Lecture 2 - Construction of a Self Flashcards
William James
“A man has as many selves as there are individuals who recognize him and carry an image of him on their mind
But to make any one of them the actual, the rest must be suppressed, The seeker of his truest, strongest, deepest self must review the list carefully and pick out the one on which to stake his salvation”
Distinctiveness theory
A person notices their distinctive traits and personal characteristics more readily because of their greater informational richness and value for discriminating self from others.
ie - useless to describe yourself as a McGill student among a cohort of McGill students
Example - distinctiveness theory
3 Examples, 4 studies
EXAMPLE 1: ATYPICAL ATTRIBUTES
6th graders complete who am I task
5 characteristics that describe you
Students atypical in age, height, weight, eye color etc mention those more than those with typical characteristics (McGuire & Padawer-Singer)
EXAMPLE 2: ETHNICITY
Minorities in a majority group are more likely to mention ethnicity
EXAMPLE 3: GENDER
FAMILY if the gender of a family is more commonly one sided and you are the opposite sex, more likely to use gender as a characteristic than if not
CLASS COMPOSITION if the class gender is one sides, more likely to define in terms of gender (if the opposite sex)
If you experimentally manipulate groups so some are gender mixed and some are not, you see the effect; the people in the groups which make their gender the minority are more likely to use gender as a characteristic for the exercise. This supports an idea of CAUSALITY
Are we the same across situations?
different in different situations
We do not do this strategically but spontaneously according to the circumstance we find ourselves in
What comes to mind when we describe ourselves is partly driven by the situational context
Dynamic Self-Concept (basics)
(Markus & Wurf, 1987)
The self is malleable to a degree
It is a collection of representations/schemas/beliefs about the self
Some are core and strongly held, central to one’s sense of self
Some are not and more peripheral
Some may even contradict others
Dynamic Self-Concept (working self)
“The working self concept is that set of representations that is accessible at any one moment”
The self is ALL representations
The working self is the representations that are COGNITIVELY ACCESSIBLE NOW
It is like a spotlight, you illuminate only one part of the stage (self)
Dynamic Self-Concept (accessibility)
Description & Implications
Is the activation potential of available knowledge (Higgins)
Is a function of:
1) frequency of activation
2) recency of activation
So stuff you do more regularly will be more readily recalled when presenting your self. So too will representations you have accessed recently.
Self-knowledge will be accessed according to the triggers in a situation.
IMPLICATIONS
1) Different situations can activate different schemas and this produces a different version of the self
2) People can be manipulated by having them comb through their stock of self views in a biased manner
Is a model for hoe the self concept can be changed
Dynamic Self-Concept (evidence)
Contextual Activation
2 experiments
rude words
extraversion
EXP1
Study where participants were told they were validating a new questionnaire
In reality, it was designed to manipulate people to feeling more extroverted (what would you do if you wanted to liven up a party) or introverted (what things do you dislike about loud parties).
Those in extroverted condition:
Describes themselves ad more extroverted
AND acted more extroverted in a situation (spoke longer to a confederate, sat closer to a confederate)
EXP 2
Study assessing “language ability”
Given 5 words. Told to make a sentence with 4 of them. One was chosen from a list of rude or polite words. The idea was to prime the participants into being rude or polite.
After they did the second task, help a confederate.
In rude prime, interrupt faster (by 3 mins)
65% of rude but only 15% of polite ever interrupted.
Evidence that the self and be influenced by the situation
Problems with priming
Does not always directly replicate (like old people walking study)
But many studies conceptually replicate priming
We do not have a definite mechanism for this so it is harder; not knowing why it happens means we cannot always predict when.
Could be due to unknown moderators
This seems like a massive excuse to me but for the purposes of this course, we assume priming is real
How might priming work (Wheeler & DeMarre, 2009)
Concept and first and last parts
Idea that there might be 3 paths by which a stimuli might prime a mind to influence its processes.
FIRST its stimuli would activate the mental construct we have of the stimulus (for example seeing a briefcase would activate our mental representation of a briefcase).
LAST - you would see an observable behavior
Contextual activation via priming
How might priming work (Wheeler & DeMarre, 2009)
Path A-B (Direct activation 1)
PATH A - B
A - activated construct - behavioral representation. observed behavior
Perceptual input directly influences behaviour. You see the thing and it influences behavior
Example: Yawn; you see it, more likely to do it
Contextual activation via priming
How might priming work (Wheeler & DeMarre, 2009)
Path A-C-P (Direct activation via goals)
Moderating Factors
A - activated construct > C - Goal representation > Behavioral representation > observed behavior
The stimulus triggers representation which then activates goals within the mind associated with this representation
Eg: briefcase - goals activated (money, power, status, success). These could then influence behavior.
The moderating effect here
(1) The goals associated with the representation might be more readily activated in some people (briefcase might trigger more salient goals for a business major than a nurse)
(2) Behaviors associated with goals may differ between people (perhaps a briefcase makes people think of success and then a business major acts competitively and a nurse collaboratively)
Could be that different people with different personalities act in different ways.
Contextual activation via priming
How might priming work (Wheeler & DeMarre, 2009)
Path A-D-J or A-D-K-P (Indirect via person perception)
Construct > PERCEOTION OF OTHERS >behavioral representation > Observable behavior
The input and mental representation may bias one’s perception of others. If you were to prime “unkind” you might see the person acting more competitively in cooperate/compete games
Presumably because the priming has lead you to ascribe the unkind onto other people in the situation and act accordingly
Prisoner's dilemma game cooperate/cooperate=everyone wins compete/cooperate=you win cooperate/compete=they win compete/compete=they win
Contextual activation via priming
How might priming work (Wheeler & DeMarre, 2009)
Path A-E-L or A-E-M-P (Indirect via situation perception)
Representation biases the perception of the situation
Prisoners dilemma game
Prime competitive or cooperative
Asks ptps what is a better name for the game; Th wall street game or the community game.
Wall st for competitive priming
community for cooperative priming
Ascribed the priming to the situation
Contextual activation via priming
How might priming work (Wheeler & DeMarre, 2009)
Path A-F-N or A-E-L-P (Indirect via self perception)
The representation may influence one’s self-perception
Men primed with a secure relationship described themselves as more communal (warm etc) than those primed with insecure.
PHYSIOLOGICAL REPEAT
Ptps come in on 2 days. On one day give intracranial oxytocin. The other day placebo.
On the oxy day, men describe themselves as more communal
ESPECIALLY true for men who were not in fact communal
SO this has been shown physiologically and via priming.
Contextual activation via neuroendocrine mechanisms
Rooney et al
Neuroendocrine mechanisms regulate species-typical behavior responses to cues from mates
For men Testosterone cues them to engage in mating behaviors
Study 1
Male ptps interact with women (confederates)
Measure T levels at baseline and after
See increase
See higher rating s from the confederate of how much male was trying to impress her if there was a higher T increase
See higher ratings from men of females as a potential mate if there was a higher T increase
Study 2
Replication
Same procedure
Higher ratings by female of male extroversion if higher increases in T
Correlated increasing T with behavioral change
SO IT IS NOT JUST COGNITIVE, THE ENVIRONMENT CAN ELLICIT PHYSIOLOGICAL CHANGES WHICH INFLUENCE HOW WE SEE OURSELVES AND BEHAVE
Contextual activation - 5 Methods
(1) Could occur directly - stimulus and representation directly influence behavior
(2) Could occur directly - stimulus and representation activate goals which influences behavior
(3) Could occur indirectly whereby the mental representation influences your perception of others and this influences behaviour
(4) Could occur indirectly whereby a mental representation influences your perception of the situation and this influences behavior
(5) Could occur indirectly where a mental representation influences the perception of yourself and this influences behaviour
- These could be done cognitively via priming or physiologically via neuroendocrine mediation
Contextual Activation - Summary
(1) Different situations can activate different schemas and this produces different versions of the self
(2) People can be manipulated by having them comb through their stock of self-views in a biased manner, changing the self
Potentially this could lead to self-fulfilling prophecies as if they associate us with a behaviour because they have seen us doing it, they may act in ways that ellicit it
Schema
Are Schemas easy to update?
Mental templates we use to make sense of the world
Automatic, guide our perceptions and interpretations (especially when things are ambiguous)
eg deal with white women, activate template for white women
They influence:
Attention - what we pay attention to
Absorption of knowledge -
We have a BIAS for schema consistent information and this makes them very hard to change
They are adaptive; allow us to make sense of exp very fast without the need for complex thought
Eg social roles, scripts, stereotypes, attachment models
Self Schemata (definition)
“Cognitive generalizations about the self, derived from past experience, that organize and guide the processing of self-related information contained in the individual’s social experiences”
Which traits
1) describe you
2) are important to you
Self Schemata (experiment 1 - evidence for self schemata)
Marcus, 1977
Had ptps rate words coding for dependence, independence and leader. Assessed how important each was to them.
Divided into categories
Rates highly on one trait + important = schematic for that trait
Rates low on the trait + important = aschematic
Rates high on the trait + doesn’t care = aschematic
Come back to the lab 3/4 weeks later:
Using a me/not me experiment, measured reaction time for words that appealed to traits people were schematic for (ie independence describes them and is important to them) and words they were aschematic for. Asked if me/not me.
Reaction time for words which described schematic traits were much lower.
Conclusion: People are quicker to react to schematic words because these are more accessible within the self-schemata. These constructs are MORE ACCESSIBLE.
RTs reflect behavioral evidence that schematic traits are more cognitively accessible.
ALSO, schematics (vs aschematics):
found it easier to list behaviors from their lives that are schema consistent
Were more sure they would engage in hypothetical schema consistent behaviors
Were more resistant to schema incongruent bogus feedback - do a personality test, told they were the opposite of their schema, did not buy it.
Self Schemata Evidence
HAZEL - what is core is what you score high on and is important to you
Conclusion: People are quicker to react to schematic words because these are more accessible within the self-schemata. These constructs are MORE ACCESSIBLE.
RTs reflect behavioral evidence that schematic traits are more cognitively accessible.
ALSO, schematics (vs aschematics):
found it easier to list behaviors from their lives that are schema consistent
Were more sure they would engage in hypothetical schema consistent behaviors
Were more resistant to schema incongruent bogus feedback - do a personality test, told they were the opposite of their schema, did not buy it.
VON HIPPLE - Could be many things that are core. We incorporate distinctive information that differentiates us into the self-schemata
Self Schemata Implications
Seems like sometimes you would see cross situational consistency. How?
When trait is important to your self-schemata you would expect to see it more cross-situationally
Self Schemata (experiment 2 - what is likely to be found in self schemata)
VON HIPPLE
Distinctive information that differentiates you from a group is more likely to be incorporated into your self-schemata
Study 1
Distinctiveness from family and friends in the domains of science, athletics and art
Asked them how they were compared to family/friends/peers in these domains and if this was important to them.
They controlled for actual ability, it was not that they were better than friends/peers/family, just that they were different.
Distinctiveness (especially vs peers) predicted RT on Me/Not me task.
Study 2
What about when there is a particularly salient form of distinctiveness?
When you violate a group stereotype it is particularly noteworthy.
Controlled for ability again
Me/Not me for intelligence
When women> men (answered they were smarted than men)
When black> white (answered smarter than whites)
Saw a reduction in RT because these are defying stereotypes and hence, distinctive and incorporated into the self-schemata.
Me/Not me for athleticism
Wihite>black
Same thing
these are defying stereotypes and hence, distinctive and incorporated into the self-schemata.
