Social Psych exam 2

symbol

using social being who can
reflect on their own behavior

using and self-reflexive –
essential for planned, coordinated
behavior

No

Is social being isolated?

self as knower (t, the subject)

active perceiver, initiator, and
regulator of action

self as known (ME, the object)

knowledge one has of oneself
• self-concept (how we think of ourselves)
• self-esteem (how we feel about ourselves)

self is performing the action

“I see jessica”

self performing the action AND is
object of that action

“I see me”

object

people can see the self as an —-
of attention

recognizing yourself in the mirror

Red dot test

Self-Awareness Theory

– attention focused inward or outward
– when focused inward on ourselves,
compare current behavior against
internal standards and values
– this is aversive
• almost always failing to meet standard

Diener and Wallbom, 1976

Give you a test, put a timer on the table set for 5 minutes, told to do best on the test but to stop the test when the timer finishes. What does the participant do when the timer goes off, do they cheat? 76% cheated. Another variable was added in the second version of the study, but this time a mirror was added. Now, 7% cheated.

Gibbons, 1978

Told this study concerns peoples expressions of beauty. Showed a number of pictures of young women, told to tell how attractive and how much you like to look at them. Positive correlation between our attitudes and what we like.

– alcohol
– masochism
– meditation/spirituality
– and…suicide

escape/avoid self-awareness…

Schaller, 1997

Record how long participants spend looking at themselves in the mirror. Failure feedback, look in the mirror less. Positive feedback, spend more time looking at themselves in the mirror.

Introspection

look inward to learn who we are?
–often know the outcome, but rarely
the process

Nisbett & Wilson

The study is a trick. Pick a pair of nylons and tell you why they like them the best and why they prefer them. There is an explanation to why people choose a preference, may be what comes first or last. Nylons looked at last were preferred.

Limits of introspection

doesn’t keep us from
generating reasons if asked
–these aren’t always the reasons
–we convince ourselves that they are
–and this has consequences!

less optimal choices
• Wilson & Schooler, 1991

Told they will help with a taste test, 4 commercial jams in front of them. Sample each jam, rate each one rank best → worst. People to introspect made crappier choices compared to those who don’t.

less satisfaction with choices
• Wilson et. al, 1993

Research study with poster, take home your favorite. Then they get a call later asking where the poster is, then ask 1-10 how satisfied are you with the choice u made.

• when thinking about reasons, bring to
  mind attitudes that are accessible,
  plausible, and easy to verbalize
  • don’t have perfect access; these
  reasons are unrepresentative!
  • often imply different reasons that we
  adopt…but “real” reasons eventually
  come back!

What Introspection Does..

Self Knowledge:
Observing Our Behavior

• infer self-knowledge by observing
our behavior in context in which it
occurs
–Self-Perception Theory (Bem, 1972)
–especially likely when our attitudes
and feelings uncertain/ambiguous
–doesn’t require access to internal
states!

Over-justification Effect

• when intrinsic motivation
diminishes for activities associated
w/rewards
–intrinsic motivation - factors inside
person
–extrinsic motivation - factors
outside person; means to an end
• Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973

Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973

the children who had been promised a reward for drawing during the study played significantly less with the felt-tips during free play. However, the children who were surprised with a reward still showed interest in drawing afterwards.

Comparing to Others

• learn about self by comparing self
with others
– Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954)
–drive to evaluate opinions and abilities
accurately
–lacking objective standards, evaluate
self through comparison with others
–prefer to compare to similar others

Social Comparison
Extensions and Revisions

• we now know that…
–occurs for many dimensions - not
just abilities and opinions
• Schachter & Singer, 1962
–can be spontaneous
• Morse & Gergen, 1970
–occurs for reasons besides accuracy

Schachter & Singer, 1962

demonstrated that people can experience misattribution of arousal because their cognitive appraisals identified the wrong eliciting event (it's the confederate, not the shot, that is causing my arousal!)

Morse & Gergen, 1970

78 undergraduate job applicants casually encountered a stimulus person whose characteristics were either socially desirable or undesirable. 1/2 the Ss in each of these conditions found the other was competing with them for the same position, and 1/2 did not. Preliminary assessments were also made of the Ss' level of self-consistency.the socially desirable stimulus person produced a significant decrease in self-esteem, while the undesirable other significantly enhanced Ss' self-estimates. Ss low in self-consistency were most affected by the presence of the other, while extent of competition had no effect. It was also found that similarity between Ss and stimulus person tended to enhance self-esteem, while dissimilarity tended to reduce it.

global self-esteem

how people generally feel about
themselves

self-evaluation

way people evaluate various abilities

feelings of self-worth

momentary emotional states that arise
from positive or negative outcomes

Why Do We Have Self-Esteem?

• tells us we’re “fitting in”
–sociometer hypothesis
• Leary & Baumeister, 2000

Leary & Baumeister, 2000

self-esteem is thought to be a mechanism evolved to alert people when they are being excluded.

Why Do We Have Self-Esteem?

• helps us manage existential terror
–terror management theory
• Greenberg et al., 1997; Schmeichel et al.,
2007

Keeping Self-Esteem

• Self-Evaluation Maintenance
Model (Tesser, 1988)
• assumes that:
–people want to maintain or increase
their self-evaluation
–relationships with others have
substantial impact on self-evaluation

Tesser, 1988

suggests that people may do things to reduce the decrease in self-evaluation from comparison. One can spend less time with that particular individual, thereby reducing closeness or one can change their important self-definition and take up a new hobby or focus on a different self-defining activity, which reduces relevance (e.g., A siblings success in your favorite sport may lead you to stop playing).

Self-Evaluation Maintenance

• composed of two, dynamic
processes
– reflection (Cialdini et al., 1976)
– comparison (Morse & Gergen, 1970)
• use same two variables but w/
opposite effects on self-
evaluation!

Reflection- Cialdini et al., 1976

observed the student clothing on a day when there was a big football game. The researcher looked if the team's supporters would change their behavior due to the result of the game. The students tended to wear more accessories associating with their football team when they won in comparison to when they lost. When lost supporters used to pronouns "they" and when their team won, they called themselves "we".

comparison -Morse & Gergen, 1970

78 undergraduate job applicants casually encountered a stimulus person whose characteristics were either socially desirable or undesirable. 1/2 the Ss in each of these conditions found the other was competing with them for the same position, and 1/2 did not. Preliminary assessments were also made of the Ss' level of self-consistency.As predicted by comparison theory, the socially desirable stimulus person produced a significant decrease in self-esteem, while the undesirable other significantly enhanced Ss' self-estimates. Ss low in self-consistency were most affected by the presence of the other, while extent of competition had no effect. It was also found that similarity between Ss and stimulus person tended to enhance self-esteem, while dissimilarity tended to reduce it.

Self-Evaluation Maintenance
and Relevance

–if another’s performance is highly
relevant, comparison process
important and self-evaluation suffers
–if another’s performance isn’t
relevant, reflection process
important and can enhance self-
evaluation by BIRGing

SEM – An Example
Barb, Alice, & High-school Band

• they’re friends (closeness high)
• music important to both (relevance
high)
• Barb selected (performance high)
– THIS IS A PROBLEM!

what can be done? BARB and ALICE

• change “closeness”
– alter friendship, emphasize ways
different
• change “relevance”
– alter importance of music to self-
definition
• change “performance”
– Alice can practice more, work extra hard
– she can also hurt Barb’s performance!

Forms of Self-Enhancement

• Already discussed some:
–self-serving attributions, BIRGing,
downward social comparison…
• Others…
–overly positive self-views
–illusory control
–unrealistic optimism

Self-Enhancement and “Positive
Illusions”

• most people maintain positive
illusions about themselves
–overly positive self views, more
perceived control, more unrealistic
optimism
• but not everyone
–Taylor & Brown, 1988

Taylor & Brown, 1988

Many prominent theorists have argued that accurate perceptions of the self, the world, and the future are essential for mental health. Yet considerable research evidence suggests that overly positive self-evaluations, exaggerated perceptions of control or mastery, and unrealistic optimism are characteristic of normal human thought. Moreover, these illusions appear to promote other criteria of mental health, including the ability to care about others, the ability to be happy or contented, and the ability to engage in productive and creative work. These strategies may succeed, in large part, because both the social world and cognitive-processing mechanisms impose filters on incoming information that distort it in a positive direction; negative information may be isolated and represented in as unthreatening a manner as possible. These positive illusions may be especially useful when an individual receives negative feedback or is otherwise threatened and may be especially adaptive under these circumstances.

Origins of Dissonance Theory

• Earthquake in India…why did
unaffected spread rumors?
• maybe rumors justified feelings of
unease felt after initial quake
• self-justifying cognitions part of more
general process of making cognitions
fit

Festinger’s (1957) Theory

• pairs of cognitions can be relevant or
irrelevant to one another
• if relevant, can either be consonant or
dissonant
• two cognitions consonant if one
follows from other; dissonant if
obverse (opposite) of one follows from
the other

Examples of Dissonant Cognitions

• I smoke cigs
– smoking is a health hazard
• I voted for a Republican
– I’m a registered Democrat
• I said this experiment was fun
– it was painfully boring

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

• dissonant cognitions uncomfortable,
produce psychological tension
–motivation to reduce inconsistency
• magnitude of dissonance depends on
number and importance of cognitions
consonant and dissonant with cognition
in question

How to Reduce Dissonance?

• change behavior to bring it line with
dissonant cognition
– quit smoking!
• justify behavior by adding new
cognitions
– smoking keeps off weight; helps me relax
• justify behavior by changing one of the
dissonant cognitions
– smoking isn’t that bad for you after all

justify behavior by changing one of the
dissonant cognitions…

• often people justify behavior by
changing one of dissonant cognitions
• bold idea: motivation to reduce
unpleasant effects of inconsistency
may produce attitude change
–change way we think, not our
behavior!

Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959

Some subjects were paid $1 for lying, while others were paid $20. Based on dissonance theory, Festinger correctly predicted that the subjects who were paid $1 for lying later evaluated the tasks as more enjoyable than those who were paid $20.

dissonance occurs when there is
insufficient external justification..

“I was only paid $1 to lie”

if ample external justification, should be
little dissonance…

“yah, but I was paid $20 to do it!”

Justifying Decisions:
Of Course I was Right

• post-decision : aroused following
decisidissonanceon, reduced by “spread of
alternatives”
– Brehm, 1956
• and increases confidence
– Festinger et al,, 1956; Knox & Inkster, 1968
• one implication: low-balling

Brehm, 1956

Female Ss were asked to rate each of eight articles on desirability, choose between two of them and rate each of the articles again. In addition, some Ss were exposed to a mixture of good and bad information about the choice alternatives after the choice was made. The results support a prediction that choosing between alternatives would create dissonance and attempts to reduce it by making the chosen alternative more desirable and the unchosen alternative less desirable. A second prediction, that dissonance and consequent attempts to reduce it would be greater, the more closely the alternatives approached equality, also received support.psychologists have interpreted the spreading of alternatives as evidence for choice-induced attitude change

Knox & Inkster, 1968

visited a race track and interviewed people betting on the horses, both before and after they had placed their bets. They found that people who had already placed their bets were more confident in their betting decisions because they couldn’t change their mind.

Aronson & Mills, 1959

• Participants all women 18 years old at UT, conversations with other university students on topics for those attending college. “Okay this semester our topic is sex, what we are going to ask you to do is meet other students and have a conversation with them about sex and come back in a week.” Randomly assigned an initiation. Women are uncomfortable and that was the intent of this study. 

• Experimenter takes piece of paper from women and says they can handle it. “Today instead of participate, let’s have you listen to a conversation.” When they are done listening they are asked how interesting the conversation about sex was to them. One group thinks its about twice as interesting than the other group. The group that thought it was more interesting was the group with a more intense initiation.

Axsom & Cooper, 1985

• Axsom and Cooper's (1985) study on weight loss is often discussed in relation to the cognitive dissonance theory. The key finding from their research is that engaging in effortful tasks can influence weight loss. The study revealed that individuals who believed they were putting in significant effort toward cognitive tasks (even if unrelated to dieting or exercise) were more likely to lose weight over time.

• This suggests that effort justification—where people rationalize the effort they’ve invested—may lead them to align their behavior (like eating less or exercising more) with their goal of weight loss. The implication is that cognitive processes, such as the perception of effort, can impact physical outcomes like weight loss. This finding highlighted the broader role of psychological factors in influencing health behaviors.

• In essence, the study indicates that when people perceive they’ve invested effort toward a goal, they are more likely to maintain behaviors aligned with achieving that goal, which in this case is weight loss.

Davis & Jones, 1960

• The study by Davis and Jones (1960) in social psychology helps explain why people come to dislike those they have made suffer, with a key explanation rooted in cognitive dissonance theory. When people engage in behavior that causes harm to others, they experience discomfort or dissonance because their actions conflict with their self-concept of being a good, moral person. To reduce this discomfort, they may devalue or rationalize their negative behavior toward the victim by developing negative attitudes or hostility toward them.

• an implication: perpetuates violence

  • This phenomenon can lead to a cycle of violence. If someone devalues or comes to dislike those they harm, it becomes easier to justify further harm or mistreatment of those individuals in the future. This rationalization can perpetuate aggressive or violent behavior. For example, in situations of conflict, perpetrators may continue inflicting harm on their victims because they have convinced themselves that their actions are justified or that the victim is deserving of suffering.

  • This study helps explain how violence can be self-reinforcing, where perpetrators increasingly dehumanize their victims to alleviate their own cognitive dissonance, thereby enabling continued aggression or violence.

Justifying Attitude-CONsistent Behavior: I’m no Hypocrite!

Instead of inducing people to engage in counter-attitudinal behavior, remind them of times when they were inconsistent

Dickerson et al, 1992

• In Dickerson et al.'s (1992) study, the researchers explored a method known as hypocrisy induction in the context of social psychology. Rather than having participants engage in counter-attitudinal behavior, they reminded participants of past instances where their behavior was inconsistent with their attitudes. This method taps into cognitive dissonance by making individuals aware of the discrepancy between their expressed beliefs and their past actions.

• in their study on water conservation, participants who were reminded of their past wasteful behavior while advocating for water conservation were more likely to take shorter showers. The awareness of their hypocrisy led them to change their behavior to align with their expressed pro-conservation beliefs.

• some implications: condom use, more charitable donations…

A Challenge? Self-Affirmation Theory

• just what cognitions are inconsistent?

• “this task was boring” but “I said it was tremendous fun”

• ”I’m a good person” but “I lied to a stranger”

• latter pair involves the self as a decent, good person

Self-Affirmation Theory

• book argues that dissonance strongest when self-concept threatened

• self-affirmation theory goes further: dissonance driven by motive for self-esteem, not consistency

  • people want to reaffirm integrity of self-concept

What’s an Attitude?

• an EVALUATION of an object
• differ in direction and intensity
• explicit vs. implicit
• three, interconnected components
–ABCs of attitudes

Cognitively-based (C)

properties of object; add pluses/minuses

Affectively-based (A)

emotions/values, not objective appraisal

Behaviorally-based (B)

observations of how we behave toward
object

Mere Exposure

– people grow to like initially
unobjectionable stimulus the more
frequently it is encountered
• Zajonc, 1968
• Mita et al, 1977

Zajonc, 1968

Got a bunch of university of Michigan participants showed a bunch of Chinese character some characters are shown repeatedly. Phase 2, shown pairs of Chinese characters one character they have never seen and one they have seen a few times before. Identify which they have seen before and which they prefer. Repeated exposure increases liking.

Mita et al, 1977

Women are told they will have their picture taken on film. The experimenter tells them to come back next week to show pictures and take home one as a thanks. Return a week later and are shown 2 prints, one is a photo taken a week ago another is similar same print but a mirror image. They preferred the mirror image over the print. Asked to bring boyfriend and shown the same pictures, the men chose the regular. You choose what you are most use to seeing.

Genes

–appears to be a genetic basis for
the development of at least some
attitudes
• Tesser, 1993

Changing Attitudes: Cognitive Dissonance

• when we don’t have a strong external
justification for our behavior, saying
and doing s often believing!
– e.g., the last few lectures

Changing Attitudes:
Persuasive Communication

• Yale school of Attitude Change
– Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953
• focused on three major factors
• WHO said WHAT to WHOM

Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953

Convince citizens to get behind a war, persuading by way of communication.

Persuasive Communication
The Source (“Who”)

• credibility
–competent/trustworthy
–“self-interest” rule
• more impressed when people argue
against own interests…
• and when they aren’t trying to
convince us

-Also Likability (similarity/attractiveness)

Chaiken,1977

Told to not consume meat 2/3 meals a day. How physically attractive are the research assistants going to ask.

Persuasive Communication
The Message (“What”)

• fear appeals
–is fear effective?
–important factor
• Leventhal et al., 1967

Leventhal et al., 1967

Gruesome images of lungs in pamphlet. Given a pamphlet with statistics and info on how to stop smoking. Third condition has both of these. 3 months later to see how much they are smoking. Group 3 smokes less.

Persuasive Communication
more on the message (“what”)

• subliminal advertising
–does it work?
• Greenwald et al, 1992
• Strahn et al., 2002

Greenwald et al, 1992

Give participants a self esteem tape or a memory tape. Told they would get a boost when they listen in their sleep. Also make them take self esteem and memory tests. The tapes don’t work duh, participants think they work. They are wrong because they flipped the labels on half on the tapes.