Chapters 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12
4 components of the self
self concept
self esteem
self knowledge
social self
self concept
self-schema, beliefs about self that organize and guide the processing of self-relevant info
social comparisons
we compare ourselves to others, we cannot help it
we are conscious of those differences
may have either positive or negative effects
Lockwood and Kunda
Lockwood and Kunda (1997)
social comparisons
uni students (1st or 4th year)
given a newspaper article to read about a superstar student
1st years —> feel inspired
4th years —> feel defeated
what are social comparisons online based on?
incomplete information (not the full picture), people tend to highlight the best parts of their life
spotlight effect
see ourselves as if we are on “centre stage”, you feel like everyone is paying attention to you
illusion of transparency
our worry about being evaluated negatively, especially when we feel self conscious, we feel as if people can see how we feel
Savitsky and Gilovich (2003)
the participants who were informed about the illusion of transparency felt and looked more relaxed
individualism
there is more focus on the individual
independent and do not need to fit within the group
western cultures
stable self concept & personal self esteem
becoming an adult means separating from parents & becoming self reliant
collectivism
interdependent
values relationships and in-group harmony more
eastern cultures
malleable self concept & rational self esteem
respecting and identifying with the group
people are more self critical and focus less on positive self views
Masuda & Nisbett (2001)
east asian individuals describe the picture in regards to the relationship among the fish
americans attend more to the single big fish
demonstrates social behaviours are different among settings
what do you mean by similarity?
americans: uni-dimensional rule (one feature is the same)
east asians: family resemblance rule (similarity among multiple features)
independent
identity is: personal, defined by individual traits and goals
what matters: me — personal achievement and fulfillment; my rights and liberties
disapproves of: conformity
illustrative motto: “to thine own self be true”
cultures that support: individualistic western
interdependent
identity is: social, defined by connections w/ others
what matters: we — group goals and solidarity; our social responsibilities and relationships
disapproves of: egotism
illustrative motto: “no one is an island”
cultures that support: collectivistic asian and developing world
culture and self esteem - individualistic
more personal self esteem, less relational
persist longer on tasks when succeeding
downward social comparisons
self evaluations biased positively
culture and self esteem - collectivistic
relational and malleable self esteem
persist longer on tasks when failing
upward social comparisons
self evaluations as balanced
affective forecasting
reveal that people have the greatest difficulty predicting the intensity and the duration of their future emotions, generally people overestimate strength and duration
planning fallacy
one of the most common errors in behavior prediction is underestimating how long it will take to complete
reveals impact bias
overestimating the enduring impact of emotion causing events, happy emotions disappear quickly
self reports are…
often untrustworthy
self esteem
the sum of all our self views across various domains
implicit attitudes
automatic, change slowly (w/ practice that forms new habits)
explicit attitudes
consciously controlled, may change (w/ education and persuasion)
low self esteem associated with
anxiety, loneliness, eating disorders
we are motivated to maintain our self esteem
high self esteem —> blame others/circumstances
low self esteem —> blame themselves
high self esteem associated with…
narcissism
self efficacy
a belief in one’s own competence
high self efficacy
if i work hard, i can do this
a strong sense of self efficacy leads people to stay calm and seek solutions when problems arise
self serving bias
attributing positive outcomes to oneself and negative outcomes to something else
negative explanatory style
depressed people do not display a self serving bias, they tend to attribute failure to causes that are stable, global and internal
self serving bias is stronger…
for traits that are more subjective or difficult to measure
unrealistic optimism
being pessimistic about others futures but optimistic about yours
illusory optimism
i am so good i dont even need to try really, increases vulnerability
defensive pessimism
the adaptive value of anticipating problems and harnessing one’s anxiety to motivate effective action
most people consider themselves…
better than average in a variety of dimensions
false consensus effect
overestimating the commonality of one’s opinions and one’s undesirable or unsuccessful behaviours, this is what makes things seem like common sense, you think everyone agrees with you
false uniqueness effect
underestimating the commonality of one’s abilities and one’s desirable or successful behaviours, we think we are so special
temporal comparisons
we perceive positive past selves as psychologically closer in time and negative past selves are more distant
self handicapping
protecting one’s self image with behaviours that create an excuse for later failure
self presentation - Self
wanting to present a desired image both to an external and internal audience
impression management
we want to present our desired image to the world
learned helplessness
occurs when an individual feels like they have no control over negative events and become passive, people tend to feel more satisfied when they have a sense that their choice was final because too much freedom can have negative effects
self monitoring
being attuned to the way one presents oneself in social situations and adjusting the performance to create the desired impression
low self monitors
“i dont want to change this is how i am”, aware of the differences, more consistent and get their cues internally
high self monitors
very perceptive of the social situation, act different in different settings
self presentation theory
suggests that we are eager to present ourselves in ways that make a good impression, we are motivated to impress others — but have self doubts, thus we feel social anxiety
over personalizing situations
concerning for people who are shy, anxious or self conscious, tendency breeds anxious concern and paranoia, especially prone to spotlight effect, spiralling
percieved self control
learned helplessness & self efficacy
attitudes
a favourable or unfavourable evaluative reaction toward something or someone, exhibited in one’s beliefs, feelings or intended behaviour
attitudes include
affect (feelings), behaviour (tendencies) and cognition (thoughts)
attitudes are…
susceptible to outside influences (context), influencing attitudes does not necessarily effect behaviour
how do you measure attitude?
cannot be observed directly, measures can be explicit or implicit
how to measure explicit attitudes?
self reports, measures
implicit attitudes
implicit association test, facial muscle responses, physiological measures
implicit association test (IAT)
uses reaction times to measure how quickly people associate concepts (react faster when there are implicit biases)
assumptions, uncovers “unconscious” attitudes and unbiases
both explicit and implicit attitudes
help predict people’s behaviours and judgements, together predict better than either would alone
principle of aggregation
effects of an attitude on behaviour become more apparent when we look at a person’s aggregate or average behaviour rather than isolated acts
theory of reasoned action
reasoned, deliberate behaviour
an individual’s intention is determinant of their behaviour
intention as the motivation to act (influenced by 2 factors)
use of explicit measurement
motivation to comply with others often not measured
role of self-efficacy (whether people believe they can perform behaviour)
Fishbein and Ajzen (1973)
theory of reasoned action (became theory of planned behaviour)
attitude + norm —> intention —> behaviour
Ajzen (1988)
attitude + norm + control —> intention —> behaviour
best predictor of behaviour: Knowing people's intended behaviour + subjective norms + feelings of control (specific, relevant attitudes do predict intended and actual behaviour!)
when attitudes are potent
many behaviours are automatic, driven by routines and habits, to change habits with persuasion better to alter people’s attitudes towards specific practices
when do attitudes better predict behaviours?
opportunity to review past actions
highlighted self awareness
attitude formed through experience
self consciousness and potency
our attitudes become more potent and affects our behaviour more the more we think about them, this is why self conscious people are usually more in touch with their attitudes
attitudes and experience
when attitudes are formed by experience they are more accessible and more likely to guide actions
role
a set of norms that define how people in a given social position ought to behave, actions expected of those who occupy a particular social position
norms
rules for accepted and expected behaviour that prescribe “proper” behaviour
Zimbardo (1972) - Stanford Prison Experiment
prison simulation study w/ guards and prisoners
planned 2 week study but forced to stop after 6 days
Is prison brutality byproduct of evil people, or do the toxic expectations of the role cause people to conform, and do evil things?
the good apples were put in a bad barrel that is corrupts anything it touches
role playing
our roles shape out attitudes, impact of social situation
stanford prison experiment
foot in the door phenomenon
tendency for people who have first agreed to a small request to comply later with a larger request
low ball technique
door in the face technique
tendency for people who have declined a large request to agree to a smaller request, request then moderation procedure
works through principle of reciprocity
explaining behaviours influencing attitudes
self presentation
self justification
self perception
self presentation - Attitudes
we express attitudes that make us appear consistent, concerned with making a good impression to gain social & material rewards or to feel better about ourselves
self justification
selective exposure and cognitive dissonance, to reduce discomfort we justify our actions to ourselves
selective exposure
we prefer to expose ourselves with info that agrees with our point of view
cognitive dissonance
we feel dissonance (tension) when we are aware that we have two thoughts that are inconsistent (eg smoking but knowing smoking is bad), also happens when our behaviour is inconsistent with attitudes
dissonance theory
when an individual’s actions are NOT fully explained by external rewards or coercion, they will experience dissonance which can be reduced by believing in what they have done
Festinger and Carlsmith (1959)
After completing a boring ass experiment participants were then asked to describe to the next participant that the experiment was amazing and awesome, then were asked again how they enjoyed the experiment
Those paid just $1 (hardly sufficient justification for a lie) would be most likely to adjust their attitudes to their actions. Having insufficient justification for their action, they would experience more discomfort (dissonance) and thus be more motivated to believe in what they had done. Those paid $20 had sufficient justification for what they did and hence should have experienced less dissonance
ways to minimize dissonance
selective exposure to agreeable info and either justifying our actions or changing our behaviour
cognitive dissonance process
we have to choose between two equally attractive (or unattractive) alternatives
the undesirable features of the chosen alternative and the desirable features of the rejected alternative remain
dissonance is created
we “manage” this dissonance by upgrading the chosen alternative and downgrading the rejected alternative
self perception
suggests we make similar inferences when we observe our own behaviour, when our attitudes are weak or ambiguous we are in the position of someone who observes us from the outside
overjustification effect
when individuals do something they enjoy without reward or coercion they attribute their behaviour to their love of the activity
external rewards undermine intrinsic motivation by leading people to attribute their behaviour to the incentive
intrinsic motivation
enjoyable activities —> no external reward —> self perception: i do this because i like it
extrinsic motivation
enjoyable activities —> external reward —> self perception: i do this because im paid to
a group
two or more people who, for longer than a few moments, interact with and influence one another and perceive one another as “us”
collective influence
3 examples: social facilitation, social loafing, deindividuation
social facilitation
mere presence of others
they may be passive or co-actors
tendency of people to perform simple or well-learned tasks better when others are present
the presence of others hinders performance when the task is difficult
the strengthening of the dominant responses owing to the presence of others
Triplett (1898) - social facilitation
Children winding fishing reels Asked to do so by themselves vs. in a group with 5 other kids who aren't interacting
They were faster when winding with a group than by themselves
Maybe because they want to impress each other or so that they can follow their examples, feeling like they're contributing to a group effort
co-actors
a group of people working simultaneously and individually on a non-competitive task
the effects of social arousal
others’ presence —> arousal —> strengthens dominant responses —> enhancing easy behavior OR impairing difficult behavior
crowding
the presence of many others
intensifies positive or negative reactions
enhances arousal
the arousal can interfere with well-learned, automatic behaviors such as speaking
reasons for arousal
evaluation apprehension, driven by distraction, mere presence
evaluation apprehension
concern for how others are evaluating us
the enhancement of dominant responses is strongest when people think they are being evaluated
the self-consciousness we feel when being evaluated can also interfere with behaviors that we perform best automatically
driven by distraction
when people wonder how co-actors are doing or how an audience is reacting, they get distracted
there is a conflict between paying attention to others and paying attention to the task
this overloads our cognitive system and causes arousal
mere presence
produces some arousal even without evaluation apprehension or arousing distraction
many hands make light work
Ringelmann created a rope-pulling apparatus
collective effort of “tug-of-war” teams only about half of sum of individual efforts
group members may actually be less motivated when performing additive tasks
social loafing
tendency for people to exert less effort when they pool their efforts towards a common goal then when they are individually accountable
free-riders
benefitting from the group but giving little in return
social loafing is less likely to occur when
the task is challenging, appealing or involving
when the group members are friends
when people see others in their group as unreliable
cohesiveness intensifies effort
social loafing IRL
effort decreases as group size increases
exhibited less in collectivist cultures
women tend to exhibit it less because of being less individualistic
social loafing vs facilitation
social loafing: others’ presence —> individual efforts pooled and NOT evaluated —> no evaluation apprehension —> less arousal
facilitation: others’ presence —> individual efforts evaluated —> evaluation apprehension —> arousal