The self Flashcards
Freud- iceberg analogy & thought (2)
- Conscious thought (tip of iceberg)
- Unconscious thought (under surface & cant actively see)
Freud- iceberg analogy: 3 parts of self» (3)
> ID= animal drives, basic instincts (4F’s: feeding, fighting, fleeing, fucking)
EGO= conscious thought; maintains balance between motivated behaviour (the 4F’s) & rational thought
Super Ego= unconscious thought, keeper of social norms
What is the self? & Decartes»
-looked at epistemology (study of how do you KNOW something)
- concluded “i think, therefore i am”
self-schemata=
who you are & what you are
schema=
organised sets of knowledge, beliefs and feelings that can guide information processing
self-schema includes (4)=
- behaviours
- personality traits
- physical characteristics
- interests
Aschematic=
ideas/ attributes unimportant to you; not within self-reference schema
What can effect can aschematic ideas/attributes have?
change the way we think about things (e.g. faster accessibility to words related to self-concepts)
self-schemata- study (markus, 1977)>
- study desgined to measure speed of accessibility to words related to self-concepts
-method= - had people rate themselves on a series of attributes (one being independence)
- gave a text & asked to find all the words related to the concept of independence-themed words
- findings=
“independents” were quicker to identify with independence-themed words
self-reference effect= (Kihlstrom et al, 1988)
individuals remember info when they can relate it to themselves
self-schema- us vs others> (2)
- we attribute more to ourselves than others
- our attributions to self are often in conflicting terms> as we recognise ourselves as 3D characters (sande, 1990)
schemes are activated by?
priming
schemes activation by priming: studies (2)
> chronically lonely people have negative schemas (Frankel & Prentice-Dunn, 1990)
alcohol reduces self-awareness; ability to access self-referential info (steele, southwick & critchlow, 1981)
Observing ourselves: we generally like ourselves. What does this cause by extension? (3)
preference for
- similarity in names (of people), letters and numbers (related to name) (pelham, mirenberg & jones, 2002)
- nominal determinism= motivated by names (not of people)
- overvaluing things that are ours (e.g. lottery tickets)
observing ourselves: physiological feedback>
we are aware of our bodies (e.g. heart rate, sweaty palms) & associated meaning in self
observing ourselves: heart rate study» (6)
> method=
- group of men given headphones which played the sound of a heart beating
- wired up to ECG, to make think they were hearing their own heart
- showed them pictures of women, promiscuously dressed
- some men had heart slowly beating played & some had it racing
- then asked to rate attractiveness of women
> findings=
- men with racing scenario rated women a lot more attractive than those who had slow heart beat
self esteem=
a proxy for what we think others think about us
Spotlight effect of self-esteem
idea everybody is paying attention to & focused on us
gender differences in self esteem (3)
- pre-pubescent equally feel good about self
- once hit puberty self esteem declines (more for w than m)
- continued trend of decreased for w against m until 60
age differences in self-esteem (3)
- highest in youth & males 50-60
- low at puberty
- lowest in old age (rapid decline from 60+)
Impact of youth self-esteem (3)
can have huge impact on life prospect
- employment & promotion
- e.g. only w apply for a job if fit 2/3 of criteria; m when fit 1/3 due to higher SE
self-efficacy=
a person’s internalised belief in their ability to accomplish a goal
How can self efficacy be created and strengthened?
through modelling & doing
women’s self efficacy (studies) (3)
- express lower levels of math self-efficacy, despite = ability to male peers (E-Q, H&L, 2010)
- express lower levels relating to economic efficacy (L&M, 2009)
- change mate attribute preferences based on role expectation > in study when asked to imagine life as primary provider vs stay at home role (E,E & J-S, 2009)
Two types of self-esteem»
explicit
implicit
ways to measure explicit vs implict self esteem»
- explicit: self-rating scales
- implict: behaviours
problems with self rating scale to measure SE»
- not accurate as people often lie/exaggerate/understate etc
Implict self esteem study: photographic test (3)
- 7 photos posted by person examined by participants & clinicians
- examined against criteria (e.g. frequency of post, smiling with teeth/not, alone/not etc)
- asked photo takers qns & asked same qns to participants/clinicians to see if correlate (e.g. do you have h/m/l confidence?; does she have h/m/l confidence?)
-assumption high SE= more selfies
are selfies related to high self-esteem?
- assumption high SE has more selfies
- selfies not related to SE
- selfies related to narcissism
Low self-esteem & depression: 2 models»
- scar model= depression is a mental illness that erodes self-esteem over time (disproven)
- vulnerability model= low self-esteem contributes to depression (proven)
low self-esteem & self efficacy»
- usually low SE> low self-efficacy so> performance (in w/ school) can decline
- equally, performance (in w/ school) can increase SE
high self esteem features (4)
- think themselves more likeable & attractive
- mixed results about stress responses
- more likely to speak in group (but are more critical)
- happier (enhanced initative and pleasant feelings)
self-evaluation=
how we view ourselves as “measuring up”
self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987), & 3 self schemas» (3+1)
- Actual self
- Ideal self
- “ought self” (based on rules & society)
idea, the bigger the gap between AS & IS is where unhappiness comes from
Baumeister & self regulation theory» (4 components)
- Standards= of desirable behaviour (expectations)
- Motivation= to meet standards
- Monitoring= of situation & thoughts that precede breaking standards
- Willpower= internal strength to control urges
Ego depletion=
idea there is a limited amount of self-control & each act has a cost, reducing will
Self-regulation: Higgins & regulatory focus theory» 2 systems & features (4)
- promotion system
>pushed toward goal attainment
>seek opportunities;
> problems viewed as puzzles;
> look for inspiration in others - prevention system
>avoids unwanted things;
>does not seek opportunities;
>problems should be avoided;
>negative role models
Can ‘regulatory focus’ be changed?
- can be fostered in children:
>encouraged towards goal attainment (for promotion s) etc
> instill fear & anxiety (of prevention s)
social comparison theory: 3 premises»
- motivated to evaluate our own cognitions
- measure relative to others (as no objective measures)
- compare like for like
social comparison theory: upward vs downward comparisons
upward= (i wish i could afford designer clothes like her)
downward= (i’m glad i dont wear scruffy clothes like her)
impact of upward vs downward comparisons>
upward: can reduce our self-regard but can also motivate
downward: can make us feel better about ourselves
Tajfel’s social identity theory> main concept
- self, based on group membership(s)
>in-group vs out-group
Tajfel’s social identity theory: stages» (3)
- categorisation= defining your group, relationships, roles
- social identification= adoption of the identity (norms & rules etc adopted)
- social comparison= who you are vs others
Gender as a self-concept: “who am i” test: w vs m (2)
- men tend to construct themsevles around independence
- women tend to construct themselves in terms of social roles & relationships
social role theory> basic concept
argues differences arise from the distribution of labour (evolutionarily speaking)
social role theory: mechanisms> (4)
- hormones & associated neural structures are believed to have developed through evolutionary selection pressures
>these become ‘activated’ to guide behaviour to fulfil social roles - then, social learning, reinforcement & personal adoption of gendered social roles
-cycle repeats
Collective vs individual: superodinate identities=
some identities are bigger & stronger (e.g. lanc student=pretty weak; being from Uk=pretty strong)
collective vs individual cultures
-western focus on individual (rather than community/family)
-collectivist tend to compare to others more often (which can motivate self improvement)
collective vs individual: idea of no single self> (2)
-4.23 selves in US (McConnel, 2011)
-immigrants hold dual identities
