Lecture 7 - The Self in Social Context I Flashcards
Symbolic Interactionism
Mead, 1934
The self is developed and understood in the social realm
• Others’ appraisals shape our understanding of ourselves
• How others see us = the way we see ourselves
• Not person
• Interactions between persons is basic unit of analysis
• Individuals are created through interactions
• The Self=Individual’s ability to reflect on the way he/she is seen by others
The implication is that there is no self divorced from this symbolic interactionalism
Symbolic Interactionism
(Evidence)
correlations
• Correlations between self-views and other-views (of self)
are small
• Blow to symbolic interactionism?
• Not really: self views correlate highly with how we think others see us
Why would there be inconsistency?
- Some distortion when we think about the self (illusions)
- We distort the feedback we receive from others
- People do not always tell us what they really think of us (it hurts feelings)
- What are we transmitting/what information are we
providing??? - this is self-presentation
Self Presentation
(and the search for social validation)
(basics)
- Attempts to convey information about and/or images of
the self to others - Act of regulating one’s identity for real or imagined
audiences…
• Why? - Gain rewards - social validation
- Claim identity - If identity is derived from others responses we may pick those things that are very important to us and thus present ourselves in ways to cause others to respond to them in ways that confirms this
This used to be thought of as sleazy
An experiment - how favorable an image to convey?
- Participate in group task
- performance public or anonymous
- Ps given bogus feedback about abilities (“social and nonsocial intelligence”) -told they were talented or not
- Prior to task, allowed to “exchange personal information” to other members of group
- Who boasts about abilities? Who is modest?
RESULTS
When you are anonymous, those that had both negative and positive feedback said they were good (so those with negative feedback lied).
When you are NOT anonymous and you performed in public, those given negative feedback self-presented negatively. Those given positive feedback, positively.
So it seems like thee is a strong desire to self-present in a positive light and you will do it if you possibly can.
This was then replicated and they found that in the situations where they could not brag about their abilities on the task, they found something else to brad about.
Self-enhancement with freinds and strangers
Are people likely to engage in self enhancement (bragging) with people that know them, or with strangers?
Strangers can’t contradict claims, but people who know
you well can…
• Structured interview with strangers (or friends)
• People were instructed to “Answer qs so you appear modest (or in positive light)”
• E.g., “your prospects for fulfillment and success in your career”
It was theories that self enhancement with strangers was System 1
It was also theories that being modest with close friends was system 1
Hence the H1 was that AFTER the interview those who were bragging with their friends of modest with strangers would remember less about the interview as these are system II and hence require effort.
• DV: Memory for social interaction impaired for strategies that contradict habitual patterns
This is what happened; when habitual self-presentation patterns were disrupted, the participants could remember fewer details of the interviews than when they were not.
This indicates that positive self-presentation with strangers (and honesty with friends) is System I, automatic and not therefore sleazy or goal-directed.
Self fulfilling prophecies
Act as you feel others want you to act
They respond in ways that encourage you to act that way
This reinforces the behavior and so you do it more
Self-presentation & self-fulfilling prophecies
(Study 1: Zanna & Pack, 1975)
Princeton feminist study
Princeton University circa 1970 (Height of the feminist movement and the first EVER class of women admitted to Princeton)
-Pre-test questionnaire: agree/disagree with traditional
female stereotypic traits
-“Men should be the dominant person in relationships”
-3 weeks later: “Impression formation study”
-Form impression based on info provided
Then told:
“You’re going to interact with another (male) student to confirm accuracy of impressions” and that you will meet in your dorm room!
They were told that “Your partner is”:
1. Traditional/untraditional
Traditional: “ideal woman would keep quiet in a cocktail party conversation if she disagreed with her husband’s viewpoint”
Untraditional: “ideal woman would be very independent” (reverse scored)
2. Attractive/unattractive
- Participants then competed qs about themselves (same pre-study questionnaire) to give to partner
- Do they conform to male stereotype?
When told the partner was unattractive, there was no change in answers on the questionnaire given from that given before the study
When told attractive, in the condition where they were told the man is traditional, they changed their answers to be more traditional! Even though there were first-wave superfeminists!!
The added an “intelligence test” what was an anagram. and were told the results would be given to the men. In the attractive condition, when the men were supposedly traditional, they scored lower! SO they are self-presenting to what they thought the man would want.
Self-presentation & self-fulfilling prophecies
Study 2: Von Baeyer, Sherk, & Zanna, 1981
• Mock Job interview
• They were told they would be testing students’ interviewing skills; you will be potential
applicant
• Appearance (make up, jewelry) assessed covertly
• Before interview, ps learn about interviewee (manipulate: traditional/untraditional)
• Items like “the ideal female should be assigned easy jobs like making coffee” for traditional interviewer
Session #2: Interview
• Assess appearance (make up, jewelry)
• Women interacting with TM judged as more attractive, and wore more make up and jewelry
• In effort to convey a positive impression, they confirmed traditional male stereotype!
• Women interacting with non-traditional man were more assertive during interview
Examples of self-presentation activities that are not healthy
Skin cancer Risky sexual behavior Eating behavior Substance abuse Steroid use Accidents from not wearing safety equipment
Social Influence
Compliance, conformity, obedience
Has been theories to happen in three ways;
• Compliance
• Change behavior in response to a request
• “…a particular kind of response—acquiescence—to a particular kind of communication—a request”
• “…urged to respond in a particular way”
- Conformity
- Change behavior due to real or imagined presence of others*
- Change one’s behavior to match the response of others
- Information
- Normative* (Such as those learned socially about cultural expectations/norms)
- Obedience
- Change behavior in response to an authority figure
What two motives might underlie conformity?
Motives underlying compliance & conformity
(Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004)
1. Affiliation
• We’re fundamentally motivated to create and maintain meaningful social relationships
• Abide by social norms to achieve affiliation goals
• Being liked = accepted into group
- Accuracy
• We need an accurate perception of reality to achieve our goals
• Social norms = consensus
• Being in-sync, shared reality?
• Claim/clarify identity?
(if we want to be honorable and we value that as a part of our identity, we have to know what counts as honorable - this comes from the social world
Social influence vs. persuasion
• Persuasion often results in reactance because people do not like being told what to do
• Social influence typically much more subtle and,
consequently, powerful for enduring change
How deep does social influence go?
Idea and experiment/evidence
DO we actually change our beliefs to conform with social influence or do we just publicly make it look like we do?
Session 1
Rated the attractiveness of faces
Learned how a peer group rated these faces
Session 2 (in MRI) People generally modified their ratings in the direction of the peers 2 brain regions were active OFC & Nucleus accumbens These are associated with acceptance
This indicates that they genuinely accepted the change, not just publicly showed it
Shared norms may = a consensus (a shared reality) and this may be required to have an accurate perception of the world we seek to achieve our goals in
How deep does social influence go?
Second, musical experiment
Influence of popularity on adolescents’
music ratings (Berns et al.)
• Adolescents (12-17) rated preference for music clips
• Overall popularity of clip revealed (or not), rate song again
• Popularity influenced liking ratings assessed on 2nd round
• Liking ratings correlated with activity in caudate nucleus
(implicated in reward-driven actions)
• **Activation in anterior insula and ACC (region associated with physical arousal and negative states), when exposed to popularity rating, predicts magnitude of rating change
• Arousal/anxiety (due to mismatch between self/other
preferences) motivates change to consensus
Might be different from the other as during adolescence, we are particularly concerned with fitting in
Symbolic self-completion
• Goal striving is in the service of self- definition
• Difficulty pursuing goals is a threat to self as these goals for a part of one’s identity
• We compensate with other symbols (**in
goal-relevant domain) to complete the self- definition
Experiments: (many done) all go the same way
You do (“complete”) or do not (“incomplete”) fit the ideal profile of something that matters to you (e.g., journalist)
Male participants meet attractive female undergraduate, “Debbie”
-Before ps given chance to describe capabilities, they’re told:
“Debbie likes guys who are modest vs. guys who think they’re great”
-Describe yourself to Debbie: “How capable do you think you are (in journalism) in comparison to other students?
When the self-definition is not threatened (i.e. they were told they would be a good fit for journalism) they do normal self-presentation (match what they think Debbie wants)
BUT when given feedback to threaten this identity (you are not good at journalism) they do not do this. They say they are good even if they believe this is not what Debbie wants
They engage in social activities to self-complete and compensate for the earlier slight to their identity.
This is the self fighting back to regain an important identity
