333 midterm 2 Flashcards
Who was John Vasconcellos, and how did he influence the self-esteem movement?
- 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”
What was Vasconcellos’ conclusion based on his task force about self-esteem and social problems?
- 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).
How did the self-esteem movement influence culture?
- 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.
What are the methodological issues in measuring self-esteem?
- 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
Defining self-esteem according to William James
- 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)
What are the different types of self-esteem?
- 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.
How does self-esteem change over a lifetime?
- 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)
What predicts self-esteem in adulthood according to the longitudinal study by Orth et al.?
- 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.
Is self-esteem an antecedent or an outcome of success?
- 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).
What are the main theories explaining the function of self-esteem?
- 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)
Explain sociometer theory in relation to SE.
- 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
Study: Does acceptance and rejection impact state SE?
- 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)
establishing directionality in claims made about SE
- 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
What is the relationship between self-esteem and aggression?
- 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.
How does high self-esteem relate to violent behavior?
- 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)
How does self-esteem relate to narcissism?
- 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).
How does high self-esteem predict both prosocial and antisocial behaviors?
- High SE predicts both:
Bullying & defending against bullies. - Cheating & moral integrity.
- Conclusion: SE amplifies existing personality traits (intensifying both prosocial and antisocial tendencies)
is it the quantity of SE that matters or where you get your SE from?
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)
What is the motivational trade-off in contingent SE?
- 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
Contingencies of self-worth in academic success and adolescents
- 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)
What are the conclusions regarding the Dark Side of SE?
- 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
Researcher bias in Vasconcellos report
- 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
According to Baumeister’s review, what are the benefits and limits of high SE?
- 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).
What distinguishes stable vs. fragile self-esteem?
- Stable SE: Consistent, independent of external validation.
- Fragile SE: Fluctuates, easily threatened by ego threats, attached to contingent domains (can be high SE)
How is stable/fragile SE related to SCC?
- 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)
What is optimal SE?
- 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
Paths to optimal SE
- mindfulness: less mindful = poor decision making and less stable SE
- flow activities
- increased SCC
What is self-integrity, and why do we need it?
- 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.
What is psychological threat, and what are some examples?
- 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?
What is the least-used method of dealing with psychological threat?
- 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
What are defensive reactions, and what are some types?
- 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)
What is self-affirmation theory?
- 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)
How do we restore self-integrity according to self-affirmation theory?
- 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
How does self-affirmation differ from self-enhancement?
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.
What are some ways people engage in self-affirmation?
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
How do self-affirmation and symbolic self-completion differ?
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)
How does self-affirmation help people learn from threats?
Buffers against threats by reassuring people of their self-integrity.
Reduces defensiveness, making it easier to accept feedback.
What is stereotype threat, and how does it affect education?
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
Study: Can self-affirmation help close the achievement gap in education?
- 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
How does self-affirmation create long-term change?
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)
How does self-threat lead to prejudice?
- 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
Study: do threats to self increase prejudice?
- 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
Study: does affirming the self reduce prejudice?
- 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)
What is terror management theory?
- 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.
Study: does self-affirmation eliminate negative effects of mortality salience?
- 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)
How do we maintain a sense of self over time, even though we don’t remember everything?
- 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
What is narrative identity?
- 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).
What are the main functions of narrative identity?
- 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)
How does William James’ concept of the self relate to narrative identity?
- 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)
How does narrative identity develop in adolescence? (Erikson 1963)
- 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)
How does social interaction shape narrative identity?
- 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.
How do researchers study narrative identity?
- 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.).
What are common themes in personal narratives?
- 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
Study: How do life stories change over time?
- 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
How do life stories change as we age?
- 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’
How does narrative identity relate to Big Five personality traits?
- Neuroticism: More negative emotions, contamination themes.
- Agreeableness: More communal themes.
- Openness: More complex, multi-layered stories.
how does narrative identity relate to the 3-part model of personality?
- 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)
How is narrative identity related to characteristic adaptations?
- 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)
How does narrative style relate to mental health?
- 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
How does psychotherapy relate to the narrative self?
- 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
What does it mean to be “generative”?
- 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)
what is the redemptive self?
- 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)
what are the five features of the redemptive self?
- 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
why is the redemptive self so common?
- 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
How does culture shape narrative identity?
- 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
Western and Eastern culture and narrative self
- 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
What is self-regulation?
- 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.
What are standards in self-regulation?
- 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.
What is a self-control dilemma?
- 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.
What did Mischel’s Marshmallow Test show about self-regulation?
- 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
What did the New Zealand study reveal about self-regulation?
- 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
What is the TOTE model?
- 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)
What two factors determine goal pursuit likelihood?
- 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
Factors influencing value and motivation
- Importance: Relevance to identity (how central is it to self-concept).
- Intrinsic value: doing the goal for its inherent satisfaction.
- Utility: how useful the goal is and its benefit (often its use toward a higher-order goal)
- Cost: Effort required to achieve the goal (time, money, boredom, the other things you could be doing; procrastination is often due to cost)
Factors that interfere with setting good goals
- 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
How does self-awareness affect self-regulation?
- 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)
Study: does lack of self-awareness lead to more misbehaviour
- 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
How do mirrors affect self-regulation?
- 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
Study: alcohol reduces self-awareness
- 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
What is ego depletion theory?
- 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
how do researchers study ego depletion?
- 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
study: does emotion regulation lead to poorer physical stamina?
- 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
examples of ego depletion reducing performance on second self-control task
- 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
evidence that ego depletion increases impulsive, disinhibited behaviour
- spend more money on impulsive purchases
- eating more junk food
- drink more alcohol
- fewer sexual inhibitions
- more aggressive responses to being provoked
ego depletion moderation by automaticity
- 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
ego depletion moderation by motivation
- 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)
implications of ego depletion
- 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)
Controversies in ego depletion theory
- 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)
why are there mixed results surrounding ego depletion
- publication bias for positive results (studies that don’t produce the predicted outcome are not published = inflation of the effect)
- 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 - 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
What is trait self-control?
- 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)
What are the benefits of high trait self-control?
- 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
What is the paradox of high trait self-control?
- 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
Why do high trait self-control people experience less temptation?
- 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
Study: how do high trait self-control people identify dilemmas? Methods
- 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
Study: how do high trait self-control people identify dilemmas? Results
- 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
implications of high trait self-control study
- 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
implementation intentions
- 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
Study: Implementation intentions xmas report
- 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
Study: implementation intentions exercise program
- 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
benefits of implementation intentions
- 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
Study: implementation intentions moderator
- 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
why are implementation intentions helpful
- 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)
how do we pursue goals without realizing it?
- 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)
auto-motive vs. implementation intentions
- 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
study 1: what kind of goals do people pursue in different relationships?
- 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)
study 2: automatic activation of goals
- 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)
What is the pervasive need to belong?
- 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.
How can people satisfy their need to belong?
- 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.
How does the need to belong operate similarly to other fundamental needs?
- 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.
How does the need to belong influence emotions?
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.
How does rejection signal an unmet need to belong?
- 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.
Study: does rejection lead to a desire for social contact?
- 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)
What are some consequences of social rejection?
- 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.
Study: intensity of rejection as a moderator?
- 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
What is rejection sensitivity and what is it associated with?
- 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)
method: study on ‘how people choose partners in dating services’ (RS and rejection)
- 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))
How do people regulate their need to belong over time?
- 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
What happens when people are ‘hungry’ for new connections, but none are available?
- 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)
study: does unmet need to belong make us willing to lower bar for what we accept as social connection?
- 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)
What are the long-term health effects of chronic belonging deprivation?
- 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
Universality of the need to belong
- there are individual differences, but it’s still present across cultures
- social connection critical for survival, so evolutionarily necessary
Social connection critical for survival–examples
- 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
What is the implication of having a biological mechanism motivating us to seek belonging?
- 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
neural correlates of physical pain
- 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
Study: is social pain also processed in dACC?
- 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)
study: does easing physical pain also ease social pain?
- 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
moderation
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)
mediation
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
What is self-presentation?
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.
What is automatic self-presentation?
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.
When is self-presentation more controlled?
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
What are the two main characteristics of desirable self-presentations?
Beneficial: Facilitates personal goals, often motivated by the desire to be liked.
Believable: The self-presentation must be credible and defensible.
What is the most common motivation for self-presentation?
- 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
How do people behave differently in public vs. private?
- 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)
study: how far will people go to avoid a bad reputation?
- 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
How do people adjust their self-presentation to be liked?
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)
How can self-presentation lead to problematic behaviors?
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.
study: do women minimize their competence in order to create a positive impression (METHODS)
- 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
study: do women minimize their competence in order to create a positive impression (RESULTS)
- 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)
Can self-presentation lead to risky behavior?
- 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
study: does the desire to come across as attractive lead to greater risk-taking
- 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
When does self-presentation create a negative impression?
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.
What are other motivations for self-presentation besides being liked?
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.
How do people ensure their self-presentation is credible?
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
study: how positive of an impression to convey in order to ensure believability
- 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
Why do people self-enhance only to a certain extent?
- 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
How do people respond to a bad reputation?
- 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)
How does trait self-monitoring affect self-presentation?
- 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
How does social media facilitate self-presentation?
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
Why can social media make self-presentation more anxiety-provoking?
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
What is the “moving target problem” in social media research?
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
Do social media profiles reflect our real selves (two hypotheses)?
Idealized Virtual Reality Hypothesis: Profiles reflect idealized traits, not actual personality
Extended Real-Life Hypothesis: People express their real personality online
How is the accuracy of social media profiles measured?
‘Real’ personality measured via self-report and close-other reports
Facebook personality assessed by coders
Accuracy = correlation between coders’ ratings and self/other reports
Which hypothesis about social media and self-presentation is most accurate?
- Research shows positive correlation between self-reports, close-other reports, and coders’ ratings of social media profiles
- evidence for extended real-life hypothesis
How do we detect personality from online profiles?
- 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)
Front: What social media behaviors are associated with high extraversion?
Expressiveness in profile picture and posts
More Facebook friends
More posts about daily activities
Front: What social media behaviors are associated with high openness?
Posting about left-wing politics
Sharing creative pictures
Engaging with cultural interests
Front: What social media behaviors are associated with high neuroticism?
Fewer positive posts and pictures
Spending more time on social media but using it passively (less posting)
Front: What are moderators of online personality accuracy?
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
How do algorithmic personality judgments compare to human judgments?
- 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
What research exists on Instagram personality accuracy?
- 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
How does social media use harm well-being?
Weaker social interactions
Lower self-esteem
Increased anxiety, loneliness, and depression
More envy
How does social media use benefit well-being?
Feelings of connection
Higher self-esteem
Social involvement and social support
What do meta-analyses say about social media and well-being?
Across 4 meta-analyses, no significant link between social media use and: SE, depression, loneliness, academic achievement
Contradictory findings make conclusions difficult
What moderators affect social media’s impact on well-being?
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)
Why is generalizability a problem in social media research?
Most studies focus on Facebook
Findings may not apply to other platforms like Instagram, Twitter, or TikTok
How does Instagram affect well-being?
- 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
What does Facebook’s internal research say about Instagram and body image?
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
What do we know about TikTok and well-being?
Only one study (during COVID) found no link between TikTok use and well-being
More research is needed to draw conclusions
Who is the judge, and what determines their accuracy?
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).
What is the Realistic Accuracy Model (RAM)?
- Relevance: Are personality cues relevant?
- Availability: Are these cues available to the judge?
- Detection: Does the judge notice the cues?
- Utilization: Does the judge use them to form an impression?
Study: is the good target a necessary condition for the good judge to emerge?
- 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
What makes someone a good target for accurate perception?
- 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)
Why is it beneficial to be a good target?
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.
How do we know what others think of us, and are we accurate?
- 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.
are metaperceptions accurate?
- 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
What are common biases in metaperception?
- 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
Taylor et al. (2012) Metaperceptions in the workplace
- 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)
Grutterink et al., 2013 workplace metaperceptions
- 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
How do metaperceptions influence romantic relationships?
- 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)
Murray et al., 1996: 121 dating couples followed for a year
- 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)
