333 midterm 1 Flashcards
Who is considered the father of North American psychology?
William James
What are the two aspects of the self according to William James?
Me and I
Define ‘me’ in the context of William James’s theory of self.
The objective self or sense of self as an object of reflection
Includes the material self, the social self, and the spiritual self
What does the ‘material self’ encompass?
Physical entities that belong to a person, including:
* Your body
* Material possessions (money, belongings, house)
Why is a physical body considered a prerequisite for the self?
Without a physical body, no self is possible
What is the ‘social self’ shaped and expressed by?
Interactions with others
How many selves do we have according to the ‘social self’ concept?
As many selves as people we have interactions with
What constitutes the ‘spiritual self’?
Inner qualities such as:
* Personality
* Core values
* Emotions
Anything that cannot be observed, but exists in you and in your mind (your core)
Define ‘I’ in the context of William James’s theory of self.
The subjective part of the self, our experience of ourselves, the part of ourselves that thinks, experiences, and perceives (consciousness)
What does the ‘I’ enable us to do?
Have a sense that our experiences belong to us (that we’re experiencing the world from a first person perspective)
What continuity does the ‘I’ provide?
Continuity between the past, present, and future self (I remember doing this, and I can think about myself in the future)
What is Baumeister’s definition of the self?
Your social identity and your inner processes that enable you to operate your body successfully in society
What are the components of the self according to Baumeister?
Social self, spiritual self, material self
True or False: The self is static and unchanging.
False; the self is dynamic and in flux, dealing with new situations, learning, and adapting
What is the self-concept as an associative network?
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.
What does the term ‘working self-concept’ refer to?
The subset of self-knowledge that is the current focus of awareness
This is created moment to moment.
What is situational activation in relation to self-concept?
Different situations can activate different pieces of self-knowledge, creating different working self-concepts.
Define ‘spreading activation’ in the context of self-concept.
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.
What determines the accessibility of the working self-concept?
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
What is the distinctiveness theory?
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.
What does the study involving 6th graders reveal about self-description?
- 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
Implications of the working self-concept
- 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
Describe the study manipulating working self-concept
- 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
Is there a ‘true self’?
- 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
List elements common to theories about the true self.
- 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
Study: do people believe in a true self and use it as a guide to make decisions?
- 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
What are the implications of a ‘true self’?
- 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
study: when do people feel most authentic?
- 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
Define ‘desired reputation’ in the context of true self.
- 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
Why do people act differently in various situations according to the concept of desired reputation?
Slightly different desired reputations exist at school versus with family/friends.
* but these aren’t drastically different from each other
What is the self-concept?
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”
What is self-complexity?
- 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
What characterizes high self-complexity?
Many self-aspects that are relatively distinct from each other
What characterizes low self-complexity?
Few self-aspects with a high degree of overlap with each other
Implications of self-complexity
- affective spillover
- affect extremity
- self-complexity as a stress buffer
What is affective spillover?
- Emotions associated with one self-aspect spill over to other self-aspects because of links between self-aspects and spreading activation
How does self-complexity affect emotional spillover?
Low self-complexity leads to greater emotional spillover because self-aspects are intricately linked
Affect extremity and self-complexity, study: how does self-complexity affect the relationship between failure and emotional reactions
- 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
study: is low self-complexity also associated with more variation in mood over time?
- 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)
How does self-complexity act as a stress buffer?
- High self-complexity may protect against negative consequences of stressful life events
- may explain why some people are more resilient to stress
study: does high self-complexity protect against the negative health effects of stress
- 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
Review regarding self-complexity and stress buffering
- 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
What is self-concept clarity (SCC)?
- 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)
What is associated with high self-concept clarity?
- 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
study: SCC during the pandemic
- 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?
What factors influence self-concept clarity?
- 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)
study: SCC and role transitions
- 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
What is the implication of role transitions on SCC?
- Role transitions are only one factor affecting SCC
- Role transitions predict lower SCC if the person feels negatively about the changes
Intrapersonal sources of self-knowledge
- self-perception: observing overt behaviour
- introspection: looking toward our internal states
What is self-perception?
- Observing our overt behaviours and using these observations to infer what we’re like
- drawing conclusions based on observing our past behaviour
What is introspection?
Directing attention inwards to internal states (thoughts and feelings) to draw conclusions about oneself
It involves self-awareness.
Which is prioritized more for self-knowledge: internal states or behaviour?
- 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
study: how does access to internal states vs. behaviour shape others’ impressions
- 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
Implications of intrapersonal sources of self-knowledge
- 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.
study: are people aware of what impacts their mood?
- 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
symbolic interactionism
- the self-concept depends on our social interactions—no self without others
- the social world accounts for a majority of our self-knowledge
What does social comparison involve?
- 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)
Looking glass self as an interpersonal source of self-knowledge
- 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)
How can we explain the (lack of) correlation between self-concept and how others see us?
- 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
What does social identity theory state?
- 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.
Evidence for social identity theory
- 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)
What determines self-description/behaviour in a social identity?
- 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)
What happens when individuals incorporate close others into their self-concept?
- 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.
study: do people confuse their partner’s traits for their own
- 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
Determinants of self-concept change
- 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.
Interpersonal sources of self-knowledge
- Social comparison
- Looking-glass self
- Social groups we belong to
- Including close others in the self
What is culture?
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.
What are key features of individualistic cultures?
- 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
What are key features of collectivistic cultures?
- 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
How does culture shape self-concept?
- 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)
How do parenting styles differ between individualistic and collectivistic cultures?
Individualistic cultures: Encourage independence (self-soothing, sleeping alone, emotional self-expression)
Collectivistic cultures: Encourage obedience and respect (co-sleeping, directive conversations, praising obedience)
How does historical subsistence affect culture?
Farming cultures = interdependent (cooperation needed for harvest)
Herding/fishing cultures = independent (self-reliance, less negotiation)
How does cognition differ between individualistic and collectivistic cultures?
Individualistic cultures: Analytical thinking (focus on objects, categorization, logic), focus on category
Collectivistic cultures: Holistic thinking (focus on relationships, patterns, context), focus on relationship
How do causal attributions differ across cultures?
Americans: More likely to attribute events to individual responsibility
Japanese: More likely to attribute events to situational or collective responsibility
How do emotions differ in individualistic vs. collectivistic cultures?
- 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
What are some cultural variations in collectivism?
- 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)
What is a multicultural identity?
A sense of belonging to two or more cultural groups, often experienced by immigrants, ethnic minorities, and Indigenous peoples
What is acculturation?
- 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)
How does emotional acculturation occur?
- 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)
What is cultural frame switching?
- 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
Acculturation strategies
- 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)
How do acculturation strategies affect well-being?
Integration = best psychological & sociocultural adaptation
Marginalization = worst adaptation
Separation = better psychological health than assimilation
Integration > separation > assimilation > marginalization
Individualism worldwide
- 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
Besides nationality, what other factors influence individualism vs. collectivism?
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
Study: culture and causal attributions
- 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)
What is the implication of the causal attribution study?
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.
Study: Rod and Frame test
- 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).
What is the implication of the Rod and Frame Test?
Cultural differences influence how people perceive and process information.
Collectivistic cultures emphasize context and relationships.
Individualistic cultures emphasize individual stimuli
Study: Emotional suppression and well-being
- 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)
Implications of cultural differences
- 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)
study: individualism/collectivism across cultures? (Salvador et al.)
- 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).
Assertive interdependence in Arab culture
- 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
Study: Assertive interdependence in Arab culture
- 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)
Study: Emotional experience in independent cultures
- 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)
Implications of independence vs. interdependence differences in different countries
- 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
Study: generational emotional acculturation
- 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)
What is the implication of the generational emotional acculturation study?
- Cultural exposure gradually shifts emotional experience and makaes people more psychologically similar to majority culture
- Heritage identity may fade over generations.
Study: cultural fram switching *Turks and Belgians
- 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
Study: do multicultural individuals engage in cultural frame-switching in their self-descriptions?
- 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
What is the implication of the cultural frame switching study?
- 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
Study: multicultural identity and well-being
- 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
What did the study on multicultural youth and psychological well-being find?
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.
What are the implications of the study on separation vs. assimilation?
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.
What are the three main self-evaluation motivations?
- Self-assessment – Motivation to see oneself accurately.
- Self-enhancement – Motivation to see oneself positively.
- Self-verification – Motivation to confirm one’s existing self-concept.
What is self-assessment?
- 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.
What is self-enhancement?
- 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
When self-assessment and self-enhancement conflict, which one wins?
- Self-enhancement dominates – people prefer positive self-information over accurate self-information.
- Leads to illusory beliefs about the self.
What is the triad of illusions?
- Overly positive self-evaluations – Thinking we are better than we really are.
- Illusions of control – Believing we have more control than we actually do.
- Unrealistic optimism – Believing the future will be better than is statistically likely
What are some overly positive self-evaluations?
- 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)
What is the better-than-average effect?
- 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
What traits do people most strongly self-enhance on?
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.
Other than the better-than-average effect, what is another piece of direct evidence for illusory overly positive self-evaluations?
- 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
Is self-enhancement universal?
- 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
Study: American and Japanese self-enhancement
- 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
Self-esteem in American and Japanese samples
- 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)
how does self-enhancement depend on self-esteem
- 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)
illusions of control
- 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
“free will is an illusion” neuroscience
- 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
What is the unrealistic optimism bias?
- 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)
What are some examples of unrealistic optimism?
Less likely: Car accidents, crime, illness, divorce.
More likely: High salary, gifted child, long life
study: can the unrealistic optimism bias be eliminated when confronted with their own risk factors for a health problem
- 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)
Study: do individual differences in self-esteem, beliefs about control, and optimism about the future predict adjustment to college
- 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.
Study: adaptive vs. maladaptive consequences of unrealistic optimism
- 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
Study: AIDS unrealistic optimism
- 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)
Self-enhancement strategies
- 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)
Is the unrealistic optimism bias adaptive?
- 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)
What are two possible explanations for positively biased self-perceptions?
- 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.
What is the holier-than-thou effect?
- 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
Study: Holier-than-thou daffodils
- 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
What are the two types of information we use to predict behavior?
- Case-based information (specific to an individual case): Used when making predictions about ourselves.
* Leads to biased predictions because it ignores statistical trends. - 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)
base rate fallacy
- we tend to assign greater value to case-based info and often ignore distributional info
Study: do we use case-based info to predict own behaviour and base-rate info to predit others’ behaviour?
- 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
Study: does presence of any case-based info prompt ignoring of distributional info
- 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
What is the worse-than-average effect?
- 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
How does anchoring bias explain the worse-than-average effect?
- 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
anchoring
- 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
which domains showed the better-than or worse-than effects
- better: ability to get along with others, written and spoken expression, leadership
- worse: arts, sales, acting, mechanics
study: test of ‘integrative ability’ for the anchoring effect
- 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
Why are our self-views biased?
- motivational bias (self-enhancement motive)
- cognitive biases: anchoring bias and base rate fallacy
How do positive illusions benefit people?
- 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
How can self-enhancement be harmful?
- Excessive boasting → social alienation.
- Overconfidence → ignoring medical risks (e.g., smoking study).
- Unrealistically high goals → frequent failure and discouragement.
What did the meta-analysis of 200 self-enhancement studies find?
- 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
What is self-verification?
- The motivation to confirm one’s existing self-concept, even if negative.
- Helps people feel predictability and stability in life.
How does self-verification fulfill the epistemic need for coherence?
- 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
How does self-verification help social interactions?
- 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.
How do people shape their social environments to confirm self-views?
- 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).
Study: How do people choose social interactions that verify self-views?
- 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.
How does self-verification influence intimate relationships?
- 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)
How do people elicit self-verifying feedback from others?
- 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).
What happens when people receive feedback that contradicts their self-view?
- 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.
Study: How do people respond when their self-view is challenged?
- 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.
Journalism Study: How do people respond when an important identity is threatened?
- 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.
What cognitive biases contribute to self-verification?
- Selective attention: Focusing more on feedback that confirms self-views.
- Selective memory: Better recall for self-consistent feedback.
* Example: Likeable people remember being called likeable. Dislikeable people remember being called dislikeable. - 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)
Is self-verification present across cultures?
- 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”).
Why don’t people change self-views when given contradicting evidence?
- 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
How can self-verification be both beneficial and harmful?
- 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
What are the differences between self-verification, self-enhancement, and self-assessment?
- 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
How does the type of information affect whether people choose self-verification or self-enhancement?
- 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)
How does self-view certainty affect whether people engage in self-verification or self-enhancement?
Strongly held self-views reject contradicting feedback. (for less central, uncertain self-views, people are more accepting of contrasting feedback)
How does the importance of a relationship affect whether people engage in self-verification or self-enhancement?
- 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
*
What influences whether people engage in self-verification vs. self-enhancement
- The kind of info that is accessible
- Centrality of self-view
- Importance of relationship
