PSY 335 Introduction and The Self

Social psychology

Study of feelings, thoughts, and behaviors in social situations

Power of the situation

Situations often shape behavior more than character does, so ordinary people can do bad things

Milgram obedience study

Participants shocked a "student" under orders; 62.5% went to the max 450 volts, while psychiatrists predicted less than 1%

Role of construals

Behavior depends on how people interpret a situation

Construal

Interpretation and inferences made about a stimulus or situation

Nature of construals

Active, subjective, and can misrepresent the truth

Controlled processing

Conscious, systematic, deliberate; can override automatic responses

Automatic processing

Involuntary and sometimes unconscious

Donald study

People primed with hostile words (80% vs 20%) rated an ambiguous person, Donald, as more hostile; shows automatic priming affects judgments

Implicit bias

Automatic, non-conscious negative attitudes toward a group

Consequence of automatic processing

Discrimination against certain groups

Anecdotal evidence

Unreliable because experience is limited and has no comparison group

Confirmation bias

Beliefs influence what we pay attention to and remember

Boredom shock study

Left alone for 15 minutes, 67% of men and 25% of women shocked themselves; people may hurt themselves out of boredom

Self-concept

A set of attributes and beliefs that define us; develops around 18 months of age

Looking glass self

Other people's reactions to us act as a mirror that shows us ourselves

Self and attention

Independent self focuses on target objects in a display; interdependent self focuses on the entire display

Masuda & Nisbett fish study

European Americans first mention focal fish (analytic attention); Japanese first mention background and inert objects like plants and snails (holistic attention)

Analytic vs holistic attention

Analytic focuses on salient focal objects (independent self); holistic focuses on background and context (interdependent self)

Self-reference effect

Information related to the self is processed more thoroughly and integrated with self-knowledge, so it is more memorable

Self-reference effect study

Trait words were remembered best when participants asked if the word described them (self) > semantic > phonemic > structural questions

Mere ownership effect (endowment effect)

We evaluate objects more favorably if we own them

Beggan (1992) koozie study

Participants given the koozie rated it higher than the no-ownership and mood-control (gift not rated) groups, so ownership itself raises evaluation

Better-than-average effect

Most people (esp. Westerners) think they are above average on traits and abilities

Myers (1987) survey

70% of American students rated themselves above average in leadership; 25% thought they were in the top 1%

Why the better-than-average effect occurs

We weigh abilities we excel at as more valuable, it is stronger for ambiguous attributes (intelligent, artistic) than unambiguous ones (tall), and we make selective social comparisons

Self-enhancement

Tendency to view and express ourselves in a positive light (better-than-average effect, high self-esteem)

Downward comparison outcomes

Positive: breast cancer patients comparing to less fortunate patients coped better (Wood et al., 1985); Negative: students making downward comparisons early in the semester did worse academically by the end than upward comparers (Gibbons, 2005)

Basking in reflected glory (BIRGing)

Associating with successful others so their success becomes our own ("WE won!")

Self-Evaluation Maintenance model (Tesser)

In unimportant domains we reflect (BIRG); in important domains we compare, preferring people who perform worse than us

Berglas & Jones (1978)

After positive feedback on a hard (vs. easy) task, people more often chose a performance-inhibiting drug (about 60% vs. under 20%; men much more than women); they self-handicapped to protect self-image

Self-handicapping

Creating excuses beforehand so that if we do poorly we can protect our image and avoid blaming ourselves

Self-verification

Motivation to verify, validate, and sustain our accurate self-concept; we interact with people who confirm it and seek and remember information that verifies it

Robinson & Smith-Lovin (1992)

Low self-esteem participants mostly chose the negative observer to interact with; medium and high self-esteem participants mostly chose the positive observer, showing we prefer people who confirm our self-concept

Barnum effect

Tendency to see vague, ambiguous statements that fit almost anyone as highly accurate descriptions of our own personality

Self-monitoring

Tendency to monitor and adjust behavior to fit situational demands

High self-monitor

Acts differently across situations, focuses on blending in, seeking status, and making a favorable impression (self-enhancement)

Low self-monitor

Acts as themselves regardless of situation and cares about being perceived accurately (self-verification)

Tight vs loose cultures

Tight cultures have strong norms and punish deviation (e.g., Singapore); loose cultures have fewer norms and less punishment (e.g., New Zealand); self-monitoring is higher in tight cultures

Self-regulation

Processes used to initiate, alter, and control behavior in pursuit of goals, including resisting short-term rewards for long-term goals (delay of gratification)

Marshmallow test

Mischel's delay of gratification test; self-control and intelligence are the 2 main personal predictors of positive life outcomes (Baumeister & Tierney, 2011)

Ego depletion

State where previous acts of self-control drain the ability to control future behavior; willpower is like a muscle with limited capacity

M&M study (Mead & Patrick, 2016)

Telling yourself "I can have M&Ms some other time" (postponement) led to the least eating overall, compared with indulgence ("I can eat M&Ms") and restraint ("No, I will not eat M&Ms")

Pleasure postponed vs denied

Postponing works better because denial takes more willpower and anticipation partially satisfies the craving, so you binge less later

Limited willpower theory

Belief that willpower is limited; linked to ego depletion, procrastination, poor time management, unhealthy eating, higher BMI, and lower well-being; more common in young people

Nonlimited willpower theory

Belief that willpower is not limited; no ego depletion after self-control tasks, and better academic, career, health, and interpersonal outcomes; more common in older people