Self & Personality Flashcards
self-schema
- cognitive schema (knowledge structure) that contains beliefs about the self (also called self-construals)
- Has implications for how the self relates to other people, and attainment of personal goals
Research by Markus & Kitayama: self-schemas
- their research suggests 2 prototypical self-concepts (or self-schemas)
- Independent self-construal and interdependent self-construal
independent vs. interdependent self-construal
- Independent self-construal:
- Main separation is between self and others
- Fluid shifting between in-group and out-group (people in your out-group can easily come into your in-group and vice versa → relationships viewed as something that needs effort and attention to maintain)
- Linked to individualism
- Interdependent self-construal:
- Main separation is between in-group and out-group
- In-group boundary more difficult to penetrate (people in in-group will likely stay there and vice versa → assumed commitment and loyalty to each other)
- Linked to collectivism
independent vs. interdependent self-construal: definition of self & structure of self
- definition of self:
- Indep: free from social context
- Interdep: tied to social context
- structure of self:
- Indep: stable, bounded, unitary (you will be the same person regardless of context)
- Interdep: variable, fluid, flexible (you might have to be a different person in different contexts)
independent vs. interdependent self-construal: primary tasks & basis of self-esteem
- Primary tasks:
- Indep: uniqueness, self-expression, realization of internal attributes, promotion of personal goals
- Interdep: fitting in, self-restraint, assuming one’s proper place, promotion of others’ goals
- Basis of self-esteem:
- Indep: ability to express oneself and one’s internal attributes
- Interdep: ability to restrain oneself and maintain harmony with others
4 differences that different self-construals lead to
- self-descriptions
- self-consistency
- implicit theories of self
- self-esteem
4 differences that different self-construals lead to: self-descriptions
- Indep: use abstract, global, stable attributes/traits (ex. “I am easy-going, fun-loving, and extraverted”
- Interdep: use social categories, affiliations, social roles (ex. “I’m a student at UBC, member of Pre-Ed club, a sister”)
4 differences that different self-construals lead to: self-consistency
- are we the same person in different situations?
- European-Canadians have stronger correlation between self-esteem and self-concept clarity than East Asians
- Indep: tend to be the same person in different contexts (ex. Act the same way with friends, parents, co-workers, etc. → consistent)
- Conformity seen negatively; as immature → people who adapt to different situations seen as “fake”/not genuine
- Interdep: expected to be slightly different in different situations and with different people (ex. Study where Japanese students were more self-critical on the Twenty Statements test when in the presence of others compared to alone)
- Conformity seen positively; as mature → insistence on non-conformity seen as immature, stubborn
4 differences that different self-construals lead to: implicit theories of the self
- Indep:
- Self = stable, bound entity
- Entity theory of the self: abilities are fixed and reflex innate qualities
- During failure: blame innate lack of ability (“I’m just not a math person”); withdraw from task (“I’m never taking math again”)
- Interdep:
- Self = malleable, fluid
- Incremental theory of self: abilities are malleable, and can be changed with effort
- During failure: blame lack of effort (“If only I’d tried harder/done more”; redouble efforts (more practice)
personality
- a sense of self
- One’s characteristic pattern of thought, emotion, and behaviour, along with accompanying psychological mechanisms
big challenge in studying personality cross-culturally
- Debate on universal applicability of “personality”:
- Variable aspects:
- – Some languages (ie. English) pay a lot of attention to personality (and have lots of vocab to describe it)
- – Personality = trans-situationally stable, but many cultures do not discuss trans-situational stability
- – Simply an extension of studying Western individualism
- Universal aspects:
- All cultural groups possess terms that describe one’s enduring characteristics
- “Personality” exists, but may need to reconceptualize as something existing within relationships for certain cultures
personality framework: lexical approach
- states that all important individual differences in personality are encoded in natural language
- Steps researchers went through to develop this approach:
- Looked for all dictionary entries that are trait adjectives
- Reduced list by eliminating synonyms, physical descriptors, temporary states, unfamiliar terms
- Administered list of traits to participants to answer (how much would they describe themselves using each of those terms?)
- Conducted factor analysis to determine how many facets/factors underlie a construct
- This is how the Big 5 was developed
Big 5 (Five Factor Model of Personality)
- Openness to experience: intelligence and curiosity about the world
- Conscientiousness: how responsible and dependable someone is
- Extraversion: how active/outgoing and dominant someone is in social interactions
- Agreeableness: how warm and pleasant an individual is
- Neuroticism: emotional instability and unpredictability
NEO-PI-R
- most recent/prominent version of measuring 5-factor model traits
- Studies using the NEO-PI-R across 50 cultures reveal universality in five-factor structure
- BUT, NEO-PI-R started with English terms in the English dictionary, which yielded 5 factors → uses those same words in different cultural contexts, so it’s not that surprising that it yield five factors again
factors found using lexical approach in other languages –> tagalog
- Gregariousness: liking the company of others, talks a lot, humourous (positive correlation with extraversion)
- Self-assurance: assertive, brave, insensitive, not gullible (negative correlation with neuroticism)
- Concern for others vs. egotism: not violent, humble generous (positive correlation with agreeableness)
- Conscientiousness: dependable, hardworking, religious (positive correlation with conscientiousness)
- Intellect: clever, sensitive, inquisitive, talented (positive correlation with openness to experience)
- PLUS 2 additional factors not identified in English (believed to be indigenous Filipino personality factors):
- Temperamentalness: emotional reactivity, hot-headedness, irritable
- Negative valence: sadistic, social deviance, crazy
how do we determine universality of personality frameworks
- depends on use of emic vs. etic measures
- Emic: a measure created from within a culture, and used to assess people from within the culture –> tend to see more variability (because they tap into more cultural nuances)
- Etic measure: a measure created from one culture, and exported for use in another culture –> tend to see more universality
4 differences that different self-construals lead to: self-esteem
- indep tend to:
- Have strong emphasis on having and maintaining high self-esteem
- Have tendency to view selves as positive and socially desirable (self-enhancement)
- Be motivated by desire to bolster self-image
- interdep tend to:
- Have strong emphasis on social categories, affiliations, social roles
- Have tendency to view selves in critical/disparaging manner (self-effacement)
- Be motivated by desire to fit in with others; self-improve
self-esteem
- how positive one’s overall/global evaluation of oneself is
- High self-esteem: person thinks everything is great about themselves
- Low self-esteem: person thinks there is nothing good about themselves
self-enhancement vs. self-effacement -> differences depending on self-construal
- independent self-construal:
- More emphasis on positive traits
- Try not to think about discrepancy between actual and ideal self
- Interdependent self-construal:
- More attention paid to negative traits
- Experience more actual-ideal discrepancy
self-enhancement (and its strategies)
- Compensatory strategies (used to feel better about yourself):
- Downward social comparison: compare ourselves to those who are worse off than us (ex. “I came in fifth, but at least I didn’t come in last”)
- Discounting: downplaying the importance of that attribute (ex. “That track meet wasn’t important anyway”)
- External attributions: attribute failures to others rather than ourselves (ex. “The clock must have been wrong”)
why might self-enhancement be beneficial?
- More ambition
- Ignore adversity
- Better physical health
- Compensatory strategies help with all of the above
cultural differences on Rosenberg self-esteem scale
- European-Canadians tend to score higher than Asian and Indian Canadians
- Suggests cultural variability in self-esteem and self-enhancement
cultural differences on Rosenberg self-esteem scale: alternative explanations
- Self-enhancement vs. group enhancement → ie. maybe Americans better at self enhancement, Asians better at group enhancement → NOPE (Americans better at both)
- Matter of importance → maybe Asians have a specific domain that’s important, whereas Americans tend to think everything’s important → NOPE (variability persists regardless of domain)
- Response set → maybe moderacy bias is at play → NOPE (no matter how questions are re-worded, same responses persist)
- Modesty norms → want to appear modest, reduce boasting
modesty norms: overconfidence and its 3 components
- Overconfidence: having an unjustifiably positive belief in one’s characteristics or performance
- 3 components:
- Overestimation: thinking that your performance is better than your actual performance
- Overplacement: thinking that your performance is better than 80% of people (when it was only better than 50%)
- Overprecision: being very certain about their score or placement
self-enhancement study: basics
- Examined cultural variability through the lens of overconfidence → are modesty norms playing a role?
- Gave participants ambiguous tasks where participants had no idea how well they were doing
- Task: Test of empathy (reading emotions only by looking at someone’s eyes)
- Participants were from Canada, Japan, and Hong Kong
- Some given 10 tokens, others given 10 coins (actual currency)
- At end of task, they had to guess how well they did on the task using a number line, and had to place tokens on line to demonstrate how confident they were
- People with coins could keep the coins they’d placed in the appropriate place on the line
- Researchers look at overestimation and overprecision
self-enhancement study: overestimation results
- With no incentive (token group): European-Canadians overestimated a lot, Hong Kong Chinese overestimated a bit, Japanese underestimated (self-effacement)
- Classic self-enhancement finding
- With incentive (coin group): everyone overestimates (Euros still overestimated most, followed by HK and JP, and overestimation is higher)
- Everyone exhibits self-enhancement
- Therefore, modesty norms appear to explain away cultural variability → less cultural variability in overestimation
self-enhancement study: overprecision results
- Without incentives, the spread of people’s bets were all pretty similar
- With incentives, the spread begins to spread
- Therefore, modesty norms don’t really explain the cultural variability in uncertainty → more cultural variability in overprecision