high-stakes situations (e.g., job interview, date).

More likely to use controlled self-presentation when the audience is important (consequences of our self-presentation are important) and when we’re uncertain about the impression we’re creating

Question 384

What are the two main characteristics of desirable self-presentations?

Answer 384

Beneficial: Facilitates personal goals, often motivated by the desire to be liked.

Believable: The self-presentation must be credible and defensible.

Question 385

What is the most common motivation for self-presentation?

Answer 385

• desire to be liked
• this is rooted in evolution: a good reputation increases one’s changes of survival and reproduction + essential for smooth and successful social functioning (we need to care what others think of us and to have them like us)
• leads to pervasive socially desirable behaviour

Question 386

How do people behave differently in public vs. private?

Answer 386

• in public, people are:
• more generous and helpful when others are watching
• conform more and accept more influence from others
• work harder when watched
• smiling when we don’t feel like it, cleaning the house when people are coming over, dress according to fashion trends, brushing our teeth so that others won’t dislike us for having bad hygiene (avoiding creating a bad impression)

Question 387

study: how far will people go to avoid a bad reputation?

Answer 387

• method: recruited non-Black students, informed that the university is studying implicit racism (and that the results will be sent to the university community, including the names of the students with the highest racism scores)
• completed IAT as a measure of implicit racism, get fake feedback that they got a score showing that they are highly racist
• given a choice to endure pain (submerge hand in ice water) instead of broadcasting IAT score to university community
• results: 63% of participants chose to endure pain instead of sharing IAT score
• follow-up: 30% of students chose to hold their hand in a bucket of worms for 1min rather than broadcast high racism score
• suggests that people have a strong desire to maintain a moral reputation and will go to great lengths to avoid a bad reputation

Question 388

How do people adjust their self-presentation to be liked?

Answer 388

Self-presentation is usually self-enhancing (1) but depends on the audience (2).

More self-enhancing with strangers (job interview, date).

More modest with close others (willing to present an image that isn’t perfect)

People adjust behavior to what they think others expect (what is likeable and appropriate depends on the audience)

Question 389

How can self-presentation lead to problematic behaviors?

Answer 389

People conform to what they think will make them liked, even negatively.
Example: Princeton study (1970s) found women minimized competence when interacting with an attractive, traditional man.

Shows self-presentation can conflict with identity and values.

Question 390

study: do women minimize their competence in order to create a positive impression (METHODS)

Answer 390

• method: female students at Princeton 1970s, pre-test questionnaire: agree/disagree with traditional female stereotypes, then impression formation study 3wks later
• male interaction partner will form impression based on woman’s self-description, manipulated perceptions of the man as: traditional/untraditional and attractive/unattractive
• participants then completed the following as part of the info that partner will see: intelligence task (anagrams), same pre-study questionnaire about traditional values given 3 weeks ago
• 4 groups: unattractive and untraditional guy, unattractive and traditional, attractive and untraditional, attractive and traditional

Question 391

study: do women minimize their competence in order to create a positive impression (RESULTS)

Answer 391

• if man was unattractive, didn’t affect performance on intelligence test (regardless of traditional or untraditional)
• if man was attractive, women conformed intellectual performance to what they thought the man would like
• untraditional = better performance on anagram task
• traditional = worse performance on intelligence test
• if man was unattractive, no change in self-descriptions (traditionality questionnaire)
• if man was attractive, women changed self-descriptions to conform to what they thought the man liked
• untraditional = became more untraditional in their responses on the questionnaire
• traditional = changed self-presentation to become more traditional
• conforming self-pres to interaction partner, desire to be liked can lead us to self-present in a negative, problematic way if we believe this will please the audience (minimizing competence, conflicting with important value)

Question 392

Can self-presentation lead to risky behavior?

Answer 392

• wanting to please the audience can lead us to self-present in ways that are unhealthy and detrimental:
• smoking and substance abuse
• malnutrition and eating disorders
• skin cancer due to tanning
• plastic surgery
• higher STD infection due to unsafe sex
• injuries and accidental deaths due to risky stunts
• study in male skateboarders

Question 393

study: does the desire to come across as attractive lead to greater risk-taking

Answer 393

• method: 96 heterosexual male skateboarders perform 10 tricks with a mix of easy and difficult tricks in front of a male experimenter
• manipulation: male experimenter: perform the tricks again in front of the male researcher, female experimenter: perform the tricks again in front of an attractive female experimenter
• coded tricks as (1) successful or (2) crash landing (failed) as an indicator of high risk-taking
• results: participants had more successful tricks when performing in front of the female experimenter, but also performed more risky tricks and had more crash landings
• suggests that the desire to impress the female experimenter led to more risk-taking and more accidents

Question 394

When does self-presentation create a negative impression?

Answer 394

Too obvious – People see through the attempt to be liked.

Bragging – Perceived as criticism of others.

Mismatch between claims and behavior – Leads to being seen as unreliable.

Question 395

What are other motivations for self-presentation besides being liked?

Answer 395

Intimidation – To instill fear and gain compliance.

Helplessness – To receive care and assistance.

Identity Assertion – To remain true to one’s values, even at the cost of likability.

Question 396

How do people ensure their self-presentation is credible?

Answer 396

People are skilled at making believable self-presentations.

Studies show people can convincingly act introverted or extroverted even if they don’t actually have these characteristics

Onlookers are bad at detecting deception (even police, judges, psychologists, close others

Consistency matters – If claims and behavior don’t align, reputation suffers.

highlights that a good reputation matters more than a good impression (and this is more difficult because it takes consistency), people that are seen as inconsistent (ie. large discrepancy between claims and actions) tend to be less liked

Question 397

study: how positive of an impression to convey in order to ensure believability

Answer 397

• method: participants led to believe that they would participate in a group on a social intelligence task
• condition 1: performance on group task will be public to the group
• condition 2: performance on task is anonymous
• given a pre-test to assess their individual social intelligence and given bogus feedback (experimental manipulation #2), success: very socially intelligent, failure: not socially intelligent
• then, before the group task, Ps exchanged personal information with each other (opportunity to self-present)
• results: self-presentation depends on whether others can verify the claims or not
• under public conditions, self-presentation consistent with actual performance (claims can be verified)
• under anonymous conditions, self-presentation was self-enhancing regardless of actual performance (claims cannot be verified), people in failure condition are essentially lying
• so we present ourselves as positively as we can get away with, if information contradictory to claims can be hidden, people tend to be self-enhancing

Question 398

Why do people self-enhance only to a certain extent?

Answer 398

• if contradiction of self-presentation will be public, people self-present more accurately to ensure consistency between claims and behaviour
• better to set realistic expectations in work setting so that boss doesn’t have expectations of you that you can’t meet

Question 399

How do people respond to a bad reputation?

Answer 399

• because we want to be liked by others, a bad reputation triggers a desire to repair our image—difficult to do with words alone
• so to compensate for a bad reputation, people tend to highlight their positive qualities that are unrelated to the bad reputation
• can’t erase bad image, so try to salvage the other’s overall impression of us (consistent with self-affirmation)

Question 400

How does trait self-monitoring affect self-presentation?

Answer 400

• self-monitoring: a personality trait that reflects the extent to which people monitor their self-presentations
• assumption that high self-monitors care more about creating a good impression and thus try to come across as likeable and conform more to others’ expectations (more people-pleasing/chameleon)
• evidence that low self-monitors are also seeking to create a particular impression (care less about being liked but trying to create an impression of being independent, autonomous, unique), consistent in self-presentation regardless of who they’re interacting with, but do have a goal in how they want to come across

Question 401

How does social media facilitate self-presentation?

Answer 401

More control over public image

Reputation is built broadly, not one person at a time

Social acceptance is more overt (likes, comments, followers), Norm: Express positive views of those we follow, rarely criticisms

Question 402

Why can social media make self-presentation more anxiety-provoking?

Answer 402

Greater control can lead to perfectionism

Presentations (good or bad) are more permanent and reach a larger audience

More likely to receive criticism from strangers than in real life

Question 403

What is the “moving target problem” in social media research?

Answer 403

Social media constantly evolves, making research outdated quickly

Many studies focus on Facebook, which is now less relevant for younger users

Social media varies across platforms, making generalization difficult

Question 404

Do social media profiles reflect our real selves (two hypotheses)?

Answer 404

Idealized Virtual Reality Hypothesis: Profiles reflect idealized traits, not actual personality

Extended Real-Life Hypothesis: People express their real personality online

Question 405

How is the accuracy of social media profiles measured?

Answer 405

‘Real’ personality measured via self-report and close-other reports

Facebook personality assessed by coders

Accuracy = correlation between coders’ ratings and self/other reports

Question 406

Which hypothesis about social media and self-presentation is most accurate?

Answer 406

• Research shows positive correlation between self-reports, close-other reports, and coders’ ratings of social media profiles
• evidence for extended real-life hypothesis

Question 407

How do we detect personality from online profiles?

Answer 407

• RAM (Realistic Accuracy Model): Target must express relevant personality cues, Perceiver must detect and interpret these cues
• Online, cues appear through content shared, likes, and posts (individual differences in how social media is used)

Question 408

Front: What social media behaviors are associated with high extraversion?

Answer 408

Expressiveness in profile picture and posts

More Facebook friends

More posts about daily activities

Question 409

Front: What social media behaviors are associated with high openness?

Answer 409

Posting about left-wing politics

Sharing creative pictures

Engaging with cultural interests

Question 410

Front: What social media behaviors are associated with high neuroticism?

Answer 410

Fewer positive posts and pictures

Spending more time on social media but using it passively (less posting)

Question 411

Front: What are moderators of online personality accuracy?

Answer 411

Visibility of traits: Extraversion is more detectable than neuroticism, More visible traits are judged more accurately

Social media activity: Less active users provide fewer personality cues, making judgments less accurate

Question 412

How do algorithmic personality judgments compare to human judgments?

Answer 412

• algorithm analyzed facebook likes of 7000 participants and used this to make personality judgments
• algorithm judgment of individual’s personality based on facebook profiles was more accurate than friends’ and family’s judgments of individual’s personality

Question 413

What research exists on Instagram personality accuracy?

Answer 413

• Instagram users self-report personality traits
• Close others also report on user’s personality
• Profiles rated by 100 perceivers on Big Five traits
• Results: Strongest correlations for extraversion and openness, No correlation for agreeableness and conscientiousness

Question 414

How does social media use harm well-being?

Answer 414

Weaker social interactions

Lower self-esteem

Increased anxiety, loneliness, and depression

More envy

Question 415

How does social media use benefit well-being?

Answer 415

Feelings of connection

Higher self-esteem

Social involvement and social support

Question 416

Bowlby’s Attachment Theory

Answer 416

• Children are biologically predisposed to develop an attachment bond to caregivers as a means of increasing chances of their survival
• Attachment experiences form the basis of personality, emotion regulation, and self-esteem

Question 417

What do meta-analyses say about social media and well-being?

Answer 417

Across 4 meta-analyses, no significant link between social media use and: SE, depression, loneliness, academic achievement
Contradictory findings make conclusions difficult

Question 418

What moderators affect social media’s impact on well-being?

Answer 418

Age: Teens are more vulnerable to negative effects

How Facebook is used:
* Passive use (scrolling) decreases well-being (more social comparison, envy)
* Active use (posting, commenting) increases well-being or has a neutral effect (greater social capital and feelings of connection)

Question 419

Why is generalizability a problem in social media research?

Answer 419

Most studies focus on Facebook

Findings may not apply to other platforms like Instagram, Twitter, or TikTok

Question 420

How does Instagram affect well-being?

Answer 420

• No consistent link with anxiety or general life satisfaction
• Depression: Passive use predicts more depression symptoms
• Depressive symptoms predict more Instagram use (vicious cycle)
• Body image: Viewing/posting “fitspiration” content linked to worse body image and disordered eating

Question 421

What does Facebook’s internal research say about Instagram and body image?

Answer 421

Instagram fosters more social comparison than TikTok or Snapchat, they know instagram is negative for body image

Teens feel addicted but struggle with self-control to reduce use

Question 422

What do we know about TikTok and well-being?

Answer 422

Only one study (during COVID) found no link between TikTok use and well-being

More research is needed to draw conclusions

Question 423

Who is the judge, and what determines their accuracy?

Answer 423

Judge: The individual attempting to form an impression of the target.

Accuracy is based on the correspondence of their impressions with realistic criteria: Self-reports, informant reports, behavioral measures.

Challenges in identifying good judges: Difficult to separate skill from external factors (e.g., quality of information from the target).

Question 424

What is the Realistic Accuracy Model (RAM)?

Answer 424

1. Relevance: Are personality cues relevant?
2. Availability: Are these cues available to the judge?
3. Detection: Does the judge notice the cues?
4. Utilization: Does the judge use them to form an impression?

Question 425

Study: is the good target a necessary condition for the good judge to emerge?

Answer 425

• method: many large samples of judges + targets with face-to-face interactions or vides to create an impression of target personality (accuracy of impression is correspondence b/w judge/target/informant reports of target’s personality using big five inventory and intelligence scale)
• individual differences between quality of targets larger than judges
• good targets = good judges more accurate, bad targets = no relationship with judge quality and accuracy
• this relationship held across video and face-to-face (videos: judge not eliciting any information, so it actually has something to do with the target, not the judge)
• support for RAM

Question 426

What makes someone a good target for accurate perception?

Answer 426

• Relevance stage: psychological adjustment, SCC, power
• high self-esteem = more likely to behave in line with their own personality (trait-coherent behaviour)
• low self-esteem = less accurately perceived (more cautious to express negative feelings, traits for fear of being judged)
• higher SCC = greater motivation to behave in line with important/relevant traits = better impressions by judges
• power: trait dominance, experimentally manipulated power = greater expression of true opinions and values
• availability stage: extraversion, emotional expressiveness
• extraversion: tend to be with others more frequently, for longer periods of time and they provide more information to others within those periods (even in smaller periods of time)
• emotional expressiveness: reactions can be read from their faces when not deliberately attempting to communicate those emotions, or judged as expressive, open, uninhibited (improves perceptions of more affect-related traits (like agreeableness, neuroticism), lower levels associations with less accurate personality judgment)

Question 427

Why is it beneficial to be a good target?

Answer 427

Intrapersonal benefits: Self-disclosure is rewarding, Self-verification is intrinsically satisfying.

Interpersonal benefits: Accurate perception linked to better likability, intimacy, and relationship satisfaction.
Workplace benefits: Job applicants driven by self-verification more likely to be hired.

Question 428

How do we know what others think of us, and are we accurate?

Answer 428

• Looking-glass self/reflected appraisal: Self-views are influenced by perceptions of others’ views, We infer others’ perceptions based on their reactions, Leads to metaperception (beliefs about how others see us).
• Are metaperceptions accurate?
• Generally accurate, especially with close relationships, Improve with age and experience, Research suggests biases and distortions.

Question 429

are metaperceptions accurate?

Answer 429

• research suggests accuracy even when controlling for self-appraisals (controlling for how people view themselves)
• accuracy is best with family, then friends, then acquaintances
• study of kids in grade 1-6, rate themselves on observable behaviour, cognitive ability, social status, general mood + rate other kids + metaperceptions (what I think they think of me)
• results: all kids across all grades showed at least some accuracy in metaperceptions, and this metaperception accuracy improved with age
• BUT research also finds biases in metaperceptions
• other variables will affect whether this is true: closeness of observer, quality of target/judge

Question 430

What are common biases in metaperception?

Answer 430

• False consensus effect: Overestimating how much others share our views.
• Illusion of transparency: Assuming others perceive our emotions and intentions more clearly than they do.
• Overlooking overt cues: Social situations are cognitively taxing, leading to missed social signals.
• Self-appraisals shape metaperceptions:
• Negative self-views: Low self-esteem individuals struggle to accept positive feedback + amplify small criticisms into general metaperception of how they view you as a person
• Self-enhancement bias: People interpret others’ views in a more favorable light, eagerness to learn others’ impressions associated with self-enhancement

Question 431

Taylor et al. (2012) Metaperceptions in the workplace

Answer 431

• leaders did self-ratings for interpersonal competencies (communication, empathy)
• other ratings from direct report staff rated leaders’ interpersonal competencies
• prediction-rating: leaders rated how they thought their direct reports rated their competencies
• effectiveness rating: leaders’ supervisors rated how good leaders were at their job
• self-ratings consistently higher than prediction ratings (thought of themselves more positively than they thought others thought of them)
• alignment b/w self-rating and other-ratings predicted effectiveness ratings
• BUT alignment b/w prediction-ratings (metaperception) and other-rating significantly better predicted effectiveness (degree of overlap between metaperception and actual other perception)
• knowing what your staff thinks of you is a good leadership effectiveness predictor (good performance in the workplace)

Question 432

Grutterink et al., 2013 workplace metaperceptions

Answer 432

• reciprocal expertise affirmation: extent to which team members respect, value, affirm each other’s expertise
• sharedness of expertise perception: extent to which team members agree about each others’ expertise
• reciprocal expertise affirmation = coordination action = team performance
• sharedness of expertise perceptions as a moderator that increases relationship b/w reciprocal expertise affirmation leading to coordinated action
• Method: teams of 5-7 people 4-wk business simulation, performance rated by a panel of experts
• reciprocal expertise affirmation: ask people how they thought their team members view them (metaperception)
• high shared expertise perceptions group (everyone sees themselves as good), reciprocal expertise affirmation = coordinated action = better performance
• low shared expertise perceptions = reciprocal expertise affirmation unrelated to coordinated action

Question 433

How do metaperceptions influence romantic relationships?

Answer 433

• how we think our partner views us affects how we behave in a relationship
• actor’s perception = partner’s reality (who my partner actually is) + actor’s illusion (my own beliefs, whether or not accurate)
• hypothesis 1: positive illusions lead to relationship distress and dissolution
• hypothesis 2: positive illusions have self-fulfilling effects = relationship satisfaction and longevity (reflected appraisals hypothesis: individuals come to more closely resemble the idealized perceptions their partners view them with)

Question 434

Murray et al., 1996: 121 dating couples followed for a year

Answer 434

• measures of self, partner, typical partner (the average person as a partner), ideal partner (on personality measures: interpersonal qualities, self-esteem, attachment styles)
• outcomes: relationship satisfaction, ambivalence, conflict negativity, destructive conflict styles
• idealizing one’s partner and being idealized = greater relationship satisfaction, fewer conflicts, less serious doubts
• perceiving one’s partner as falling short of ideals (discrepancy between partner and ideal partner) = more destructive conflict styles
• idealization = relationship longevity, accurate understanding of a partner’’s qualities unrelated to longevity
• idealization = positive change in partner’s self-concept, more secure attachment style (self-fulfilling effect = hypothesis 2 is correct)
• idealized images are most vulnerable when they are out of touch with a partner’s reality (too much idealization is bad = hypothesis 1 is partially true, but not completely)