Karen Gonsalkorale Flashcards
James, 1890
Duality of the self
Self as an object that can be observed: “Me”
–Self-concept
Self as an agent doing the observing: “I”
–Self-awareness
Brewer & Gardner, 1996
Personal (individual) self
–Beliefs about private self
Relational self
–Self in context of interpersonal relationships
E.g., intimate relationships
Collective self
–Self in relation to group memberships
Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986)
Cultural Differences in Defining the Self
People from Western cultures tend to:
- -Value independence and uniqueness
- -Define themselves as quite separate from other people: Independent view of the self
The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
— American proverb
People from Asian and other non-Western cultures tend to:
- -Value interdependence and connectedness
- -Define themselves in terms of their relationships to others: Interdependent view of the self
The nail that stands out gets pounded down.
— Japanese proverb
May be different for bi-cultural people/ different selves activated at different times: In HK study looked at people fluent in 2 languages, given ‘I am’ test in each language. In English relational self stressed, in Chinese Interdependent selves.
Gender Differences in Defining the Interdependent Self
Women: more relational interdependence - focus more on their close relationships
E.g., how they feel about their spouse or their child
Men: more collective interdependence - focus on their memberships in larger groups
E.g., Australian, belong to the cricket team
Nisbett and Wilson (1977)
How Do We Know Who We Are? Introspection
Looking inward – examining our thoughts and feelings
Problem: We don’t always have access to our internal states or their causes
Participants chose a pair of 12 stockings from a display
All the stockings were identical, when participants asked why nobody said the right-hand bias. They came up with causes for their actions like shiny/ resiliant. Noone said/ realised the stockings were all the same.
Showed a right-hand bias
We don’t know the reasons for our decisions
Introspection is not always reliable
Wilson, Laser, and Stone (1982):
“Introspection” group (diary group):
In a diary, recorded
1) various factors that could influence mood eg. sleep deprivation, Mondays and
2) their mood
Estimated the extent to which various factors influenced their moods
“Observer” group:
Estimated the extent to which various factors influence mood
Result: The observer group was just as accurate as the introspection group. As the accuracy was the same. everyone is relying on general causal theories about what things could influence mood.Introspection doesn’t lead to insight about the causes of our moods
Bem, 1967
How Do We Know Who We Are?Observing our Behaviour
Self-perception Theory
We infer who we are from what we do (our behaviour). Eg visit sick relative, I must be caring
Likely to occur when:
We are unsure of our attitudes and feelings
Our internal cues (attitudes and feelings) are weak
We have no clear situational influence on our behaviour
We chose the behaviour freely
If there’s an external cue eg. emergency bell we attribute behavior to that, it there’s no external cue we attribute behavior to internal
But how do we work out whether the situation is sufficient to explain our behaviour?
We ask ourselves: Is the behaviour freely chosen?
Intrinsic motivation: desire to engage in an activity because of internal reasons (you enjoy it)
Extrinsic motivation: desire to engage in an activity because of external rewards or pressures
If due to intrinsic motivation, then we will infer attitudes and feelings from behaviour
Lepper, Green, Nisbett, 1973
Self-perception, Rewards, and Motivation
Rewards decrease intrinsic motivation
Got preschoolers to draw
1) First group told they would get given a reward for drawing
2) Given a reward afterwards, weren’t expecting it
3) No reward or mention of reward
2 weeks later measured how long children would draw with pencils. Children promised rewards showed less interest in drawing, spent 1/2 as much time drawing. Kids promised reward from outset don’t believe they’re drawing because they like it, but because of external reward. Rewards are more effective if they’re a surprise, or if you reward the effort or emphasise the element of choice
Cooley, 1902
Looking Glass Self
We see ourselves as a reflection of how others see us
Festinger, 1954
Social Comparison Theory
We learn about our own abilities and attitudes by comparing ourselves to other people
The theory revolves around two questions:
WHEN do you engage in social comparison?
With WHOM do you choose to compare yourself?
Gilbert, er al. 1995
Automaticity of Social Comparisons
Making social comparisons may be a spontaneous, automatic process, at least with salient targets
This means that we sometimes make social comparisons even when it is inappropriate to do so
but we can “undo” them if we have sufficient cognitive resources
Participants told that they would be doing a test of their “schizophrenia detection ability”
Watch an instructional video of a model doing the test. The model: performs poorly (4/18 correct) OR well (16/18) in both conditions, participants were told that the model’s performance was staged
Participants either made cognitively busy (memorise 8-digit number) or not
All participants do schizophrenia-detection task, receive ambiguous feedback (10/18)
Participants rate own competence at the task
When cognitively busy, context of model’s performance not considered. Thus, performance affects self-judgments
(sig diff between blue and yellow bars)
When not busy, context is taken into account and self-ratings are not significantly influenced by the model (no sig diff between blue and yellow bars)
May be evidence that social comparison is something we do all the time, at least with salient targets. So sometimes we make social comparisons in situations where it’s not appropriate
Different Motives, Different Social Comparisons
If you want to know the top level to which you can aspire, you engage in upward social comparison:
comparing yourself to people who are better than you are on a particular ability
If you want to feel better about yourself, you engage in downward social comparison: comparing yourself to people who are worse than you on a particular trait or ability
Who you compare yourself to maps onto different self-motives
Leary, 2007 What is a self-motive?
“An inclination that is aimed toward establishing or maintaining a particular state of self-awareness, self-representation, or self-evaluation”
Types of Self-motives
Accuracy perception (e.g., Trope, 1986): The motivation to have accurate and valid information about ourselves
Self-verification (e.g., Swann, 1987): The motivation to confirm what we already know about ourselves
Self-enhancement (e.g., Kunda, 1990): The motivation to maintain or increase the positivity of the self; the desire to maintain, protect, and enhance one’s self-image. eg. We are better than average, We are better today than we were in the past
College Board Survey, 1976-77
Self-enhancing Social Comparisons: The Better-Than-Average Effect
A study of a million high school students rated themselves as better than average at getting on with others.
We think we are above average on:
happiness (Wojcik & Ditto, 2014)
the ability to make objective judgments (Armour, 1999, cited in Pronin et al., 2004)
People exaggerate their skills and abilities in order to think well of themselves
Ross & Wilson, 2000; Wilson & Ross, 2000
Past selves provide opportunity for downward comparisons
Participants were randomly assigned to rate self or acquaintance:
on positive and negative traits (e.g., socially skilled, self-confident vs. immature, narrow-minded)
now, and in past (approximately 3.5 months earlier)
Participants thought they were more more socially skilled an mature now then 3 months earlier, did not think so for acquaintances
Show derogation of past for self,
not acquaintance >self-enhancement
Lau & Russell, 1980
Biased Attributions
Newspaper quotes from winners and losers
Coded players’ and managers’ explanations for outcome
Results:
% making internal attributions:
winners: 80%
losers: 53%
Dunning et al. 1991
The self-enhancement motive can influence how we define concepts
Defining categories: What does it mean to be a “good” son or a “good” daughter?
Whatever WE are: dependable, dutiful, obedient
vs. thoughtful, loving, caring
Defining traits: What does it mean to be “dependable”?
Always remembers to do things vs. makes a conscious effort to do things…
> We define categories and traits in self-serving ways
Berglas and Jones (1967)
Bogus intelligence test (analogies test)
Analogies were solvable or unsolvable
Participants were all told they did well
Participants with solvable made internal attributions (I’m smart)
Participants with unsolvable analogies made external attribution for success (luck)
Given a second test
Can choose one of two experimental drugs
One improves intellectual functioning and performance
The other impairs performance
Who picked what?
“Solvable” participants picked enhancing drug
“Unsolvable” participants picked impairing drug
–>Built-in excuse for expected failure
–>Any success would make them look really smart
Tesser & Campbell, 1982
Self-evaluation Maintenance Model
When someone outperforms us, we can respond by: basking in reflected glory (BIRGing) My son is the best surgeon in the world I went to school with Hugh Jackman OR engaging in social comparison -->we’ll look bad by comparison
Factors that Determine Responses to Being Outperformed
Closeness:
You can’t BIRG with a stranger
BUT: You’re more likely to compare yourself to people who are close
Self-relevance:
If the person is close and domain is relevant > social comparison
If the person is close and domain is not self-relevant > BIRG
Model says there are different things you can do: reduce closeness to people, reduce the relevance of the domain, work harder to reduce the gap or sabotage another’s performance
Tesser & Smith, 1980
Sabotaging Another Person’s Performance
“Password” game
E.g., Password = Olympics
Easy clues: sports, medals
Difficult clues: Greek, pride
Manipulated relevance
Task described as measure of verbal skills OR unrelated to important skills
Each person in turn assumed the role of “identifier”, remaining 3 chose the clues (graded in difficulty)
One member of each pair: given bogus feedback that they had done badly as the “identifier”
DV: difficulty of clues chosen for friend vs. stranger
Depended on relevance:
Gave harder clues in relevant condition
This effect interacted with closeness
Under low relevance: helped friends more than strangers
Under high relevance: helped strangers more than friends > Gave friends HARDER clues than strangers!
Follow-up study replicated these findings with female participants, although the effects were weaker . May be because of how men and women define themselves. Men more likely to think of collective-self women relational-self so women aren’t as threatened when friends do well
Steele, 1988; see Sherman & Cohen, 2006
Self-affirmation Theory
People are motivated to protect the integrity of the self
Motivations to protect self-integrity can result in defensive responses
Defensive responses diminish the threat and restore the integrity of the self (eg. sabotage, biased attributions, don’t have to do this)
The self-system is flexible
People can respond to threats in one domain by affirming the self in another domain
People can be affirmed by engaging in activities that remind them of “who they are”
Different domains of self: roles, (Student, parent) values (humor, religion), group identity (race, culture, religion) All domains through which we ensure we have effects of self-integrity
Sherman & Kim, 2005
Self-affirmation and Biased Attributions
Field study with athletes (team sports) as participants
Team had either won or lost
Self-affirmed or not self-affirmed via classic self affirming method:
Manipulate self-affirmation:
Please rank order how important these values are to you personally.
business/economics art/music/theatre
social life/relationships science/pursuit of knowledge
religion/morality government/politics
Now please write about your most important value and why it is important and meaningful to you. (vs. least important value and why it might be meaningful to someone else)
Threaten the self (individual or collective self)
Measure defensive responses
Estimated how much their team had contributed to the outcome of the game. When not affirmed, teams made more references to group attributions, winners thought the win was more due to the team. When affirmed the difference disappeared.
Creswell et al., 2005
Self-affirmation and Evaluative Stress
Stress: The process by which events are appraised as threatening
May arise from perceived threats to the self
Can self-affirmation reduce evaluative stress?
Participants were self-affirmed or not
Completed the Trier Social Stress Task
Delivered speech to hostile audience and counted aloud backwards from 2083 in 13s in front of hostile audience
Salivary cortisol measured at baseline, and at 20 min, 30 min, and 45 min poststress onset
Stress hormone cortisol typically peaks at 20 minutes past stress onset. At baseline, no difference, good because manipulation did not occur. 20 minutes later people who weren’t affirmed showed a significant rise in cortisol. At 45 min the difference is still there, they’re still experiencing higher levels of cortisol.
Limits to Self-affirmation
Culture may moderate effects of self-affirmation:
Who finds what threatening?
Who finds what affirming?
Affirmation in domains that are related to the threat is less effective >Increases commitment to the identity at stake
There is a difference to how easterners & westerners see themselves. something threatening to a W may not be as threatening to an E, eg criticism of self vs criticism of family members
Affirmations in the moral domain can backfire
—After purchasing environmental products, people were more likely to cheat after proving their worth as moral people. Also, when people feel they don’t have to prove moral credentials they feel this licenses them to show prejudice to people of different backgrounds
Kruger, 1999
College Board Survey (1976-77):
89% of nearly 1 million high school students rated themselves as above average on the ability to get along with others
Considered range of skills assessed in the College Board Survey, according to difficulty…
Ability to get along with others very easy, 89% rated themselves >m. Mechanics very difficult only 38% rated >m. We may not be engaging in social comparisons, basing ratings just on ourselves.
Comparative ability judgments are egocentric
We base our assessments on our own level of ability – How skilled am I?
If the task is easy, we think we’re good at it
If the task is hard, we think we’re not good at it
We don’t take into account the skills of the comparison group – we don’t ask: How skilled are my peers?
Compare self to other students in class on 8 skills: 4 easy (e.g., using a computer mouse) 4 difficult (e.g., computer programming) (percentile estimates)
Domain difficulty rated by a third party
For each skill, make absolute ratings of:
own ability, peers’ ability (i.e., the average student’s ability) (1=very unskilled, 10 = very skilled)
Absolute ratings of own ability predicted the comparative judgments (the percentile estimates).
However, absolute ratings of peers’ ability did not.
Thus, egocentric judgment accounts for the above average effect
Heine & Hamamura, 2007
Cultural Differences in Self-Enhancement
Westerners were significantly more likely to self-enhance than East Asians
—-85/91 studies, of which 53 yielded “large” effect size, 28 “moderate”, 7 “small”
Within the Western samples, there was a significant self-enhancing bias (44/48)
Within the Eastern samples:
significant self-enhancement bias (19/46)
significant self-criticism bias (20/46)
Heine et al., 2001
Cultural Differences in Responses to Failure
Canadian students of European origin and Japanese students
Remote Associates Test
“sleep”, “fantasy”, “day”- relates to dream
Manipulated success vs. failure
Easy version of the test and scored well above the 50th percentile, or
Difficult version and scored well below the 50th percentile
Were given the opportunity to work on the task again “if they wanted”
When Westerners did well, they want to keep working and keep feeling good about themselves. If told you fail, they disengage. Japanese participants work on average 4 minutes longer then if told they did well on the task. May be because there’s more influence on self-improvement.
Cultural Differences in Self-enhancement
Both Westerners and Easterners self-enhance, but they self-enhance on different traits (Sedikides et al., 2003)
Westerners: individualistic attributes (“independent”, “self-reliant”, “unique”)
Easterners: collectivistic attributes (“cooperative”, “good listener”, “self-sacrificing”)
Easterners tend to engage in relationship enhancement (Endo et al., 2000)
See their family, friends, and romantic partners as better than themselves
Taylor & Brown, 1998
Self-enhancing biases are examples of “positive illusions” that may promote mental health
- Associated with happiness/contentment
- Promote capacity for creative, productive work (e.g., via greater motivation, persistence)
von Hippel & Trivers, 2011
Self-enhancing biases are a form of self-deception that may help us to deceive others (evolutionary perspective)
We tell lies and deny failures a lot
-We frequently deceive others in order to acquire resources
-We will be more successful at deceiving others if we deceive ourselves (process information in a biased manner) self-enhancing may be a form of self-deception
-Self-enhancing biases boost our self-confidence, which enables us to advance socially and materially
Epley and Whitchurch (2008, p. 1162)
Morphed attractive and unattractive faces. They were the actual participants who had been morphed to look more attractive or unattractive. Participants picked options that were 10% more attractive then they actually were. Evidence of people being self-deceptive.
Participants also faster to pick face that was 20% more attractive then there actual face when faces were flashed at them, and significantly slower to pick a face that was ugly. In our minds eye, we are more attractive then we actually are, this gives us more confidence and we are better at promoting ourselves as partners who are worthy of a mate.
