PSY 411 exam 2

Self-presentation

behavior intended to create/modify/maintain an impression of ourselves in minds of others

• strategic

• automatic/controlled

• can be private or public

Why people self-present

1. facilitate social interaction to gain material & social rewards

2. maintaining appropriate roles e.g. those in power appear confident

3. help others save face

4. self-construction

Self-construction

create impressions so others reflect our identity back to us

• common in teens & on socmed

• can be motivating & increase commitment to goals

When people self-present

1. when focus on others’ attention

2. when socially isolated/need validation

3. when around less familiar others

4. when we have social anxiety

5. when we possess personality traits that encourage self-presentation

Self-monitoring

monitoring/controlling behavior with others

High self-monitoring

• flexible selves

• strive to be the “right” person for each situation

Low self-monitoring

• consistent selves

• strive to be true to themselves

Global self-esteem

• personality trait that endure across situations & contexts

• overall feelings

High global self-esteem

general fondness/love for self

Low global self-esteem

mildly positive/ambivalent feelings (indecisive)

Measuring global self-esteem

self-report! but has problems

• self-presentational concerns

• may be influenced by defensive processes

State self-esteem

momentary emotional states

• manipulated by negative feedback

• but negative feelings =/= low self-esteem

Affective models of self-esteem

developed at early age characterized by 2 feelings

1. belonging: unconditional positive regard, secure based, not usually conscious

2. mastery: perception that one has impact on world

Cognitive models fo self-esteem

conscious decision regarding worth as a person

Self-evaluations (judgements)

evaluations of various abilities/attributes = global self-esteem

• e.g. Add-em-up model: positive attributes = high self-esteem

Problem with purely cognitive model

being good at something =/= feeling good about self

Affective or Cognitive models

both are important and inform each other

• highly correlated

• individuals tend to rate themselves relatively positively on valued, subjective traits

• high self-esteem = greater self-centertainty as well

Why does self-esteem exist?

evolutionarily adaptive: humans are a relatively social species

• easier to hunt prey

• easier to raise offspring

Sociometer hypothesis

• gauge of belongingness fulfillment

• sensitive to rejection/acceptance

• warns when we need to recharge

• different people are calibrated differently

Sociometer extension

doesn’t need domain to be clearly social

• often may have social implications

• access to resources, networks

• people are drawn to those who are good at things

• failing can make us feel less likeable

Terror Management Theory

• humans uniquely aware that death is inevitable

• this awareness creates feelings of existential terror/anxiety

Terror Managment Theory & Self-esteem

barometer = how well we’re living up to social & cultural standards

• symbolic immortality

• provides value

• leaving legacy

Mortality Salience paradigms

most common: imagine & write about your own death

• control conditions: negative experience

• behave consistently wiht cultural & societal worldviews

• relieve terror associated with thoughts of own mortality

Self-esteem & evaluative feedback

• more positive feedback = SE plays smaller role in response

• both HSE and LSE feel sad from negative feedback

• LSE also feels humiliated

• LSE likely to interpret ambiguous feedback as negative

• LSE more likely to view performance as overall failure

LSE self-esteem & motivation

high in avoidance motivation

• preventative, moving away from negative events/failures

• feelings of self-doubt & uncertainity

• minimize risk to self-views

HSE self-esteem & motivation

high in approach motivation

• striving towards positive

• not as fearful of failures/negative events

• actively pursue & try to maintain positive self-views

Behavioral responses to negative feedback

• LSE avoid risks because failure = normal cost of risk + psychological consequences

• LSE only engage in social comparison if they’re sure it’s downward

• LSE self-handicap to protect from failure, HSE self-handicap for self-enhancement

• LSE & HSE generally perform equally, but LSE performs worse/persists less after failure

Cons of emphasizing self-esteem boosts

• becomes focus & motivation for our behaviors

• become contingent on outcome

• when things go well → temporary, short-term gains

• when things go poorly → huge short-term & long-term costs

Costs to intrinsic motivation (boosting SE)

since self-worth relies on it

• pursuit of self-esteem becomes obligation & reward

• similar to external reward

• no longer pursue for pure enjoyment

• if fail/anticipate possible failure: defensiveness, unethical & desperate means

Cost to relationships (boosting SE)

becoming more self-focused, less concerned about others

Cost to self-regulation (boosting SE)

change how people choose & persist towards goals

• self-handicapping

• difficult goals increase threat of self-esteem

Cost to physical health (boosting SE)

• greater stress & anxiety

• heightened preoccupation with self → increased drug & alcohol use

Cost to mental health (boosting SE)

associated with clinical levels of depression & NPD

Financial Contingency of Self-worth (CSW)

• distinct from other CSWs (academic)

• related to financial social comparison & stress

Impact on high FCSW

• financial threat particularly negative: decreased autonomy, increased disenegagement

• threat for high FCSW is mitigated under self-affirmation

• high FCSW impacts behavior after financial threat: frivolous spending

HSE & negative outcomes

• self-aggrandizement/promo

• defensiveness

Level of SE

average baseline: high vs low

• global SE

Stability of SE

fluctuations around baseline

• measure state SE 8 times a week

Stable high SE

the “good”

• less affected by negative events

• feel bad but not about themselves

Unstable high SE

the “bad”

• defensive reactions to negative events

• higher self-reported anger

• blame evaluator for negative feedback

Why unstable high SE?

underlying self-doubt, LSE in disguise

• visible after threat

• motivates behavior

Diagnosing unstable HSE

• use implicit measures (e.g. cardiac efficiency) to capture confidence with response to stress

• unstable HSE = less confident in ability after failure → less efficient CV response

Controlled processes

• intentional with consciouse choice

• aware of conscious decisions & their effects

• requires mental resources and limited in practice

• can be monitored & stopped

Automatic processes

• unintentional - triggered directly by stimuli in environment

• unaware of unconscious decisions & their effects

• uses wery little effort & mental resources

• process difficult to stop intentionally

Combining controlled & automatic

• originally thought to be mutually exclusive

• but many activities become automatic over time

• both activities can occur simultaneously

Bargh et. al. 1996

• prime participants with elder/neutral terms

• sentence scrambling

• later assessed rate at which participant walked down hallway

• elderly words → walk more slowly

Replicability concerns

hidden but essential moderators

• knowledge of stereotypes & importance

• conscious recognition: priming less likely if conscously recognized

Unconscious goal pursuit

• subliminal/nonconscious primes → goal-directed behavior

• strength of associatoin matters

• no association doesn’t impact goal pursuit behavior

Stroop Effect

automatic processes initiated without conscious intent & difficult to stop

Explicit attitude

how I say I feel about attitude object

Implicit attitudes

automatic association I have with attitude object

Implicit SE

automatic/unconscious self-attitudes represented in memory

• Implicit Associates Test (IAT)

• name letter task

• me not me tasks

High implicit SE

• more quicly associate self with positive words

• implicit egotism: stronger preference for self-related outside entitiess

Secure HSE

• high explicit

• high implicit

Defensive/Fragile HSE

• high explicit, low implicit

• particularly destructive discrepancy

Aggression

done for self-preservation

• when doing so meets immediate fundamental needs

• for humans, has additional psychological needs

Need to belong

• universal & fundamental

• not just about being around others, but must have enduring & endearing relationships

• also fulfills needs for SE, meaning & purpose

Criteria for a fundamental need

1. not constrained to specific situations/circumstances

2. changes emotional & cognitions drastically

3. universal & automatic

4. although universal, it comes & goes

5. experience negative effects if unfulfilled/threatened

Exclusion

threatens need to belong & reliably associated with

• distress & LSE

• motivation to reestablish connection

• activation in brain regions associated with processing social/physical pain, negative emotions & threat

• greater anger & aggression for those with psychopathic tendencies

Possible reactions to being excluded

• reconnect with others (more productive & helpful)

• anger & aggressive behaviors (less productive, counterproductive)

Self-defeating behavior

behaviors sought out for some short-term benefit, but ultimately produces negative long-term outcome

Ostracism

being left out, doesn’t have to be explicit

Rejection

more overt & explicit

Response to ostracism & rejection

aversion to social situations

• withdraw from other for short reprieve

• desire to seek “safe” forms of social connection

• common during social transition & disruption

Social media being “safe”

social affirmation & reminders of connection with less risk

• lurking through pics/posts without posting

Social surrogates being “safe”

aka parasocial relationships, one-sided

• interpersonal trauma (without PTSD) & LSE → desire to seek social surrogates

• feels like someone we know, someone who understands us

• no realistic reciprocal connection

Problem with social withdrawal

• short-term solution: social surrogates can’t replace real interaction

• distress from discrepancies between ideal & perceived social relationships

• painful feeling of wanting more direct human contact

Aggression as self-defeating response

cyclical, non-productive pattern

• repeated rejection → aggression → rejection again

Who’s aggressive under threat

• dispositional & environmental factors

• complex confluence of nature & nurture

Monoamine Oxidase A

gene that encodes enzyme that regulates neurotransmitters e.g. serotonin

• mutation: more likely to commit violent crime

• especially so for those who endured maltreatment & abuse in childhood

Narcissism

inflated/grandiose/unjustified favorable views

• highly sensitive & intolerant to belongingness/esteem threat

• more likely to be aggressive, espeically if HSE too

Gender difference in aggression

• men more physically aggressive

• women usually indirectly aggressive

Why indirect aggression for women?

1. physical features: size, stature

2. cultural expectations: self-perpetuating, exposure to/use of aggression → forms aggressive script

Precarious manhood

• manhood must be earned, and it can be lost too

• men compensate for threats to mahood through physical aggression

Culture of honor

cultures in which citizens protect reputation of strength & toughness

• stronger negative emotional responses

• rises in cortisol & testosterone levels

Formation of strong aggressive scripts

the more we aggress, the more practice/efficacy using that behavioral option → more likely to use aggression in future

Contributing factors to likelihood of aggression

• personality/temperamental differences

• gender differences

• cultural differences

Bargh on free will

external inputs & interacions are solely responsible for our decisions

Baumeister on free will

still inherently room for free will

• conscious overriding

Belief in free will

fundamental to classic conceptions of self & healthy psychological fucntioning

• especially for highly individualistic cultures

• autonomy key component to moitvational striving

• perceived locus of control essential to wellbeing

• self-serving bias: illusory control

Implications of believing in free will

• prevets reckless behavior

• inducing determinism increases likelihood of lying, cheating & stealing

• low free will beliefs → less likely to help others