Self-motives Flashcards
What is a self-motive?
Tendency to establish/maintain a particular state of self-awareness, self-representation or self-evaluation.
- can influence how we perceive ourselves.
What are the three different types of self-motives?
- Accuracy-perception: Motivation to have an accurate
- Self-verification: Motivation to confirm what we already know about ourselves
- Self-enhancement: Motivation to maintain/increase the positivity of our self-image
What are manifestations of Self-enhancement?
We are better than average
We are better today than in the past
We make (self-serving) biased attributions
We define categories/traits in self-serving ways
We engage in self-handicapping
We sometimes sabotage others
What is the better-than-average effect, and what evidence is there to suggest that we use this as a way to self-enhance?
Better-than-Average effect: Most people see themselves as better-than-average on characteristics that are socially desirable
We exaggerate our skills and abilities to think better of ourselves
E.g. College Board survey in 1967-77 showed that 89% of college students believe they are better than average in their ability to get along with other people
- Greater happiness (Wojcik & Ditto, 2014)
- Better ability to make objective judgements (Armour, 1999)
BUT: Statistically impossible for everyone to be better than average!
What does Ross and Wilson’s (2000) study suggest about how we compare our present selves to the past?
We think of our present selves as better than in the past, but this bias does not occur when we view other people.
Participants were asked to rate
- themselves vs an acquaintance
- now, or 3.5 months ago
FOUND: Participants derogated their past selves, but not for acquaintances
- only enhance self, not others
What happens when we make a biased attribution for causality of events, and how did Lau and Russell’s (1980) study demonstrate this effect?
Biased attribution: Attribute wins to internal characteristics and losses to external characteristics
Lau & Russell (1980): Examined newspaper clippings
% made internal attribution:
- Winners: 80% - mainly int attrib
- Losers: 53% - more likely to use ext attrib
This demonstrates that we do make biased attrib to self-enhance.
What happens when we make a biased attributions for category/trait definitions? Provide one example for each.
We define categories and traits in self-serving ways: ways that make our characteristics look good.
Categories:
e.g. What defines a “good son/daughter”? We use our personal characteristics to define this. (i.e. if we are diligent, loving etc. we will use that to define it, vs other things such as obedient, helpful, etc.)
Traits:
e.g. What does it mean to be “dependable”? (Always remember to do things vs making an effort to do things)
What is self-handicapping, what are the situations in which we do this, and what is the evidence to suggest that we use this self-enhancing motive?
Self-handicapping: When faced with a negative situation, we avoid negative internal attributions by creating obstacles to success, in order to protect our self-image.
e.g. Night before exams and we think it’ll be bad –> don’t sleep/try
- Can increase the glory of success, if we do happen to succeed!
Win-win situation. But: may lead to actual handicapping (e.g. fail exam)
Berglas and Jones (1967):
1. Gave people either a solvable vs unsolvable bogus intelligence test
2. All participants did well - therefore
- Solvable - internal attrib
- Unsolvable - external attrib
3. Had to take 2nd test - told they could take a drug, an improving one vs impairing one
Who picked which drug?
FOUND: Solvable took improving drug, Unsolvable took impairing drug –> excuse for failure
Conclusion: Self-handicapping is a self-enhancing (protective) mechanism/motive.
How do we respond when we face the threat of being outperformed, according to Tesser and Campbell’s (1982) Self-evaluation Maintenance Model?
When someone outperforms you, you do one of two things:
- Bask in reflected glory (BIRGing): Talk about other close people’s successes –> feel better about self
e. g. “My son is the best surgeon in the world” “I went to school with Hugh Jackman”
- Can be done to people you don’t know - Engage in social comparisons –> feel bad about self
According to Tesser and Campbell’s (1982) Self-evaluation Maintenance Model, what are the factors that determine one’s response to outperformance?
Closeness to outperformer: Can’t BIRG with a stranger
- But: More likely to compare self to close others, and people we are close with tend to be similar to us
Self-relevance of domain of outperformance:
- Person close, domain relevant –> social comparison
- Person close, domain irrelevant –> BIRG
In response to outperformance threat, how do we maintain positive self-evaluation?
Reduce closeness with outperformer Reduce self-relevance of domain Reduce performance gap: either by - Working harder to outperform: motivating - Sabotaging others' performance
What did Tesser and Smith’s (1980) experiment on outperformance threat and sabotage demonstrate about how we react in response to being outperformed? In the replication with women, what did they find, and what is one way of explaining their results? What can we conclude about self-enhancement?
Participants: 2 pairs of student friends (men)
Manipulated relevance: verbal skills vs unrelated to skills
1. Played “Passwords” game: Could give guesser easy vs hard clues
- Each person had turn at being guesser, and other 3 picked clues (2 strangers, 1 friend)
2. Threat: One person of each pair got bogus negative feedback - “bad guesser”
3. DV: Difficulty of clues chosen for friend vs strangers
FOUND:
High relevance –> harder clues chosen
Interaction:
Low relevance: helped friends > strangers
High relevance: helped strangers > friends - sabotaged friends!
Follow up study with women: same effect, but weaker (women nicer to their friends)
May be due to gender diff in defining self
- M: Collective self
- F: Relational self (e.g. help others –> help self)
Self-enhancement often generates defensive response to threat - Self-affirmation can reduce these defensive responses.
What does Self-Affirmation theory pose about how we protect ourselves from threats to our self-image?
Goal: to maintain Global integrity
- People are motivated to protect the self-system/integrity of the self - Global self-integrity
- Threat –> Activate self-system’s other relevant (positive) domains, in which we hold our standards of our self-worth (e.g. Roles, Values, Group identities, Central beliefs, Goals, Relationships)
- Threat arises from failure to meet one of these standards
- Can respond to threat in one domain by compensating, through affirming self in another domain - Flexible system
- Can be affirmed by engaging in activities that remind them of who they are (e.g. girl in front of mirror) - We accept the failure –> Grow as person
What are ways we can test self-affirmation theory?
- Manipulate self-affirmation (e.g. write about most vs least important value)
- Threaten self (individual/collective)
- Measure defensive responses
What is the experimental evidence that suggests self-affirmation is engaged by individuals who have been threatened?
Sherman and Kim (2005): Athletes, self-affirmed, attrib
Creswell et al. (2005): Self-affirmation and evaluative stress
Sherman and Kim (2005): Examined athletes’ responses to wins and losses when they were self-affirmed or not
- Estimated how much their team had contributed to the outcome of the game
FOUND: Not affirmed: Usual internal attrib of win, external attrib of loss
Self-affirmed: Less likely to make biased attrib: diff disappeared.
Self-affirmation decreases defensive responses.
Cresswell et al. (2005):
- If stress arises from events that are perceived to be threatening, can self-affirmation decrease evaluative stress?
1. Participants: Self-affirmed vs not
2. Completed Trier Social Stress task - makes people stressed and release cortisol
3. Measured participants’ salivary cortisol at baseline, 20min, 30min and 45min post-stress
(Cortisol normally peaks at 20min)
FOUND: Self-affirmed: No sig increase in stress from baseline, and sig less stress overall.
Self-affirmation can significantly decrease evaluative/physiological stress
