Exam 2: Chapters 3-5

self

our sense of personal identity

cognitive self

self-concept

feeling self

self-esteem

social self

influence of the situation

self-concept

how we perceive ourselves (personality, physical characteristics, abilities, values, goals, and roles)

self-schemas

the different aspects of the self

self-referent effect

info linked to self-schema is better remembered

types of responses

physical characteristics, personality traits, social identity

personality traits

specific and stable personality characteristics that describe someone

social identity

what groups we belong to

organization of self-knowledge: independence

defining self in terms of one's own thoughts, feelings, and actions (ex. I am honest, tall, shy; analytical thinking, Western, male)

organization of self knowledge: interdependent

defining self in terms of one's relationships to other people (ex. I am a Smith, a sister; holistic thinking, Eastern, female)

self-complexity

extent to which individuals have many different and independent ways of thinking about themselves

high self-complexity

higher self-esteem, less stress, less illness, and better able to tolerate frustration; why? --> negative events might alter one domain, but the higher the self-complexity the more domains to fall back on

buffering effect

stronger than high self-esteem, concepts are positive rather than negative, and believe that one has control

self-concept clarity

extent to which one's self-concept is clearly and consistently defined; positively associated with self-esteem and relationship satisfaction

self-awareness

extent to which we focus our attention on our self-concept

self-consciousness

if attention to self is due to concerns about being observed and judged by others

self-awareness theory

when we focus on ourselves, we compare our behavior with our internal standards, if we notice a self-discrepancy we: 1. change behavior 2. flee 3. self-affirm

self-discrepancy

compare current thoughts or behavior to your internal standards or expectations for yourself

halloween study

showed self-awareness decreases deindividuation, in front of mirror kids were less likely to take more than one piece

deindividuation

loss of self-awareness and individual accountability that can occur in groups; can lead to rioting, bad behavior, reduce by increasing self-awareness

self-esteem

positive (high SE) or negative (low SE) feelings we have about ourselves; trait and state, assessed using implicit and explicit reasoning measures, changes with age, want to maintain and enhance it

narcissim

overly high SE, self-centered; threatened easily by criticism, bully others, selfish

self-verification

we seek confirmation of our self-concept, whether it is positive or negative

close vs. distant other

want close typically to verify ourselves, and distant to enhance ourselves; want partner to enhance your attractiveness, but friend to perhaps verify, seek verification for faults we are pretty sure about

links to self-esteem

better grades, less depression/stress, longer life, initiative, defend victims against bullies, initiate relationships, speak up in a group, greater persistence, happiness (often times these cause high SE, high SE does not cause them)

not links to self-esteem

likeability, attractiveness, quality of relationships, first impressions

looking glass self

how we see ourselves is in part determined by how we perceived others see us

social comparison theory

learn about ourselves by comparing ourselves to others

automatically comparing

comparing with anyone around

not at all equal comparison

pick appropriate depending on goals; similar to self - most informative and impactful, accuracy motive

upward comparison

comparing to a better person; can lower self-esteem, improvement motive

downward comparison

comparing to worse others (including past self); can enhance self-esteem, enhancement motive

social identity theory

part of our identity and self-esteem comes from the groups that we belong to, identity can switch; when our group is threatened, we feel threatened and defend it; when our group is glorious, we feel good

self-evaluation maintenance theory

if we are close to other and it's a relevant domain, we reduce threat by: distancing self from person, reducing importance of task, improving ability, or sabotaging friend

self-monitoring

an individual difference variable that reflects the tendency to change one's behavior to meet the demands of the social situation

high self-monitors

good at changing one's self in order to match the situation

low self-monitors

stick with own attitudes/behaviors even if not the best for the situation

consequence of social identity theory

tend to value in-group over out-group; tested via minimal group paradigm, create arbitrary groups and look if people treat their group and the other group differently

positive in-group bias

like in-group more

attitude

our evaluation of something (do you like x?); care about them because they can help us predict behavior

characteristics of attitudes: (ABCs)

can all be consistent or not: attitudes (generally most important; ex. I love hot chocolate), behavioral (ex. when I smell hot chocolate, I smile), cognitive (I think hot chocolate is not very healthy)

characteristics of attitudes

heritable, can be automatically activated, vary in attitude strength

attitude strength

strong attitudes often guide behavior

features of strong attitudes

important, accessible (quickly come to mind), confident, stable, consistent (ABCs align)

how attitudes predict behavior

theory of planned behavior, general guidelines

theory of planned behavior

*figure in notes* personal attitudes, subjective norms, or perceived behavioral control --> behavioral intention --> behavior

general guidelines for when attitudes predict behavior

when the attitude and behavior occur in similar situations (Jam study), when attitude is accessible while the behavior is being performed (men predicting their sexual behaviors while sober or not), when attitudes are measured at a specific rather than general level (correlation between attitude and use of birth control), when people are low self-monitors)

Yale attitude approach

WHO said WHAT to WHOM; does not address how all the elements fit together or how long the persuasion last

who (Yale attitude approach)

source of communication; expert, attractive, or similar to us (friends selling products)

what (Yale attitude approach)

communication; affective or cognitive, one sided or two sided, strong or weak, faster speech makes us think person is expert and reduces our ability to counter argue, sleeper affect

whom (Yale attitude approach)

audience; motivated to listen, ability to listen (distracted, lower IQ)

sleeper affect

overtime, recall content, but not source; why might some audience think unreliable information is true)

elaboration likelihood model

*figure in notes* similar model called the heuristic-systematic model, both focus on how to create long lasting change

central route (ELM)

content of message, argument strength matters, source does not

peripheral route (ELM)

factors other than quality of the message determine persuasion, source matters, argument strength does not

fear appeals

grabs attention, need moderate amount of anxiety, ads should tell people how to alleviate fear

subliminal ads

unconscious ads, people fear subliminal the most, embedded images have no effect

backward masking

message appears if played backwards, doesn't work

self-perception theory

when our attitudes are unclear, we observe our own behavior and infer our attitudes from it (behavior --> attitude) ex. Pen Study, facial feedback

reward for liked activities

reward for something you like (intrinsically motivated) to do, overjustification effect, solution: small reward or performance-contigent reward (reward for doing well)

overjustification effect

seeing behavior as due to large reward (extrinsic reason) rather than liking (intrinsic reason)

when does a reward a reward for doing something you dislike increase liking?

depends on reward, sufficient external justification, insufficient justification effect

insufficient justification effect

when social situation causes behavior, but we don't realize it

punishment

punished for bad and intrinsically motivated behavior

big punishment

sufficient external justification, avoid getting caught, but like behavior

small punishment

insufficient punishment, wonder why you did not engage in the behavior, so you think that you must not have liked the behavior

point of punishment

small rewards/punishments are more likely than large rewards/punishments to result in people developing intrinsic motivations to do the rewarded or to avoid doing the punished activity

dissonance

the discomfort that people feel that results from holding two conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes, or when they behave in ways that are inconsistent with their normally positive views of themselves; perception that freely chose to be inconsistent

dissonance theory assumes

people have positive sense of self, people want to maintain it, dissonance threatens positive sense of self, goal to reduce threatening dissonance

3 basic ways to reduce dissonance

change your behavior, change your cognition, add a new cognition

what happens when you work hard, but find out effort isn't worth it?

experience cognitive dissonance and reduce it via justification of effort; justify effort by seeing goal in highly positive light

post-decisional dissonance

resolve regret (dissonance) after an important decision by convincing self that the choice you made is the right one, often unconscious

making a decision changes attitudes

effect is more likely if decision is important and more irrevocable (happier with choice if make it and can't change it than if you can change it (irrevocable))

self-esteem and dissonance

positive self-esteem reduces dissonance vs. negative personality feedback

foot-in-the-door technique

accepting minor request makes it more likely to accept larger request

door-in-the-face technique

rejecting unreasonable large request makes it more likely you will agree to a small request

low-ball technique

promise something desirable, person imagines it, then say you cannot deliver, person willing to pay higher price

bait-and-switch technique

similar to low balling, offer product at how price, when arrive the product is sold out, and then you are more likely to but an alternative product

nonverbal behavior

any type of communication that does not involve speaking, including facial expressions, body language, touching, voice patterns, eye gaze, interpersonal distance

thin slice judgments

brief exposure predicts long term opinions

cultural differences in nonverbal behavior

closer to equator use more nonverbal, appropriate social distance varies, eye contact

what facial expressions do we notice first

negative

are we good at deception?

average person and experts are not great at detecting deception

why are people not good at detecting deception?

do not expect to be lied to, most people are good liars, think we are better at catching lies than we actually are, don't really know how to detect deception (pay attention to wrong thing)

primary effect

first traits influence how we perceive other traits

arch varied order of info

negative or positive first, first info presented had larger effect (especially if negative)

why a primary effect

cognitive missers, process info consistent with initial expectancy, belief perseverance, halo effect

cognitive missers

spend less time thinking about later information

belief perserverance

tendency to stick with initial view even when faced with new information that should prompt us to reconsider

halo effect

if initial positive impression, see actions in more positive light

attribution process

make appraisals about person based on situation and behavior

internal attribution

due to person or trait or disposition

external (situational) attribution

due to situation

why do we make internal attributions

fundamental attribution error, people are poor at taking the situation into account, and think behavior reflects dispositions

fundamental attribution error

tendency to overestimate the extent to which a person's behavior is due to internal factors and underestimate the role of the situation

why does FAE happen

know our own actions vary, but less knowledge about others (trait ascription bias), perceptual salience

perceptual salience

own behavior see situation, other behavior see the person

2-step process of making attributions

1. spontaneously, automatically make internal attribution; 2. if have time, energy, motivation, then adjust attribution to take situation into account (ex. nervous people study)