the self under threat

Question 1

self integrity

Answer 1

perceiving oneself as living up to culturally defined ideas of goodness, virtue, agency, worthiwhileness - we all have a need for self integrity

Question 2

what is threatening to the self

Answer 2

anything that threatens our self integrity

perceived failures to meet socially or personally significant standards

Question 3

examples of threats to the self

Answer 3

• bad grade in a class you care about
• failing in an important hobby - losing a match
• loss of preferred political party or sport team
• confronted with information about how we are engaging in risk/unhealthy behaviour
• most potent threats are in social interactions - rejections - friends, romance, etc

Question 4

which is a more likely response to threats to self - defensiveness or acknowledging inadequacy

Answer 4

being defensive

Question 5

what are some defensive reactions to threats to the self

Answer 5

• dismissing/minimizing the threat
• biased perception/judgement of information (self serving attributional bias)
• compensatory conviction (emphasizing certainty and conviction about unrelated attitudes, values, goals, and identities - hardening)

Question 6

what is an adaptive way of coping with threats to the self

Answer 6

self affirmation theory

Question 7

self affirmation theory

Answer 7

people can cope with self threat by explicitly affirming/bolstering a characteristic or value in another domain that is important to them - instead of trying to fix the threatened domain

Question 8

why does self affirmation theory work

Answer 8

because we are primarily motivated to maintain overall, global self integrity - the specific source of self integrity matters less

means that if an area is threatened, we don’t have to be defensive/resolve threat in that area, instead we can affirm ourselves in another area

Question 9

what are the implications of self affirmation theory

Answer 9

makes negative events less threatening and allows us to learn from that “threatening” event

Question 10

cognitive dissonance

Answer 10

a behaviour that contradicts an important attitude or value arouses an unpleasant state of “dissonance”

people adjust/align attitude to”justify” behaviour to reduce dissonance related negative arousal

Question 11

cognitive dissonance - theorists vs steele

Answer 11

why do we change our attitudes

theorists: need for psychological consistency

steele: need to maintain self integrity - change attitude and definition of what it means to be good

Question 12

dissonance as self affirmation hypothesis

Answer 12

affirming an important value will eliminate cognitive dissonance and the attitude changes that result
- will maintain original attitude consistent with valyes

Question 13

self affirmation study 1

Answer 13

recruited students that were supportive of funding for disabilities - had to write essay opposing funding

manipulation:
- expectation to self affirm - record exams onto audio for blind students
- no expectation - do nothing after

after: completed questionnaire about attitudes

people with the expectation to self affirm didn’t change their attitudes as much - the expectation to self affirm reduced dissonance compared to the people who didn’t self affirm

Question 14

how does self affirmation work - how generalizable is it?

Answer 14

only works if we affirm in domains that feel relevant and important to us

Question 15

when do we use self affirmation vs self completion

Answer 15

depends how important the threatened self aspect is:
- important - symbolic self completion
- less important - self affirmation

Question 16

personal uncertainty

Answer 16

identity crisis that arises from awareness of having inconsistent or unclear self relevant cognition

Question 17

personal uncertainty as threat

Answer 17

does personal uncertainty lead to compensatory conviction?
- had ps write about personal dilemma or friends dilemma
- within personal dilemma condition - given opportunity to self affirm or not

assessed compensatory conviction

personal uncertainty led to compensatory conviction but
found that self affirmation eliminated compensatory conviction

Question 18

self threats and stereotyping and prejudice

Answer 18

threats to the self may lead people to endorse prejudicial attitudes in an attempt to restore self integrity

providing people with another way to self affirm should reduce prejudicial attitudes?

Question 19

do threats to self increase prejudice

Answer 19

people given good or bad feedback on a fake intelligence test - self esteem assessed

then prejudices assessed through a fake candidate evaluation process

found that a threat to self led to prejudicial attitude against stereotyped outgroup member (jewish candidate)

suggests that prejudice partly stems from a desire to restore self integrity

Question 20

does affirming the self reduce prejudice

Answer 20

studies have shown that it does - study with intelligence test and candidate evaluation done again but added a self affirmation condition

people who got the opportunity to self affirm didn’t show prejudicial attitudes