psych 160 midterm 2

self-concept

your collection of knowledge you have about yourself

• traits

• likes/dislikes

• wishes/hopes

• social identities

• social roles

• evaluations

• emotional states

• physical descriptions

sources of self knowledge (list)

1. introspection

2. attributions

3. inferences from observations of our own behavior (bem’s self perception theory)

4. feedback/reactions from others (socialization + looking glass)

5. social comparisons (theory)

6. social group memberships (self stereotyping)

7. context (working

sources of self knowledge (7)

1. introspection: looking inward at your own thoughts, feelings, motives, etc. to learn about yourself

• “who am i?”

2. attributions: (dispositional or situational) about why we behave the way we do

• ex. self-serving attributional bias

3. inferences from observations of our own behavior

• bem’s self-perception theory: when we are uncertain about our attitudes & feelings, we infer them by observing our own behaviors

  • “im not sure how i feel → look at what i did → tells me something about my attitude”

  • especially relevant when our preexisting attitude is weak or uncertain

4. feedback and reactions from others

• socialization

  • how others treat us influences our self-concept

  • ie. how our parents treat us

• looking-glass self

  • seeing ourselves THROUGH other people’s eyes

5. social comparisons

social comparison theory

• socially compare when there are no clear objective standard

• most informative when comparing with others who are SIMILAR to us

6. social group memberships

• kennedy, cal student, democrat

• social identities refer to those aspects of the self concept derived from group memberships

• self-stereotyping: perceiving stereotypic attributes associated with the group as part of one’s self concept

7. context

2 ways that the context influences self

1. distinctiveness - we notice self aspects that make us different from people around us

2. relevance - we activate self-aspects that are relevant to current situation

self-perception theory (chaiken & baldwin 1981)

participants either had

1. strong environmental attitudes

2. weak environmental attitudes

researchers manipulated what participants noticed about their own environmental behaviors by asking questions like

• “have you ever recycled?”

• “do you always recycle?”

then measured environmental attitudes, and only people with weak attitudes engaged in self-perception processes (if you already know how strong you feel, you do not need to infer your attitude from your behavior)

ex. rachel will engage in self-perception when she just tried ethiopian food for the first time vs. someone who's loved it for years

different types of social comparisons

1. lateral: comparing with similar others

• used for accurate self assessment

2. downward: comparing with worse or worse-off others

• serves as a self-enhancement function

• done in service of feeling good about the self

3. upward: comparing with someone better off

• CAN be done in service of self-improvement, but not always

• can make you feel worse

social comparisons and social media

social media contain large numbers of UPWARD COMPARISON TARGETS

• people selectively post accomplishments, attractive pictures, vacations, celebration

(Midgely at al. (2021)

• found more frequent/extreme upward comparison are linked to declines in self-evaluations after a social media browsing session

• downward/lateral comparisons are LESS frequent + did little to offset harm of upward comparisons

• people with low-esteem made more frequent/extreme upward comparisons

• social media comparisons led to greater declines in self evaluations than those made in other contexts (text, call, in-person)

abundance of upward social comparison targets on social media can explain general negative relationship between social media use and well-being

working self-concept

subset of knowledge about the self that is currently active in a particular moment/context

• different parts become accessible in different situations

• entire self-concept does not disappear

USEFUL BECAUSE…

1. we have too much self-knowledge for it to be active at once

2. currently accessible knowledge strongly influences cognition

3. explains how to self can be STABLE AND MALLEABLE

self concept vs. working self concept

self-concept: everything you know about yourself

working self-concept: what is currently activated

cultural differences in the self concept

(markus & kitayama)

1. independent view of self

• define yourself through your OWN internal thoughts, feelings, actions, internal characteristics

2. interdependent view of self

• define yourself more in terms of relationships, other people, social connections

self-complexity theory (linvelle and collegues)

• the self is cognitively represented in terms of multiple aspects

  • ex. student, friend, athlete, sibling, musician

• aspects vary in the affect associated with them

• degree of complexity and emotion in self varies

self-complexity is defined by

1. # of different self aspects

2. degree of overlap (distinctiveness) of self-aspects

high self-complexity = large # of distinct self aspects

• angelina: leader self (authoritative, rational) + dancer self (creative) + friend self (supportive)

• multiple selves w/ little overlap

low self-complexity = small # of non-distinct self aspects

• macey: leader self (concerned, supportive) + friend self (concerned self)

• 2 selves w/ overlap

affective (emotional) consequences of self-complexity

self-complexity affects how strongly positive or negative self-relevant events influence us

• low self-complexity = LARGER emotional swings

  • if your self-aspects overlap heavily, an event affecting one area spreads to many parts of your self-concept

• high self-complexity

  • more compartmentalization

  • one negative event affects a smaller portion of the overall self

high self-complexity buffers extreme reactions in EITHER direction

self discrepancy vs. self complexity theory

similar

• multiple self-aspects

• affective consequences associated w/ how self-aspects are related

different

• DISCREPANCIES between self-aspects

• actual selves& hypothetical selves

self discrepancy theory (higgins & collegues)

• actual self: the person you believe you actually are

• ideal self: the person you hope/wish/aspire to become

• ought self: the person you believe your significant others think you SHOULD be (responsibilities, obligations)

types of discrepancies

discrepancies between actual and ideal/ought selves → specific emotions

1. actual-ideal discrepancy = DEJECTION

• disappointent

• sadness

2. actual-ought discrepancy = AGITATION

• anxiety

• nervousness

• fear

presenting the self

self-presentation = trying to control how other people see us through

• words

• behaviors

• actions

related to IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT, more concerned with creating a particular impression

• erving goffman’s (1959) dramaturgical perspective →

social interaction as a “play”

we play particular roles depending on the social situation to reflect desired images of ourself

• ie. successful applicant, interesting date, supportive friend

• we use clothing/objects as props to convey image

• follow (socially agreed upon) scripts

save “face” by respecting each other’s roles → let people get away with their public presentations even if it doesn’t reflect who they are

• ppl usually cooperate in protecting social performances

MULTIPLY MOTIVATED SELF - self-evaluative motives (4)

1. enhancement

2. accuracy

3. improvement

4. consistency

1. enhancement motive

enhancement = motive to maintain/increase a positive view of yourself “i want to feel good about myself”

• ex. US college students value self-esteem boosts (good grades, compliment) MORE than sex, food, receiving salary, seeing a friend

  • self serving attributional bias - explain outcomes situationally in a way that protects self esteem

  • self presentation - control how others see you to view u positively and therefore reinforce your own positive self-evaluation

SEM model (self-evaluation maintenance model)

TWO fundamental self-evaluative processes

“someone close to me succeeded”

1. comparison process - “now i look worse by comparison”

2. reflection process - “their success reflects positively on me”

TWO parameters that determine whether comparison OR reflection occurs

1. RELEVANCE - is this domain important to your own self-definition?

2. CLOSENESS - how psychologically/socially close are you to the outperforming other

if domain is IRRELEVANT —> reflection

• bask in reflected glory

• closer relationship - even more basking

if domain is RELEVANT —> comparison

• suffer because their success threatens your self-evaluation

• closer relationship - even greater threat

SEM behavioral implications

self-evaluation dilemma - if a close friend outperforms you in a self-relevant domain

THEN, behaviors consistent with SEM would include

• distancing oneself

• reducing closeness

• changing relevance of domain

• undermining/sabotaging other person

downward social comparisons (bogart & helgeson 2000)

as ENHANCEMENT

• downward comparison = compare to someone worse off which can help us feel better about ourselves

(bogart & helgeson 2000)

• studied breast cancer patients in support groups

• report on times when they talked to, heard about, thought about other patients

• majority of social comparisons were downward - more comparisons = reported feeling better

2. accuracy motive

accuracy = desire to obtain an accurate assessment of yourself

people seek

• informative, diagnostic information

• related to need for prediction/control

social comparison theory serves accuracy motives → use other people as a benchmark when there isn’t a clear standard

• similar others are the most informative comparisons

3. improvement motive

improvement = desire to make yourself better

people seek

• information relevant to IDEAL versions of themselves

• situations that help them improve

upward social comparison: compare to someone better than you can show you what is possible

REMEMBER, not automatically beneficial if you don’t approach them with a self-improvement orientation

4. consistency motive

consistency = desire to maintain a consistent self concept

people seek

• OR elicit feedback that confirms existing negative or positive self-conceptions

• self-verification theory: we seek information that confirms what we already believe about ourselves

DISTINCTION

“tell me something good about myself” - self-enhancement

“tell me something consistent with what i already think about myself” - self-verification

MULTIPLY MOTIVATED SELF - self-regulation

self regulation: refers to the processes by which people

• initiate, alter, and control their behavior in pursuit of their goals

• delay gratification - prioritize long-term goals by foregoing short-term rewards

regulatory focus (2)

self-discrepancy theory - ACTUAL, IDEAL, OUGHT

1. promotion focus: regulating behavior relative to IDEAL STANDARDS

• attention is directed towards presence vs. absence of positive outcomes

• asks “how can i achieve something good”

• ex. strive to get a good grade, striving for presence of a good time on a first date

2. prevention focus: regulating behavior relative to OUGHT STANDARDS

• attention is directed towards presence vs. absence of negative outcomes

• asks “how can i avoid something bad”

• ex. avoid getting a bad grade, striving for absence of making a fool of oneself on a first date

promotion vs. prevention

regulatory fit (where task/strategy matches someone’s regulatory orientation): greater engagement, higher persistence, higher valuation of outcomes

Example

Imagine two students studying for this exam.

Promotion-focused student

• Goal: “I want to get an A.”

• Best-fit strategy: emphasizing gains, achievement, improvement, success

Prevention-focused student

• Goal: “I really don’t want to fail.”

• Best-fit strategy: emphasizing avoiding mistakes, meeting requirements, preventing a bad outcome

promotion person + gain/achievement strategy = fit
prevention person + safety/avoidance strategy = fit

automatic self-control

goal-temptation mental associations… with enough practice, self-control can become automatic

• at cognitive level…

  • encountering a temptation can automatically activate the competing long-term goal

  • ex. french fries → automatically remind you → “eat healthy”

  • goals can inhibit thoughts of temptations

• at behavioral level…

  • learn to behaviorally approach goals and avoid temptations?

  • approach and avoidance “behaviors”

    • pulling a lever toward you = approach behavior

    • pushing a lever away from you = avoidance behavior

  • automatic self control is likely when goal is IMPORTANT and behavior has been PRACTICED

what is an attitude? def + components

def: a psychological tendency that’s expressed by evaluating an object with some degree of favor or disfavor

components: (attitude object: DENTIST)

1. COGNITIVE: beliefs about positive/negative attributes of object

• ex. dentists are expensive

• dentists are friendly

2. AFFECTS: feelings/emotions associated with the object

• dentists make me feel anxious

• i feel pain at the dentist

3. BEHAVIORS: actions toward the object

• i visit the dentist once a year

• i’m a cooperate patient

predicting behavior from attitudes (2)

do attitudes predict behavior? not always - LaPiere study calls this into question

attitudes might NOT predict behavior because…

1. inconsistency among components of attitudes

• positive affect + negative cognition or vice versa

• ex. fried food: affect = “i love it” cognition = “it’s unhealthy”

2. mismatch in generality/specificity of attitudes and behavior

• negative attitude toward muslims generally, vs. not negative about muslim roommate

rule: attitudes predict behavior better when the attitude and behavior are measured at matching levels of specificity

predicting attitudes from behavior (cognitive dissonance)

1. festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory

• cognitive dissonance: aversive drive states caused by holding 2 or more inconsistent cognitions

• core assumptions:

  • consonance is pleasant

  • dissonance is unpleasant

  • dissonance motivates us to reduce it

  • attitude-behavior discrepancies arouse dissonance

ways to reduce dissonance

1. change the behavior

2. change the relevant cognition

3. add new consonant cognitions

ex. behavior = i procrastinate

cognition = procrasination is bad

add a consonant cognition = “i do my best work under pressure”

NOW behavior seems more justifiable

dissonance related phenomena - insufficient justification

1. insufficient justification (festinger & carlsmith 1959)

• do something that conflicts with your attitude, but you don’t have enough external reason to explain why you did it

IV: $1 or $20 reward for engaging in attitude-discrepant behavior

DV: attitude change

Results: $1 participants change attitude more than $20

• everyone thought task was boring, but then they had to tell someone it was interesting

• $20 group lied and said task was interesting bc i got $20 (enough external justification)

• $1 group told someone it was interesting and ONLY got $1 (dissonance aroused)

  • lied and said something inconsistent with their attitude

  • experienced MORE dissonance and reduced it by changing their attitude to be more in line with their behavior “maybe the task actually wasn’t that boring”

Big external reward → enough justification → less dissonance → less attitude change

Small external reward → insufficient justification → more dissonance → more attitude change

(less reward caused MORE attitude change)

dissonance related phenomena - post-decision dissonance

dissonance occurs after choosing between two attractive alternatives (brehm 1956)

why?

You chose A, but A has negatives and B has positives

these facts conflict with the idea that you made the right decision

dissonant: I chose Product A, Product B has favorable qualities SOO

after choosing, participants show spreading of alternatives (see choice as more positive and rejected option as more negative) to increase psychological distance between them

EXAMPLE

• deciding between two cars

• selecting a college between two top choices

SPREAD OF ALTERNATIVES: AFTER YOU MAKE A DIFFICULT CHOICE BETWEEN TWO SIMILARLY ATTRACTIVE OPTIONS, YOU CHANGE YOUR ATTITUDE SO CHOSEN OPTION SEEMS BETTER AND REJECTED OPTION SEEMS WORSE - REDUCES POST-DECISION DISSONANCE

self-affirmation theory

dissonance may be aversive partly because inconsistency threatens our belief that we are…

• competent

• moral

• intelligent

• high-integrity people

THUS, dissonance can threaten self-worth, so there’s a need for people to reaffirm their sense of integrity to reduce dissonance?

cognitive dissonance theory vs. self-affirmation theory

dissonance account

• resolve the actual inconsistency

• change behavior, cognition, add consonant cognitions

self-affirmation account (dissonance threatens self-concept so we need to reaffirm self worth)

• you do NOT need to resolve the inconsistency

• you can restore self-worth by affirming yourself in an unrelated domain

self affirmation theory - steele

adapted brehm’s choice paradigm

two factors

• business vs. science majors

• lab coat vs. no lab coat

dv: attitude change (spread of alternatives)

FOR SCIENCE MAJORS, lab coat affirmed an important aspect of identity, could restore self-worth without requiring person to reduce original decision-based inconsistency

persuasive communication

any communication advocating a particular side or issue

elaboration likelihood model

two basic ways you can be persuaded - ELM named as such to refer to differences in likelihood of “elaboration” - deeper, systemic thinking about the message

ie. “she’s a doctor so she’s probably right” vs. “let me examine her evidence”

1. PERIPHERAL ROUTE low motivation/ability: persuaded on basis of relatively superficial, easy to process cues

2. CENTRAL ROUTE high motivation/ability: persuaded on basis of persuasive argumentation itself

motivation/ability determine which route you use

demonstrates ELM - petty, cacioppo, goldman (1981)

persuasion study - manipulated IV 3 variables

1. personal relevance

high: policy takes effect next year

low: policy takes effect in 10 years

2. source expertise

• report written by high school student

• report written by commission chaired by professor

3. argument strength

• 8 strong (e.g institutions of exams led to reversal of declining scores)

• 8 weak (e.g friend of the author took exam and how has prestigious position)

DV: participants’ attitude toward comprehensive exams

results

HIGH RELEVANCE

• high motivation

• central route

• argument strength matters

strong arguments persuade more than weak arguments, source expertise matters relatively less

LOW RELEVANCE

• low motivation

• peripheral processing

• source expertise matters more

they rely more on the cue: “an expert said it”

High-relevance participants were more persuaded by strong than weak arguments but did not distinguish much between expert vs. non-expert sources

HIGH relevance → ARGUMENT

LOW relevance → SOURCE

Short-lived vs. long-lasting attitude change

Central/systematic persuasion generally produces more durable attitude change.

Yale framework divides persuasion into:

WHO

source/communicator

WHAT

message

WHOM

audience

WHO says

1. likability

• persuasive sources may be attractive, famous, pleasant

• operate as peripeheral cues

2. similarity

• source who seems like “one of us”

3. credibility

• made up of expertise & trustworthiness

• can influence both central and peripheral processing

WHAT - message characteristics

argument strength vs. argument length

• when someone processes deeply, ARGUMENT STRENGTH MATTERS

• when someone processes superficially, ARGUMENT LENGTH MATTERS

affective vs. cognitive framing

messages may emphasize

• feelings

• thoughts/beliefs

persuasian works better when message matches underlying basis of attitude

cognitively based attitude → cognitive appeal

affectively based attitude → affective appeal

“i feel” vs. “i think” - my feelings vs. thoughts about blood donation → measured intention to donate blood as measure of attitude

TO WHOM - audience characteristics

need for cognition = tendency to enjoy and engage in effortful thinking

high NFC: more likely to deeply process arguments

1. notion of thinking abstractly appeals to me

2. i only think as hard as i have to

3. prefer my life to be filled with puzzles that i must solve

• strong vs. weak argument quality should matter more

low nfc: less likely to engage in deep elaboration

• more likely to rely on simpler cues

culture independent vs. interdependent self-construals

“han & shavitt”

american/independent

• she’s got a style all her own

• you, only better

korean/interdependent framing

• we have a way of bringing people closer together

• “our family agrees…”

SOCIAL INFLUENCE - conformity, compliance, obedience

1. conformity: behavior change caused by the real or imagined influence of other people

2. compliance: behavior change caused by a direct request from another person

3. obedience: behavior change caused by a command from an authority figure

conformity → compliance → obedience PUTS INCREASING PRESSURE ON THE INDIVIDUAL