Psyc2040 all weeks - final exam

when does our sense of self emerge

18-24 months - based on the mirror self recognition test

as we grow older what happens to our sense of self

more complex, abstract, we associate more qualities with self

schema

cognitive webs of knowledge that we have of any given construct - things we associate with the focus object/thing

self schema

a cognitive structure that represents knowledge about a certain concept or thing about ourselves - made up of attitudes and identities central to how we think about ourselves and it is the most complex schema we have because we know more about ourselves than anything else

what is the self reference effect

we encode and remember info better when we relate it to the self - it also guides behaviour as we are inclined to behave in certain ways based on what we think about ourselves e.g. i think im good at something so i go and do that something

self perception theory

states that we know about ourselves by reflecting on the behaviours that we engage in and we make inferences about the self based on our behaviours

e.g. we will

behave in a certain way, and because we have behaved

in that way, we'll reflect on that behaviour.

And make an inference about the self.

an example of self perception theory

If you engage in all these behaviours, like spending time with old people and donating to charity And you reflected

all these behaviours, you may think, hey.

I'm a generous person so you may infuse this

sense of, I'm a generous person into your self schema

as a result of reflecting on your past behaviours.

when do we engage in the self perception theory process

that we're only likely to engage in this process where

we make inferences about behaviour and we attribute that to

the self, when there is no other, Obvious external factor

to attribute the behaviour to

e.g. sometimes a lot of

you may stay up late, but not identify as night

owl, because you may be staying up late for some

obvious external reason.

looking glass self

It proposes that we learn about ourselves through witnessing and

reflecting on other people's reactions to us - it's not about reflecting on

your own behaviour, it's about reflecting on how others in

your social world respond to you. e.g. maybe you're at a bar and other people approach

you, try to get your number, you start to learn

information about yourself, right, you learn about your level of

attractiveness.

social comparison theory

we also

learn about ourselves by seeing how we compare to others. social comparisons that we

engage in, offer us valuable information because they allow us

to learn about the qualities that we have relative to

others. - we compare ourselves with others

a lot, and this informs our sense of self.

emotional consequences of upward vs downward comparison

upward comparison leads to negative self-perception, negative affect, discouraging, sometimes even motivating?

downward comaprison leads to positive self-perception, positive affect, ego boost, encouraging

e.g. when were feeling down about ourselves we will compare ourselves to someone you feel is worse off thatn you and we strategically do that in order to improve sense of self

social comparison theory in organisational contexts

the more people engage in downward comparisons - they perform better at their job and go over and above

when you engage in more upward comparison this is associated with sabotage and you engage in behaviours that are harmful to team members and their productivity

social comparison monkey example

the monkey is fine with the cucumber until it sees that another monkey was getting a grape for the same efforts

social identity

derived from the groups that we belong to - therefore we have as many social identities as there are groups to which we belong

social identity theory - self categorisation

Depending on context, people can see themselves in terms of their group memberships (social identity salience) or not

social identity theory: structural fit

They can account for similarities or differences between us & others in any given context e.g. if your asian your identity as asian might be more salient to you when you are surrrounded by asian friends and this provides structural fit for this identity OR being the minority might also make your identity salient because rather than depending on similarities, it not explains the differences e.g. being the only male in a female zumba class can highlight the differences making you more salient to the fact that you are male

social identity theory - normative fit

for a context to provide normative fit, your identity must be triggered by performing a certain behaviour that you associate with that identity. They can explain why we are behaving in a particular way in any given context e.g. a firefighter might be more likely to see themselves as a firefighter when they are actually out there fighting fires relative to when they are at home

social identity theory - group based social comparison

Social comparisons also happen in groups • The esteem with which the group is held (e.g. power, status, prestige, regard) sometimes governs the esteem with which we hold ourselves ◦ Group esteem → individual self-esteem

we are motivated to see our groups in a positive light because if our groups are perceived in a positive light, we also feel positively about ourselves

social identity theory - positive distinctiveness

We are motivated to achieve & maintain positive, distinct social identity

self motives - Self-Assessment Questions

Desire to have true, accurate, & valid information about self ◦ Preference for reliable information

self motives - self-enhancement

◦ Desire for positive information about self ◦ Accept positive information, dismiss negative information - we do this when we want to feel good about ourselves so we accept positive info and reject anything that might be seen as criticism

self motives - self verification

◦ Desire for information confirming existing beliefs about self ◦ Accept consistent information, dismiss disconfirming evidence - you driven to hear things about yourself that you already think about yourself - this is a type of conformation bias when it comes to the self - you accept info that is consistent with what you already know about yourself and dismiss info that is inconsistent with what you know about yourself

experiment about self verification

participants who evaluated themselves and their social abilities favourably, they chose the rater that gave them positive feedback to have more interaction with. participants who evaluated themselves and their social abilities less favourable chose the rater that gave them more negative feedback to have more interaction with

self discrepancy theory

Discrepancies can emerge between between: ◦ Actual self & ideal self (actual-ideal discrepancy) which causes →dejection-related emotions (e.g. disappointment, dissatisfaction, sadness) ◦ Actual self & ought self (actual-ought discrepancy) which causes →agitation-related emotions (e.g. anxiety, threat, fear)

self discrepancy - actual self

how we think we currently are

ought self

how we think we should be - either self-imposed or based off of others expectations

ideal self

how we would like to be - our hopes and wishes - difference to ought self is that ideal self is a self that you really wish to be for example a millionaire but your ought self might be that you think you need to be a 7 gpa student

self esteem

how we feel about and evaluate the self

types of self esteem

global self esteem, domain specific self esteem

global self esteem

global sense of how you feel about yourself

domain specific self esteem

self esteem that is attached to different dimensions of our lives or different domains e.g. math ability might have different self esteem than what you have of your creative ability

different ways to measure self esteem

explicit measure: self measures e.g. rosenberg self esteem scale

implicit measure: name letter effect - higher self esteem is indicated by greater preference for letters from own name, especially initials

OR

signature size - higher self esteem is indicated by larger signature size

consequences of self esteem

considered adaptive and predicts higher happiness

Too high - social relationships are undermined because it seems arrogant

consequences of low self esteem

prone to depression, anxiety, social issues, self doubt, self defeating behaviours

sociometer theory

self esteem is a psychological guage of the degree to which people perceive they are valued and accepted by others - social acceptance results in higher self esteem and social rejection results in lower self esteem

alcohol and self esteem

inhibits mental processing necessary to recognise personal flaws so people end up being able to focus on favourable characteristics of self

the drunk flirting study

groups: low self esteem and high self esteem. each group was split again into consume alcohol or no alcohol. then they had to engage in convo with an attractive male confederate. reported on anxiousness during interaction and report how much they disclosed to the male confederate.

low self esteem + alcohol = less anxious

low self esteem + no alcohol = more anxious

high self esteem: no difference in levels of anxiety between alcohol and no alcohol conditions just less anxious overall

same pattern on disclosure

self determination theory

under three basic psychological needs we thrive

1. we feel the need to be competent

2. need autonomy - we need to feel in control of actions

3. need relatedness, we want to feel like we belong

if all of these needs are met - it positively impacts motivation, performance, well-being etc.

self presentation (two forms of self)

private self: how you actually are and how you see yourself

public self: how you think you come across to others and how you think others see you

sometimes they match and sometimes they don't match

self presentation - spotlight effect

we have a tendency to believe we are being noticed more than we really are - particularly evident with embarrassing behaviour

this is why our public self might be different - due to impression management

impression management strategies

ingratiation

self promotion

intimidation

supplication

exemplification

ingratiation

get others to like you

self promotion

get others to respect you and think of you as competent

intimidation

get others to fear you and think of you as dangerous

supplication

get others to take pity on you and think of you as helpless and needy

exemplification

get others to regard you as morally respectable

organisational outcomes of self-presentation - do impression management strategies work at work?

when doing a job interview, ingratiation and self promotion worked to give a better impression

for supervisor assessments (already on the job), ingratiation was positively associated with better supervisor assessments and self promotion was negatively associated

for better salaries and promotions, only ingratiation is associated positively

self monitoring

Individual difference in ability to adjust (or concern with adjusting) self-presentation in response to social/situational cues

low self monitors

- Consistent across situations

• Less influenced by situation

• Less sensitive to others

• Less concerned with/worse at impression management

• Public self = private self

high self monitors

- Social chameleons • More influenced by situation

• More sensitive to others

• More concerned with/better at impression management

• Public self ≠ private self

self serving strategies

where we attribute successes and

failures differently in order to protect our self-esteem and in

order to protect our self presentation as well

what do we use self serving strategies for

to bolster ourselves in the

face of success, and we use these to also protect

ourselves in the face of failure

self serving strategies - self enhancing bias

tendency to attribute success to internal/dispositional factors

self serving strategies - self protecting bias

tendency to attribute failure to external/situational factors

self serving strategies - self handicapping

We often claim or create an external impediment to performance if we anticipate failure

In the event we fail (as anticipated)... ◦ We have external excuse or explanation to attribute failure to ◦ Facilitates self-protecting bias

• In the event we succeed... ◦ We bolster our sense of self for performing well in spite of external impediment ◦ Facilitates self-enhancing bias

culture and the self - independent self construal

Self separate from social context • Stable, consistent • Prioritise uniqueness, selfexpression, personal goals • Self-esteem depends on ability to express oneself, and demonstrate internal attributes

culture and the self - interdependent self construal

Self tied to social context • Flexible, variable • Prioritise belonging, fitting in, self-restraint, collective goals • Self-esteem depends on ability to restrain oneself, and maintain harmony with others

the social cure

groups we belong to can influence our psychological and physical health - cure for ailments is to gget peopple to connect with others - based on the idea that groups are a source of social support - greater identification with work colleagues is associated with more job satisfaction and less work related stress

social support - main effects hypothesis

social support affects wellbeing directly - more support leads to better wellbeing

social support: stress buffering hypothesis

when stress is low, social support doesnt matter. social support only matters when stress is high. social support protects wellbeing from the negative effects of stress

social support - groups

groups are a psychological resource, groups and identities can be a psychological resource individuals draw upon when faced with life challenges - people with more groups are more likely to have more resilience

rejection identification model

if you belong to a stigmastised group and you experience societal rejection as a function of belonging to that stigmatised group, its actually going to make you more likely to want to identify with your marginalised group and its going to have a suppressing effect on your wellbeing - the more you perceive that your group is being discriminated against, the lower your wellbeing is

alternate explanation to wellbeing

in group identification pathway: people who perceive rejection or discrimination towards their groups are also more likely to identify with their group and that identification with the group actually serves as a protective function in that the more they identify with their group, the higher their psychological wellbeing tends to be

social loafing

reduction in individual efforts that we see when working on a collective task for which performance is pooled compared to when working on the same task alone - people are motivated to reduce their individual effort

lecture 2

social cognition

thoughts, beliefs, perceptions about people in our social world

Naive scientist

We think about the social world in a manner that is slow, deliberative, and conscious ◦ We try to be objective and rational, like scientists - but sometimes there is too much info for us to spend that much time and effort

cognitive miser

We think about the social world in a manner that is rapid, automatic, and unconscious ◦ We use cognitive shortcuts - coz we have limited cognitive resources to devote to processing social information - sometimes we like to put effort into thinking though

motivated tactician

people can be both naive scientists and cognitive misers - we pick and choose when we use each technique depending on if we are motivated or not

are hueristics/shortcuts accurate?

they are pretty accurate coz theyre developed because we have enough experience in the world so sometimes the mental shortcuts produce accurate information or accurate impressions about people

person schema

the more you know someone the more complex the schema is and the less you know about them the less complex - observations and interactions provide info - even if information is limited the impressions are still formed based on our assumptions or what we can physically see from the outside

implicit personality theories

ideas about what sort of traits go together - e.g. if your more extroverted then your more likely to be friendly OR if your intelligent then you might be conscientious/hardworking as well

how are implicit personality theories formed

through previous experience and knowledge - i.e. you might think that intelligence and hardworking go together because youve come across a lot of people who hold these traits in tandem

do people share the same implicit personality theories? and are these theories correct or incorrect

they are sometimes shared - sometimes a lot of people will think that two traits go together. they can be correct or incorrect

social group schemas

we spontaneously categorise people as members of social groups and form a judgement on them based on their group

are social group schemas more likely to be true or false

more likely to be false because they contain broad generalisations and stereotypes, they are oversimplified and inaccurate, and there is enormous variation within social groups

facial appearance

the first theing we notice about people if their appearance - we form opinions about whether they are likeable, trustworthy, competent - and these judgements predict outcomes for those people i.e. politicians who were judged as more competent based on their appearances, were more likely to be voted in

hehman et al - facial structure and racial prejudice

they recruited a whole bunch of white participants and had them complete a measure of anti black prejudice and then they took photographs of all the white participants and the seconnd group had to judge how racist the first group of participants were based on their face alone - they found that participants' ratings of how racist the

white targets were actually positively correlated with the target's own.

Racism scores. i.e. the people who looked more racist were actually more racist.

how about if you were the target group, would you be able to accurately identify who was being more racist to you? Alaie and Rule, 2019

both gay and straight participants could judge a persons anti0gay prejudice accurately but they did not differ in they levels of accuracy which means that it doesnt matter if you are the target group or not

physical attractiveness

we do have more favourable impressions of attractive faces and on a neural level, participants' ratings of how racist the

white targets were actually positively correlated with the target's own.

Racism scores,

halo effect

tendency to assume that positive traits cluster together and that if the person if attractive then they also have many other positive traits - attractive people are treated better as a result - we cant help ourselves from doing this - more trustowrthy, competent

how does halo effect impact criminals

attractive criminals are likely to be treated more leniently but only if their crime is unrelated to attractiveness. e.g. burglary where the persons face is covered, they will be treated more leniently. whereas crimes involving attractiveness e.g. using your looks to exploit someone, attractiveness wont give them more leniency

how does attractiveness influence workplace (hosoda et al, 2003)

• Attractive people have an advantage in terms of: ◦ Candidate selection, shortlisting, ranking ◦ Hiring ◦ Suitability ◦ Employment potential ◦ Performance evaluations ◦ Promotion • Attractive people are the preferred choice to work with

how do male participants rate other people

Male participants rated: • Attractivefemales more favourably than unattractivefemales • Attractivemales less favourably than unattractivemales

how do female participants rate other people

Female participants rated: • Attractivemales more favourably than unattractivemales • Attractivefemales less favourably than unattractivefemales

do people with high self esteem show those effects

no, only people with low self esteem rated people that way - this is because attractive same gendered people are more threatening to us

how is clothing perceived

when you are in more formal attire people form more positive impressions of you then if you were wearing more casual clothing - this is because you seem more professional, wealthier, more intelligent, competent and trustworthy.

how does clothing make you feel

clothing may also influence self perception because if you wear more professional clothing, you feel more competent, trustworthy, productive, and authoritative

however, people dressing more casually report feeling more friendly

how are facial piercings seen when applying for a job (mcelroy et al., 2014)

Candidates who were pierced viewed as less suitable for role than non-pierced candidates ◦By both students + working adults ◦Type of job did not matter

AND

Candidates who were piercedviewed as less conscientious, having less positive moral character, and less trustworthy than non-piercedcandidates ◦By both students + working adults ◦Type of job did not matter

how do we judge speech

we judge a person based on the way that they speak aka their speech style which includes their language, accent, and other vocal attributes

what do speech styles indicate

they mark group boundaries coz hearing a speech style triggers schema and stereotypes of group associated with speech style

matched guise technique

A paradigm where participants are presented with recorded passages to listen to ◦ Participants evaluate speaker on focal attributes • Recordings varied in terms of speech style only ◦ Same speaker puts on different speech styles/"guises" ◦ Wording is constant

thin slices

Brief excerpt of expressive behaviour ◦ Can last from a few seconds → minutes • "Thin slice" provide more information than static images ◦ Impressions formed from "thin slices" more accurate than from static images

do straight or gay people have an advantage on determining something based on a thin slice

gay participants have an advantage over straight participants when determining sexual orientation of a target based on static image or thin slice but for a thin slice both straight and gay people guessed at the same rate of accuracy

are we accurate or not when detecting deception based on a thin slice

yes we are accurate

two types of attribution

internally: due to a persons disposition the behaviour is attributed to them

externally: due to situation or context. their behaviour results from their social environment

covariation model

consistency, distinctiveness, consensus

what is consistency in covariation model

the extent to which a behaviour consistently occirs over time within the same situation/context

distinctiveness in covariation model

the extent to which a behaviour is unique to a particular situation/context e.g. a person only acts in this way when in a specific situation which is referred to as highly distinctive. But if the context doesn't matter, And they behave this

way in other contexts as well.

This is referred to as low distinctiveness

consensus in covariation model

the extent to which other people behave similarly in the same situation/context