Illusions about the Self (Midterm #1) Flashcards
Self-Assessment Motive
Motive to see ourselves accurately. Leads to people seeking objective feedback about their abilities and characteristics in order to reduce uncertainty about the self-concept. Pragmatic function because allows us to develop accurate and realistic goals for ourselves.
Self-Enhancement Motive
Motive to maximize how positively we see ourselves. Functions to attain or maintain self-esteem. Guides people toward situations in which they believe they will excel or can promote their positive qualities which will help them increase their self-esteem. Leads us to seek self-knowledge that is enhancing and therefore often biased and unrealistic.
Overly Positive Self-Evaluations
People use more positive traits to describe themselves than negative traits. We’re more likely to forget negative feedback about ourselves than positive. Remember successes more easily. Tendency to engage in downward social comparisons. Self-serving attributional bias: we claim credit for successes but blame failures on the situation. See talents as unique, weaknesses as common.
Direct Evidence for Illusory Self-Evaluations
- Better-than-average effect
- We rate ourselves better than objectively warranted: people consistently over-estimate their ability in various domains, especially those that are below average in domain.
Better-than-average-effect
Most people rate their abilities as better than the average person even though it is statistically impossible for most people to be above average.
Better-Than-Average on More Desirable Traits
The more desirable a trait, the more people see themselves as better than average on this trait. The more desirable a trait, the more likely people see this trait as descriptive of themselves.
To what extent are these overly positive self-evaluations universal?
Western samples report higher self-esteem than Japanese samples. Self-enhancement is unique / more evident in individualistic societies.
Pan cultural Self-Enhancement Study
Sedikides et al., 2003. People will self-enhance on traits that are important and consistent with cultural values. Method: Recruited American and Japanese students. Rated how well individualistic and collectivistic traits described them compared to a typical cultural group member. Americans self-enhanced more on individualistic traits, and Japanese self-enhanced more on collectivistic traits. Evidence for self-enhancement across cultures.
Two self-Enhancement Strategies
- Self-advancement: Increasing how positively you see yourself (e.g., overly positive self-evaluations).
- Self-protection: Limiting how negatively you see yourself by avoiding or deflecting threats to self-esteem. (e.g., attributing failures to external circumstances, avoiding situations that might lead to failure, self-handicapping: creating obstacles that can later be blamed for failure).
Self-Esteem as a Moderator
Self-enhancement is universal, just looks different depending on a person’s self-esteem.
High self-esteem: More likely to use self-advancement
Low self-esteem: More likely to use self-protection.
Illusions of Personal Control
The idea that we have control over our lives is central to most theories of self-esteem and well-being. BUT, personal control beliefs tend to be greater than what’s justified (i.e., illusory). E.g., people believe they have more control over outcome of dice if they’re allowed to throw them than if someone else does.
Illusions of Personal Control Study
Fried et al., 2011. Neurons in motor area begin firing ~1500ms before 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.
Unrealistic Optimism Bias
People tend to think that they are less likely than others to experience negative events and more like to experience positive events. Test: Difficult to establish whether an individual is being overly optimistic. Easier to test by asking people to compare self to others. E.g.: How likely is it that _ will happen to you? How likely is it that _ will happen to peer (same age, gender, education level).
Reducing Unrealistic Optimism Study
Weinstein et al., 1995. Can this bias be eliminated when confronted with own risk factors for a health problem? Method: 374 undergraduates rejected on their risk of developing a drinking problem. Experimental manipulation: 1. Risk increasing (list risk factors that you possess that increase your chances of developing a drinking problem). 2. Control (did not list own risk factors). Then rated: 1.Own risk of developing a drinking problem. 2. Average college student’s risk of developing a drinking problem.
Thinking about own risk factors for developing a drinking problem did not decrease optimism bias.
Adjustment to University Study
Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992. Do individual differences in self-esteem, beliefs about control, and optimism about the future predict adjustment to college? Method: 2 year study of first year students’ adjustment to university. Assessed positive illusions. Results:
Adjustment: Higher self-esteem and more optimism led to better adjustment.
GPA: Higher self-esteem led to higher cumulative GPA.
Suggests that positive illusions lead to better outcomes.
Illusions and Men at Risk for AIDS Study
Are illusions adaptive and helpful in more challenging circumstances?
Method: Investigated adaptive (vs. maladaptive) consequences of unrealistic optimism. Recruited HIV+ and HIV- men. Measured AIDS-specific optimism.
Results: HIV+ men showed more AIDS-specific optimism than HIV- men. More AIDS specific optimism associated with: Higher perceived control, more active coping, more healthy behaviour: more likely to practice safe sex and exercise regularly. Suggests that unrealistic optimism is an adaptive response and does not compromise health behaviour.
Expectations & AIDS Course Study
Reed et al, 1994. Method: Recruited men diagnosed with AIDS for 1 year. Assessed realistic acceptance (i.e., not unrealistic optimism) of diagnosis: “I tried to accept what might happen” “I prepare myself for the worst”. How does acceptance vs optimism affect survival?
Results: Estimated survival time 9 months shorter for individual showing a high degree of acceptance.
Illusions and Mental Health
Illusion appear to positively impact our adjustment to the ups and downs of life as well as challenging major life events. Illusions are adaptive and appear to be fairly pervasive.
Knowledge Isn’t Power
When informed of illusions and biases, people think they are less prone to them… which is itself self-enhancing. But on follow-up, these people demonstrated many of these biases.
“Daffodil Days” Study
Employ & Dunning, 2000. What is the source of bias for feeling holier-than-thou? Better than average effect applied to morality: people often believe they are more moral and kind than the average person. Method: 5 weeks before charity event: “Will you buy at least one daffodil and, if so, how many?” “Will a peer buy at least on daffodil?”. 3 days after event: “ How many did you buy”. Study results suggest that feeling “holier-than-thou” / better-than-average effect is due to errors in judgments about self, not in judgments about others.
Cognitive Bias in Self-Perception? Study
Employ & Dunning, 2000. Across 4 studies, people overestimate 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. Strange, since we have so much information about ourselves.
Case-Based vs Base-Rate Info
Types of information on which to base predictions of future behaviour. Case-Based: evidence relevant to the specific case or person under consideration. Distributional / base-rate: evidence about the distribution of behaviour in similar or past situations. People are generally pretty good at estimating the distribution of social behaviour in various domains.
Base rate fallacy
We tend to assign greater value to case-based info and often ignore distributional info. When we make predictions about our own behaviour, we use case-based info (we have a clear sense of what we’re like as a person). When we make predictions about an average person’s behaviour, we’re more likely to use base-rate info (Idea of “average person” is vague and abstract, so no case-based info is available, and therefore we have to rely on distributional info).
Study of Base Rate Fallacy in Self-Perceptions
Employ & Dunning, 2000. Study: Do we use case-based info to predict own behaviour and base-rate info to predict others’ behaviour? Method: Participants received $5.00 for participating in study. Received info about 3 charities: told that future participants will have chance of donating any or all of their study compensation to one of them. If in this situation, how much would you and average peer donate? Then, learned about actual donations of 3, 7, then 13 people form earlier study and allowed to revise prediction after each new piece of info.
Evidence from study of base-rate fallacy in self-perceptions
Base-rate info improved accuracy of predictions of peer’s behaviour. BUT did not improve accuracy of predictions for own behaviour - hung on to case-based info and rejected base-rate info. But this doesn’t rule out self-enhancement motivation. If really about hanging on to case-based info, and not self-enhancement, then any case-based info should prompt people to ignore distributional info.
Using Case-Based Info to Judge a Specific Other Study
Employ & Dunning, 2000. Study: Does presence of any case-based info prompt ignoring of distributional info? Method: Repeated method of previous study but added third prediction. Participants read a peer’s self-description. How much would you donate? How much would average peer donate? How much would this specific peer donate? People ignored base-rate info for self AND for specific peer. Feeling holier than thou (better-than-average) not necessarily due to self-enhancement motivation, but base-rate fallacy.
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).
One Mechanism, Two effects? Hypothesis
Anchoring bias is responsible for the better-than-average and worse-than-average effects. Better-than-average effect in domains that are easy for most people: we anchor to own experience of task of feeling effortless, facing to take into account that others may feel similarly. Worse-than-average effect in domains that are hard for most people: we anchor to own experience of task feeling hard, failing to take into account that others may feel similarly.
Anchoring Bias
Common human tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information that comes to mind/is offered (the anchor) when making a decision. Means that judgments will be biased towards anchor / info that we can easily retrieve.
Anchoring Bias in Views of Self and Others
When comparing self and others: We first think about our own abilities because they come to use automatically and effortlessly –> anchor. We only think about other’s ability after –> its effortful and so we insufficiently take this info into account. This causes our judgments of ourselves to be biased by towards how we perceive our own ability in a given domain.
Better-Than-Average Effect and Difficulty
Study: Assessed “integrative ability” using bogus test. Experimental manipulation: Participants either got a hard or easy test. Participants rated own ability compared with peers’ ability. Predictions: Easy test: Participants will see own ability as above average. Difficult test: Participants will see own ability as below average. Difficulty of test determined whether people saw themselves as better-than or worse-than average.
Why biased view of self?
Self-enhancement motive: Self-esteem is a psychological need. Cognitive biases in information processing: Base-rate fallacy, anchoring bias.
Ways in which positive illusions are good
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. Coping with challenges.
Ways in which positive illusions are bad
More boasting. Interfere with taking sensible medical precautions. Set unrealistically high goals. See no reason to self-improve.
Meta-Analysis Study
Dufner et al., 2018. 200 studies with more than 10,000 participants. Positive illusions about self are good for personal adjustment (higher subjective well-being and lower feelings of depression). Positive illusions have mixed effects for relationships:
1. How long you know someone matters (self-enhancement linked with more liking by strangers, but no association for longer-term relationships).
2. Type of traits you self-enhance on matters (self-enhancement on collectivistic traits were seen as more likeable/warm, self enhance on individualist traits seen as more competent but also less likeable/warm).
Implications of Meta-Analysis Study
Positive illusions are associated with people feeling good about themselves. When interacting with strangers, it’s helpful to come across as confident (matters less when people one knows better). If want to come across as likeable, chance collectivistic traits. If you want to come across as competent, enhance individualistic traits.
