SPRING The Self Flashcards
in what ways do we describe ourself
social roles, gender, ethnicity, characteristics, occupation, relationships, mentality
- socially constructed means
what is the self
identity and self concept underpuns everyday life - what think and do, and what predict of others
first thought to be stable BUT now evolve across life and socially constructed based on values, beliefs and interactions with those around us
describe mead 1934 symbollic interactionism
society influences our perception of the self because we constantly modify and update it based on our interactions with others - tendency to see ourselves through others eyes as a social object ‘me’ opposed to a social subject ‘i’
interactions have verbalisationsa nd NVs that present meaning about what others and ourselves think
describe mead 1934 the looking glass self
see ourselve how others see us/how we believe others see us
not always accurate as not fully aware of what others truley think
what is self awareness
essential aspect of every person
not thought of/aware of all the time
describe the Theory of Objective Self Awareness (duval and wicklind 1972)
self awareness is a psychological state where we become aware of outselves as obects with traits, feelings and behaviours
objective self awareness- circumstances focus attention on self ie when in front of others/underpressure
describe lewis and brookes 1978 development of self awareness theory
develops slowly, not immediate part of self
9-12 months treat mirror image as another child
18+ curious at reflection and identify spot on nose as self
carver and sheier 1981 types of self
private self - pivate thoughts feelings and attitudes, focus on internal states, privately self aware when look in mirror/reflect on self
public self - how we believe others perceive us
carver and sheier 1981 consequences of the private self
intensified emotional response
clarification of knowledge
adhere to personal standards/goals
describe sherir and carver 1977 private self awareness
pps read aloud positive (elation) or negative (depression) statements
infront of mirror or not
mirror intensifies elation and reduces depression - reflect feelings
describe gibbons et al 1979 private self awareness and clarification of knowledge
report greater accuracy when focus on self
placebo drug told induces arousal and has side effects
mirror less arousal and side effects than no mirror
sheier and carver 1980 private self and adhering to personal standards
privately self aware more likely to adhere to true beliefs than cultural norms
pps write counter attitudinal essay
cog dissonance - neg arousal if attitude inconsistent with beh - alter attitude
write essay in front of mirror = less attitudinal change as greater self awareness
what is the public self
how you are percieved by others
publicly self aware when seen and eval/judged
orient to presenting self in prositive light when become focus of others attention
what may be the consequences on focusing on your public self image
reduce objective SA
fear of negative evaluation - cause nervousness and reduced self esteem
aim to present in positive light so more likely to adhere to social standards and present an idealised version of yourself
what is self esteem
self evaluation
positive or negative
determines feelings of self worth - people thought to ultimately strive to feel good about themselves
how is parenting thought to link to self esteem? (baumrind 1991)
authoritative = high SE authoritarian = low SE permissive = low SE
define authoritative parenting
high demand and response
define authoritarian parenting
high demand low response
define permissive parenting
low demand high response
how is SE thought to develop through the lifespan (robins et al 2002)
6-11 = unstable, still developing
20s = most stable
mis adult = relatively stable
60+ = decline and major life changes
how do we organise knowledge of the self (self perception theory, bern 1972)
schemas - cog structure tht represents how we expect ourselves to think, feel and behave
contains perception of self and experience of our own perception
define self schematic
dimensions improtant to our sel concept that influence our thoughts, feelings and behaviours
describe markus 1977 self schemas
self concept is complex and multifaceted - have ideas of self based on dimensions relevent to self concept
pps rate selves as self schematic/aschematic on traits of independence and or dependence
- present with words representing independence or dependence - self schematic faster to identify whether a word characterises them - higher activation of words related to ourselves
describe self evaluation theory (duval and wicklind 1972)
two versions of the self
actual and ideal - make comparisons between the two
no discrepancy then no chage
discrepancy then alter actual to meet ideal or escape self awareness
how are we thought to reduce the discrepancy between our actual and ideal self
alter our behaviour
escape self awareness
what does behaviour altering tend to lead to (self eval theory)
difficult
lead to reduced motivation
feel worse when dont succeed
what does escaping self awareness tend to lead to (self eval theory)
destructive
dont focus on the discrepancy
describe higgins 1987 self discrepancy theory
3 versions of the self
actual ideal and ought
ought is in relation to others see us or think should see us - expectations
neg emotion when discrepancy between actual and ought
motivation to reduce discrepancy driven by amount of discrepancy, importance of self image and focus on discrepancy
higgins 1987 what neg emotions feel when discrepancy between 3 selves?
actual and ideal - depressed emotions when fail to reach positive outcome and promote goals
actual and ought - anxiety emotions when fail to avoid negative outcomes and prevent goals
describe higgins et al 1986 study on self discrepancy
pps asked to focus on and discribe their self
actual and ideal = depression
actual and ought = aggitation
low/no discrepancy = no sig change/neg emotion
describe Festinger 1954 social comparison theory
self awareness and self discrepancy focus on comparisons within ourselves
social comparison focus on comparing ourselves to others to reach our goals -
self improvement, self enhancement, and accurate self eval
who we compare ourselves to is dependent on our goal at that time
describe Festinger 1954 social comparison theory upward social comparison
look up to more aspiring and successful people
aspire to achieve
BUT can be harmful and make people feel worse
describe Festinger 1954 social comparison theory downward social comparison
compare self with those slightly wose than us
delivers an evaluatively positive self concept
describe Festinger 1954 social comparison theory accurate self evaluation
combination (realistic) or compare to similar others
balanced view of self
describe the self evaluation maintenance theory (tesser 1988)
people constrained to make damaging upwards social comparisons that can threaten SE
success of people close to use affects us by either self reflection or social comparison
prevent neg se by underplaying/denying similarity or withdrawing from relationship with comparison target
describe the self evaluation maintenance theory (tesser 1988) self reflection
boost SE by accomplishments of those close to us
describe the self evaluation maintenance theory (tesser 1988) social comparison
threatened by others accomplishments
describe the self evaluation maintenance theory (tesser 1988) determinants of reflection or comparison
relevance and certaintly
reflect
- success in domain irrelevant to self, certain in own ability in that domain
evaluation
- success in relevant domain to self, uncertain of own ability in that domain
- TEND TO HAVE A MIX
describe the self evaluation maintenance theory (tesser 1988) maintenance of positive self concept
1 - exagerrate ability of successful target (shes a genius)
2 - change target of comparison (not as bad as…)
3 - distance from target (we are diff..)
4 - devolve dimension of comparison (..but im better at..)
Greenwald 1980 social interactionism
perople reconstruct who they are without being aware of it
nisbett and wilson 1977 social interactionism
people are aware of the attitudes and the preferences they hold but they are often not aware of the process that initially formed them
schoeneman 1979 looking glass self
people not accurately view themselves exactly how others see s but how we percieve/believe others see s and therefore not truly aware - generally unaware of true perceptions
tice 1992 self awareness
undergrads describe self as emotionally stable (not responsive) or emotionally responsive across diff situations - wa describe depends of situation
pps in private condition or public (thhink someone watching)
- rate selves in situation responsiveness:
public condition produce more altered description of self (more stable/responsive) than private condition
self awareness: how do we change our self concepts
in the public eye thought to enhance slef ocncept
over estimate good points, our control over external events and tend to be unrealistically optimistic
what happens when we beome obectively self aware (theory of obective self awareness DW)
compare how we actually are to how we would like to be (ideal selves)
try to overcome shortcomings but tend to fail - lead to disappointment
self perception theory (bern 1972)
make inferences about self based on behaviour
construct schemas about who we are and attribute internally
ie if do a lot then like it
define the overjustification effect
motivation to perform an action is reduced if the preference for it is not internalized/is external to the individual
if no external motivated then we assume we chose to perform the behaviour because we like it - increases the motivation to perform
public SA in moden world
van bommel et al 2012
high public SA on internet forums by screen name and webcam
increases helping behaviours and reduces bystander in chat where confederate cyberbullied
more aware of reputational costs and rewards so more motivated to ac in accordance to socially acceptable norms
define deindividuation
lose sense of sociallised individual identity and engage in unsociable, antisocial behaviours
can cause lack of self monitoring, impulsive behaviours and joing groups that cause social unrest
desicrbe deindividuation escape theory
heatherton and baumeister 1991
binge eating - motivated attempt to escape SA
argues it is difficult to lose complete SA so try to narrow focus to the immediate, present environment
focus to a lower level of meaning where cant compare self against general standards therefore makes easier to perform destructive behaviours
strip eents of meaning to escape worries, threats or pressures following setbacks
what is binge eating
a paradoxial self defeating pattern of eating behaviours
occurs when actively trying to reduce eating
leads to bouts of extreme over eating
can be accompanied by weightloss measures ie laxatives/self induced vomiting
binge eating and the escape theory
binge eater compare self against high standards/ideals of the self/made by society/pressured by a goup and feel cant obtain
reciprocal causality of behaviours - binges may narrow focus and narrow focus may cause binges
high SA but periodically fail and therefore focus on inadiquacies - highly aversive SA
neg affect - shift cog state so focus away from self and irrational thoughts
is self esteem universal
kitayama et al 1997
no - western concept
americans elab on positive aspects of self (self-enhance)
BUT japanese self critical tendencies where focus on neg aspect of self in the process of slef improvement in the strive for excellence
Self criticism levels not reflect overall self esteem
define aschematic
dimenstions that are classed as unimportnt to self identity
does not have an overall influence on thoughts/feelings/behaviours
why do we need a variety of self schematic dimensions? (linville 1987)
variety buffers from negative impact of life events
ensures there are always schemas that drive self satisfaction
showers 1992 self schema integration
when have rigidly compartmented self schemas (very pos or very neg) then more subject to mood swings than those with integrated self schemas with indistinct boundaries
higgins 1998 regulatory focus in self discrepancy
two regulatory systems that determines the approach orientation in constructing the sense of self
1 - promotional system
2 - prevention system
people tend to habitually prefer to use one system over another
describe higgins 1998 reg focus promotional system
concernes with the attainment of hopes and desires
information related to the persuit of success
ie inspired by pos role models
describe higgins 1998 reg focus prevention system
concerned with the fulfillment of duties and obligations that causes greater avoidance and conscienciousness
inspired by neg role models thaat highlight how to avoid failure
