L3.1 Self, Social Perception, and Health: Comprehensive Notes
Social aspects of the self and measurement challenges
The self is shaped by social context: how we view ourselves in the past vs present, and our standing relative to others.
Self-esteem: global, broad evaluation of self; traditional measures often rely on self-report and may be biased.
Self-report bias in psychology: people may not answer objectively; there have been efforts to reduce this bias in self-report measures.
Self-esteem vs. self-efficacy (Bandura)
Self-esteem: broad sense of self-worth; global self-evaluation.
Self-efficacy: belief in one’s ability to perform a specific task; can be independent of actual ability.
Key idea: perceived efficacy can drive effort, persistence, and performance regardless of actual skill level.
Example: believing you can do well in psychology exams can lead to more study effort and persistence, improving outcomes even if ability is not inherently high.
Efficacy influences behavior such as effort and persistence; can help overcome obstacles.
Evidence: negative feedback effects on performance were mitigated by higher self-efficacy; those with high self-efficacy persisted despite bad feedback, while low self-efficacy led to reduced persistence.
Hope Theory (Trope/TraHope) — Pathway thinking and Agency thinking
Core idea: most people are goal-oriented; success involves two cognitive processes:
Pathway thinking: ability to construct multiple pathways to achieve goals. High pathway thinkers can adapt if one route is blocked (e.g., failed initial university application but pursue TAFE or other routes).
Agency thinking: motivation to pursue those pathways; the will to try multiple alternatives.
The combination predicts a range of outcomes (academic, athletic, etc.).
Empirical note: in a university-related example, high trait hope (pathways + agency) predicted better outcomes; self-esteem alone did not reliably predict later outcomes in some longitudinal studies.
Self-affirmation theory
When identity is threatened by poor performance in one domain, people can restore self-worth by focusing on other domains where they perform well.
Example: someone who dislikes statistics may bolster self-image by downplaying statistics ability rather than accepting a threat to self-worth.
This adaptive bias helps maintain overall self-esteem by shifting focus away from a threatened domain.
Self-comparison theory (Festinger, 1950s)
People evaluate their own performance by comparing to relevant others.
Example: quiz scored 7/10 may seem good if peers score 5/10; but if peers score 9/10, the same 7/10 feels worse.
Relevance: comparisons are made with legitimate benchmarks (e.g., classmates, peers in the same context).
Self-control and the Marshmallow study
Marshmallow test: delay of gratification predicts long-term outcomes.
Findings: greater ability to delay is associated with better physical health, better finances, and lower likelihood of negative life outcomes (e.g., crime) later in life.
This highlights self-control as a predictor of broad positive outcomes.
Cooley’s Looking-Glass Self and attributional labeling
Looking-glass self (Cooley, 1902): we form a sense of self based on how others see and interact with us.
Early classroom study: labeling children as neat and tidy was more effective at changing behavior than persuasion; underscores how labeling can influence self-concept and behavior.
Attribution theory overlap: labeling vs. persuasion effects map onto attribution-style explanations.
Self-presentation and self-monitoring
Self-presentation: how we manage how others perceive us in social contexts.
Self-monitoring: degree to which people monitor and adjust their behavior to fit social contexts.
High self-monitoring: adjust behavior to create favorable impressions; may be associated with higher likelihood of promotions but not necessarily with leadership roles.
Low self-monitoring: more consistent behavior; can be associated with leadership roles and higher quality work evaluations in some contexts.
Trade-offs: high self-monitoring can cause social distress due to constant social adjustment.
The Spotlight Effect
The tendency to overestimate how much others notice our appearance or behavior.
Classic study: wearing a conspicuous Barry Manilow t-shirt led participants to overestimate how many peers noticed; actual noticed rate was much lower (about 23–24%) than the perceived rate (about 50%).
Takeaway: people overestimate the extent to which they are in others’ center of attention.
Self in the context of technology and social media
Research pace: technology evolves quickly, research lags, but general principles often transfer across platforms.
Early social media history and theories focus on image projection and self-curation online.
Underwood’s two motives for using social media:
Communicators: seeking meaningful social interaction and relationship maintenance.
Broadcasters: presenting a broad, often curated image to many people; quantity over depth in relationships.
Online behaviors: some online behaviors are hard to replicate offline (e.g., passive online stalking).
Narcissism and online behavior:
Higher narcissism linked to more online friends and self-promotion (more posts/images).
Narcissism associated with broader online self-presentation, less emphasis on deep relationships.
Big Five personality traits and social media use:
Extraversion: associated with higher Facebook use; linked to more social activity online.
Neuroticism: linked to higher Facebook use (emotion-driven reactivity).
Openness to experience: initially linked to use, but later replications failed; novelty wore off as platforms became ubiquitous.
Privacy and security concerns:
Real-world consequences of online sharing (e.g., burglary after posting about being away).
Employer risk: recruiters using search engines to screen candidates; in 2006, about 77 ext{ ext{%}} of recruiters used search engines to evaluate candidates; 26 ext{ ext{%}} reported findings that ruled out a candidate.
Privacy sensitivities can be moderated by personality factors such as narcissism and the Big Five.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) and online behavior
SEM used to model how motives for using Facebook mediate the relationship between personality traits (e.g., extraversion) and outcomes like disclosure and privacy settings.
Demonstrates how multiple variables interact to influence online behavior beyond simple direct effects.
Health, social media and mental health
Social anxiety: online interactions can reduce stress and facilitate social engagement for some individuals.
True self online vs offline (Carl Rogers’ ideas): some people disclose more authentic selves online; over time, this can reduce anxiety for some individuals.
The “rich-get-richer” vs. “social compensation” debate: online interactions can benefit those already adept offline, but for some, online platforms may compensate for offline limitations.
Attachment styles and online behavior
Secure attachment: generally associated with positive online social interactions and stable relationships.
Anxious-ambivalent attachment: linked to concerns about partner acceptance; online use can reflect a need for reassurance.
Avoidant attachment: not consistently associated with the same online behaviors; some measures of active stalking online may show weak or negative correlations with self-reported stalking behaviors.
Online stalking and attachment considerations
Passive information gathering online without direct interaction (stalking) can be easier online than offline.
Self-reports of actively seeking interaction online (stalking) may not perfectly align with attitudes toward stalking, suggesting measurement complexities.
Psychology of health and stress (bridging mind and body)
Why study health in psychology? Mind and body are intertwined; social environments and psychological processes influence physical health.
Stress concept: dual aspects
Physiological: fight/flight response, mobilization of the body to face danger (Cannon).
Psychological: perceived demands exceeding resources, leading to stress perceptions and coping challenges.
General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS) – Selye
Alarm stage: perception of threat; mobilization of physiological resources (e.g., increased heart rate, adrenaline).
Resistance stage: continued mobilization to cope with ongoing stressors; multiple threats can maintain elevated arousal.
Exhaustion stage: sustained activation may lead to depletion of resources; health risks escalate if the stress persists.
Health consequences of chronic stress
Prolonged physiological arousal is detrimental to health (e.g., cardiovascular strain).
Studies show stress in workplaces associated with higher risks of certain cancers (e.g., colon cancer) even after controlling for age, smoking, and other factors; e.g., a five-point-five times higher likelihood in stressed workers compared to non-stressed in some studies.
Early research suggested a generalized sickening response across illnesses; later research refined this with the concept of hardiness.
Hardiness (Kobasa) as a protective factor against stress-related illness
Key components: commitment (sense of purpose), control (perceived influence over events), and challenge (view stressors as opportunities rather than threats).
Hardiness differentiates those who become sick more frequently from those who stay healthier under stress.
Perceived control: environments where individuals feel they have input or influence (e.g., working conditions, nursing home autonomy) tend to be associated with better well-being.
Optimism and attribution styles
Optimism can be linked to self-serving explanations: successes attributed to internal factors; failures attributed to external, unstable, or situational factors.
These attribution patterns have implications for long-term health and life expectancy; ongoing research links optimism with longevity, though causality and mechanisms require careful interpretation.
Connections and implications
Across self-related constructs (esteem, efficacy, hope, self-affirmation, comparison), motivation, and social context shape behavior and outcomes.
Social media studies illustrate how personality and motives shape online behavior (privacy, disclosure, admiration, and social connectedness) and how real-world consequences (recruitment decisions, stalking, privacy breaches) arise from online activity.
Health psychology demonstrates that psychological processes, stress appraisals, and personal resources (hardiness, control, optimism) have measurable effects on physical health and well-being, reinforcing the biopsychosocial model.
Methodological note: a range of statistical approaches (e.g., SEM) are used to model complex interdependencies among personality, motives, behaviors, and outcomes in real-world social phenomena.
Key formulas and numerical references (LaTeX)
Perceived demand-resource gap in stress: ext{Demands} > ext{Resources}
Recruiter statistic (2006 study): 77 ext{ ext{%}} of recruiters used search engines to evaluate potential candidates; 26 ext{ ext{%}} reported finding something that ruled out a candidate.
Online risk example: 5.5\text{ times more likely} to develop colon cancer in stressed workers vs. non-stressed workers (controlled for age, smoking, etc.).
Online visibility cue: about 23 ext{ ext{%} ext{ to } 24 ext{ ext{%}}} of participants noticed wearing a conspicuous shirt; participants overestimated at roughly 50 ext{ ext{%}}.
Classic self-control measure: delayed gratification decisions (marshmallow task) and long-term outcomes (health, finances, criminal outcomes).
Longitudinal claim: trait hope in year 7 predicted year 12 outcomes in a school-based cohort; self-esteem in year 7 did not predict later outcomes.
Study tips based on these notes
Distinguish global vs domain-specific constructs: self-esteem (global) vs self-efficacy (domain/task-specific).
When discussing social media, be careful with causal claims: many findings are correlations or predictive associations; SEM helps model mediation but does not prove causation.
For health psychology, remember the three GAS stages and the concept of hardiness as a buffer against stress-related illness.
Use real-world examples (e.g., recruitment practices, online privacy incidents, and the marshmallow study) to illustrate theoretical concepts.
Summary takeaway
Our sense of self is shaped by social perception, self-evaluation biases, and motivational systems (esteem, efficacy, hope).
People deploy strategies (self-affirmation, self-monitoring, labeling) to navigate self-concept and social interactions.
Technology and social media dramatically alter how self-presentation and interpersonal processes unfold, with implications for mental health, privacy, and social behavior.
Health psychology emphasizes that how we think about and manage stress, control, and optimism materially affects physical health and well-being.