Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Manipulation > Task 5 > Flashcards

Task 5 Flashcards

1
Q

Role Model

A

Special kind of comparison target

  • very specific target
  • often a superior other
  • can influence our behaviour & motivations, self-evaluation, decision making & goal achievement
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Role Models as Behavioural Models

A
  • role model posses skills & display techniques which the actor (thinks they) lacks
  • from whom the actor can learn by comparison & observation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Role Models as Future or Possible Selves

A
  • teach us not how possible, but that something is possible

e. g. female president

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Role Model as Inspiration

A
  • role models that away inspire
  • teach by example
  • excite admiration & emulation
  • some role models are just inspiring in what they convey about how one should live
  • goes hand in hand with role model as future selves
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Online Influencers

A
  • more recent type of role models
  • instagram posts evoke envy through social comparison
  • Facebook profiles of attractive individuals evoked depressed feelings though social comparison process
    > but mainly among women & individuals who aren’t that popular in real life
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Principles how role models influence us

A
  1. Relevance
  2. Attainability
  3. Positive or negative?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Relevance

A
  • when identification is possible –> influence
  • gender, age, ethnicity, attitudes, personality, background interest
  • ## highly attractive others influence perceptions of one’s own attractiveness only id they are the same sex
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Attainability

A

Is the success of the comparison target attainable?
- could role model be future you?

yes:
- provides an indication of particular goals to aim for
- points to road one should (could) follow
- makes one feel more competent & capable of similar achievements
- -> Inspiration, encouragement, motivation

no:
- could lead to discouragement demoralisation
- highlights one’s own failures & shortcomings

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Positive or negative?

A

Is the role model and/or the behaviour/attitudes displayed positive or negative?

  • exhibit positive or negative behaviour (to be avoided)?
  • depends on regulatory focus
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Positive Role Models

A
  • individuals who have achieved outstanding success
  • e.g. star athletes
  • they inspire by illustrating ans ideal, desired self, highlighting possible achievements that one can strive for, and demonstrating the route for achieving them
  • inspire others by encouraging the pursuit of success
  • highlight possible achievements
  • demonstrate the route to get there
  • they can motivates by giving a guid in how to achieve success
  • personification of plausible desired selves that people can realistically aspire to become and illustrate the means for achieving these desired selves
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Negative Role Models

A
  • Individuals who have experienced misfortune
  • e.g. public announcements with examples of AIDS patients, smokers that got lung cancers
  • inspire by illustrating feared, to-be-avoided self
  • show possible future disasters & highlight mistakes that need to be prevented
  • motivate by showing key strategies for avoiding failure
  • personify unwanted, feared selves & highlight ways of forestalling such selves
  • individuals report that Social comparison wore-off others in domains such s marital satisfaction & health can be distressing bc reminder of a possible negative future
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Role Models & Regulatory Focus

A

Influences the inspirational impact of positive/negative role models

2 types:

  • prevention-focused
  • promotion-focused
  • also influenced by information sensitivity & stability of regulatory focus
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Promotion-focused

A

striving to achieve an ideal self, and so produce sensitivity to the absence of positive outcomes
- eager pursuit of gains or success (strategies used)

concerned with

  • advancement
  • growth accomplishment
  • maximising success

When driven by Promotion-goals:

  • scrutinise their social world for information that beards on the pursuit of success
  • especially well-attuned to emotions relating to the successful or unsuccessful pursuit of positive outcomes
  • tend to focus on interpersonal strategies geared toward promoting desired outcomes
  • show especially high motivation and persistence on tasks that are framed in terms of promotion
  • are concerned with achieving their hopes, whites and aspirations
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Prevention-focused

A

striving to avoid disaster, and so produce a sensitivity to the presence or absence of negative outcomes
- vigilant avoidance of losses or failure (strategies used)

concerned with

  • security
  • safety
  • responsibility
  • minimising failure
  • focus on information relevant to the avoidance failure
  • especially likely to notice & recall information relating to the avoidance of failure by others
  • particularly well-attended to emotions relating to the success or unsuccessful avoidance of negative outcomes
  • tend to focus on interpersonal strategies geared toward preventing negative outcomes
  • tend to show high motivation and persistence on tasks that are framed in terms of prevention
  • are concerned with safety, protection, responsibility
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Information sensitivity & regulatory focus

A
  • people are especially sensitive to info that fits their dominant regulatory focus (promotion or prevention)
  • they show enhanced motivation & performance when they are encouraged to pursue strategies that match their regulatory concerns
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Stability of regulatory focus

A
  • although there are stable individual differences in dominant regulatory ficus, one’s current focus also depends on situational factors
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Priming & regulatory focus

A
  • possible ti induce promotion or prevention goals by framing possible rewards or penalties for performance
  • either in terms of benefits to be Gaines
  • or in terms of losses to be avoided (priming prevention)
  • regulatory focus can also be primed by having participants describe personal experiences relevant either to promotion or to prevention
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Motivational Theory of Role Modelling

A

proposes different types of role models (behavioural, possible selves, inspirations) lead to certain motivations to achieve a goal, learn a skill etc. via different pathways

  1. goal embodiment:
    Do they model the approach or avoid behaviour?
  2. Attainability
    - -> 1 & 2 influence expectancy
  3. desirability
    - -> influences value
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Obama effect

A

the success of a role model may shield stereotyped targets from the negative effects of stereotyped threat (increased academic performance in black students that watched his speech)

  • Buffering effects: if he can, I ca
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Stereotype Threat

A

process whereby you know that you are part of a group in society that is the target of a lot of stereotype
- e.g in academic context: aware of stereotype –> feel threatened –> try to disprove (get high grades) or engage in self-fulfilling prophecies

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Role Models & Mimicry

A

Study by Late et al:
exposed women to four pictures of the Clintons
- open vs closed body picture
- Hillary vs Bill Clinton

After look at picture, had to give a speech

  • women exposed to Hillary “open” role model (=power) but not the male “open” role model had a more open body posture themselves
  • role models have an effect on body posture which creates mimicry
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Why do we compare ourselves?

A
  • to gain self-knowledge
  • Social comparison is all about the self & our self concept

3 Principles:

  1. self-evaluation
  2. Self-enhancement
  3. Self-improvement
23
Q

Why do we want to gain self-knowledge?

A
  • to evaluate our abilities, thoughts, feelings, goals
  • find out if we match up to others
  • are we in line with what others think/feel?
  • to know who we are/innate desire to figure out who we are
24
Q

Acquiring self-knowledge

A

can be done by comparing ourselves to others

- difficult to acquire

25
Q

Obstacles to Self-knowledge

A
  • often influenced by motivational (self-protective or self-serving) processes like repression, suppression, intentional forgetting etc.
  • -> e.g. we like to forget that we are not always as kind as we want to be
  • dissociations between explicit & implicit processes
    > unconscious processes (e.g. attitudes & stereotypes) are often not accessible to consciousness
    > cannot add to our self-knowledge, cannot access
26
Q

Social Comparison Theory

A

When objective measure of performance are unavailable, people compare themselves to one another in a n attempt to accurately evaluate their own opinions & abilities

  • self-discrepancy theorising supports the idea that emotion mediates the relationship between comparison-based discrepancy & behavioural responses
  • -> empirical evidence lacking
  • ppl compare to gain self-knowledge
  • ppl motivated to evaluate their opinions & abilities
    problem: often no “objective” standards are present
    solution: compare yourself with others

3 basic motives:

  • self-evaluation
  • self-enhancement
  • self-improvement
27
Q

Self-evaluation

motive of comparison

A

The need for accurate self-evaluation

e.g. having a certain grade in class, compare with others to see how am I doing?

28
Q

Self-enhancement

motive of comparison

A

Process of creating & maintaining a positive image of oneself

e.g. If feel bad about self & want to feel better, compare to someone hi is doing worse than me to help feel better about self

29
Q

Self-Improvement

A

Motive to gather information about how to advance through life

e.g. compare to someone who did better, ask how did you achieve a better grade? gives info on how to do better in the future

30
Q

Types of comparison

A
  • upward comparison

- downward comparison

31
Q

Upward Comparison

A

the comparison target is someone who performs better or is better off than the individual
- when motivated by self-evaluation & self-improvement
> ppl tend to make more upward comparisons

32
Q

Downward Comparison

A

the target performs worse or is worse off than the individual

when motivated by self-enhancement
> people tend to engage in downward comparison which may improve the mood, subjective well-being, self-esteem (especially true for those who are weak or threatened in a certain domain who are depressed)

33
Q

Social Comparison General

A

all about the self & our self-concept
- does not have to be conscious to affect us
(subliminal exposure can lead to self-evaluation)
- overall goal is to gain self-knowledge

34
Q

When is which target for comparison chosen?

A

self-evaluation & self-improvement motive:

  • acquiring accurate evaluations of your abilities & opinions
  • -> slightly better-off other
  • because these are the ones that will provide us with the most info about ourselves

Self-enhancement motive:

  • to boost your self-esteem
  • -> worse-off other
35
Q

Self-Evaluation Model

A

Combination of the two dimensions let to different outcomes of comparisons

  • Relevance
  • Closeness
36
Q

Relevance

Self-Evaluation Model

A
  • in order for comparisons to provide us with information about ourselves, the comparison dimension should be relevant to us
    e. g. if I don’t do/value sports, comparing to professional soccer player is not relevant
37
Q

Closeness

A

is the comparison target a friend or stranger?

Is the person important to me?

38
Q

Consequences of Upward Social Comparison

A
  • motivated by self-evaluation & self-improvement motives
    –> highlight persons shortcomings in relevant attributes
    “you are not as well off as some others”
  • feeling of inferiority, negative affect
  • can be positive, lead to inspiration
  • can be negative, lead to envy & jealousy
    > when ppl negatively compared to targets who outperform then on relevant dimensions
39
Q

Consequence of Upward Comparison & Attainability

A

Depending on how attainable a goal appears to be, negative or positive affect may result

  • negative affect likely when goal seems unattainable
  • positive responses (hope & inspiration) likely the goal seems attainable

–> these emotions, in turn, provide people with are or enhanced goals in the future

40
Q

Consequences of Downward Comparison

A

Downward Comparison is motivated by the desire for self-enhancement

“you are better off than some others”

  • positive affect, reduction of anxiety
    > e.g. when person actually does outperform a target on a self-relevant dimension, this leads to stronger feelings of pride & happiness
    –> positive affect is more likely as ppl feel better about themselves as a result of the comparison
  • Pride, happiness (booth self-esteem)
  • can also have negative effects like Schadenfreude
41
Q

Contrast effects

A

Evaluating yourself away from the target

  • may be a result of social comparison
  • “dissimilarity testing”, focusing on dissimilarities to create contrast
  • selective focus on differences with target

w.g. feel unattractive –> compare to attractive person –> feel even less attractive –> lowering self-evaluation

42
Q

Assimilation

A

Evaluating toward target

  • may result from social comparison
  • “similarity testing”
  • selective focus on similarities with the target
  • especially relevant when someone is an inspiration to you & you feel similar to them
43
Q

Similarity

A

Similar:
could be future you –> identification

Dissimilar:
not future you –> contrast

  • similar others tend to be close others
  • close others more likely to be comparison target
  • provide more information about you bc they are more similar to you
  • focus on similarities or differences affects goal achievement

–> identification contrast model

44
Q

Identification Contrast Model

A

Builds on Social Comparison

Dimensions:

  • upwards vs downward comparison (comparison direction)
  • Identify vs contrast (interpretations)

Positive Outcomes:

  • Upward-identification (hope, inspiration, optimism)
  • downward contrast (relief, pride)

Negative outcomes:

  • Downward identification (fear, worry, anguish)
  • Upward contrast (envy, inadequacy, frustration, shame)
45
Q

Identification

Identification Contrast Model

A

individuals may assume that the situation of the target is similar to their actual fate to may be their own future

46
Q

Contrast

Identification Contrast Model

A

Individuals will conifer the target as a standard to evaluate their current state

47
Q

Selective Accessibility Model

A

Aims to explain whether assimilation or contrast occurs earn one is confronted with a relevant comparison standard

  • in beginning of social comparison process, perceived first makes quick & holistic assessment of similarity between self & standard
  • briefly considering small number of salient features (e.g. category membership, salient person characteristics) to determine whether the self is generally rather similar or dissimilar from target
  • outcome of initial assessment of perceived similarity then determines whether subsequent social comparison process is driven by similarity testing or dissimilarity testing
  • model focuses on stages in comparison process
    > early stage: global similarity assessment
    > followed by more conscious similarity testing or dissimilarity testing
48
Q

High perceived Similarity

Selective Accessibility Model

A

Similarity-testing (leads more likely to assimilation effects)
- activation of standard-consistent information about self

49
Q

Low perceived Similarity

Selective Accessibility Model

A 
dissimilarity testing (leads more likely to contrast effects)
- activation of standard-inconsistent information about the self
50
Q

Summary of Selective Accessibility Model

A

Whether perceiver will assimilate to or contrast away from standard depends on the info activated during quick and holistic initial assessment

–> thus salient stimulus features (e.g. body shape of model) and similarity to perceivers representation of self on that dimension (e.g. own body shape)

51
Q

Self-evlauation Maintenance Model (SEM)

A

examines the process through which people maintain positive self-evaluations in the face of potentially threatening comparisons with others
- ppl motivated to maintain/improve their self-evaluations

threats to positive self-evaluations will prompt ppl to eliminate the threats to self through several possible behaviours

  • adjusting personal relevance of domain in question
  • altering target’s or one’s own perceived performance level
  • reducing one’s relational closeness to the comparison target

provides theoretical association between social comparison, emotional arousal and behaviours

Closeness:
whether an outstanding other will have impact on self depends in extent to which other is psychologically close

52
Q

Social-Discrepancy Theory (SDT)

A

rooted in traditions of cognitive consistency & dissonance

  • makes claims about the relationship among discrepancies, affect & ultimately behaviour
  • suggests that perceived inconsistencies or discrepancies between actual self & either ideal or ought self result in specific negative affects (dejection, agitation) that over time develop into patterns of emotional distress

Like SEM:
self-discrepancy theorising supports the idea that emotion mediates the relationship between comparison-based discrepancy & behavioural responses
> empirical evidence is lacking

53
Q

Social Comparison & Social Media

A

cannot escape comparisons of social media
- often unaware of being effected

study: instagram pictures compared by likes
- downward comparison group got 38 likes, comparison target 29 likes
- upward comparison group got 29 likes, comparison target 38 likes

  • -> downward comparison group reported feelings schadenfreude, more superiority, feeling better after comparison
  • -> upward comparison group wanted to be comparison target, more inferiority, sadness, jealousy & resentment & felt worse after comparison

Manipulation (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions