Infant Social Development

Newborn Preferences

• Newborns possess inherent preferences that are crucial for their learning and development.

• Social learning in infants is heavily reliant on their ability to pay attention to faces.

• Goren et al. (1975) demonstrated that infants exhibit a preference for stimuli resembling faces.

• Newborns derive pleasure from observing faces.

• The preference for faces provides a significant advantage in the development of social interactions.

• Infants show a preference for human speech over artificial sounds.

• Human language serves as a tool for connecting with others.

• Infants display a preference for the sounds and accents of their maternal language.

• This preference aids in their integration into their community.

Sensitivity to Emotional Cues

• Infants develop sensitivity to emotional cues within the first six months of life.

• This sensitivity is crucial in social situations.

• Infants demonstrate the ability to recognize different emotions.

• Field et al. (1982) discovered that infants as young as 36 hours old could distinguish between positive (happy) and negative (sad) emotions.

• Infants could also distinguish between positive/negative emotional expressions and surprised expressions.

• Around five months of age, infants prefer to hear the sound that matches the emotion of the face (Walker-Andrews, 1997).

  • Example: They prefer to hear a laughing sound when viewing a happy face.

• Infants can match acoustic elements with visual cues, especially for familiar people (e.g., their mother).

• Their ability to generalize increases across the first year of life.

Responding to Emotions

• Infants can recognize different emotional cues.

• They use this ability to respond appropriately.

• In the first month, smiles are usually due to being full or having had a good sleep.

• Around three months, infants smile in response to social cues, known as a social smile.

• Around six months, they're tuned into familiar people.

  • Show more smiling/laughing to familiar people (e.g., mother) than strangers.

• Infants are tuned in to mothers' expressions.

• Contagious crying: when one infant cries, others cry too (3-6 months).

  • Argument 1: Contagious crying is due to basic empathy (feeling what others feel).

  • Argument 2: Infants are just hyper-reactive (freaked out because someone else is freaked out).

• It might be basic empathy or emotional arousal.

• Infants produce emotional responses, allowing them to be active in social interactions.

Still Face Experiment

• Classic experiment by Edward Tronick from the Child Development Unit at Harvard University called the still face experiment, showing babies interacting with their mother through emotional responses (Tronick et al.,1978).

• Still face experiment: three different phases.

  • Phase 1: Mother and infant engaged in a normal play session.

  • Phase 2: Mother switches to a neutral expression (“still face”), causing distress for the infant as it's not normal. The infant realises that social interaction involves two-way communication and tries to regain the mother's attention.

  • Phase 3: Mother changes back to happy expressions; infants happily interact again as if nothing happened, especially those securely attached.

• Infants are actively involved in social interactions.

Joint Attention and Social Referencing

• Infants love to learn from around six months to around 18 months of age.

• They seek information through joint attention, using gaze and pointing to share focus and learn object names.

• Social referencing: Infants look at their mothers to see how she is reacting.

• Infants develop social referencing at around 10 to 12 months of age.

• Visual Cliff Paradigm: Infants are tested to see if they have developed depth.

Scaffolding

• Between 6 and 18 months of age, mothers play a really important role in scaffolding infants' understanding of mental states.

• Scaffolding: building an infant's knowledge through teaching them about something that's just a little bit more difficult than what they know.

• Mental states: such as desire, thoughts, beliefs, knowledge -internal mental states that go on in our mind.

• Mothers can help infants by talking to them about their mental states of, for example, their desire…such as… "Do you want that apple?"

• Mothers talk to their infant more about their desire than their thoughts or beliefs.

• It's important that mothers talk about infant’s own mental states, so for example… "Do YOU want that apple?"

Sense of "Self"

• Around 18 months is when infants start to show a sense of self, and this continues to develop throughout ages 3 or 4 years.

• Mirror of self-recognition test: used to assess the infant’s concept of ‘self’.

  • What you want to see is whether the infant reaches over to his own self and moves the sticker off, or if they reach towards the mirror and try to get rid of the sticker.

• By around 24 months of age, almost all infants in western societies pass this test. They move the sticker off of their own face.

• Children start recognising themselves in photographs at around two years of age (Lewis & Brooks-Gunn, 1979).

• Children start recognising themselves in videos at around three years of age (Suddendorf, Simcock & Nielsen, 2007).

• When children started to reach for the sticker on their nose in the mirror, they also reached for a sticker placed on another part of their body, their legs in this case, that they could only see in the mirror (Nielsen, Suddendorf & Slaughter, 2006).

• Another way we can tell that infants seem to have a sense of self by 18 months of age is that they start to talk about their own mental states.

• In particular, they talk about the mental state of desire.

  • They might say things like… "Want cake,"

• Or their mental state of perception like… "See doggie”.

• Eighteen months is around the time when they talk like this, when they talk about their desire and perception.

• It's not until infants reach around 30 months or around 2 and a half years of age that they start to talk about thoughts.

  • They might say things like… "I think cake is yummy," or "I think the doggie is cute."

• So at first, infants talk about desire, perception, and then on to thoughts and beliefs.

Self Versus Other Distinction

• Around 18 months of age, infants seem to have a basic understanding that other people might be different from themselves.

• Repacholi and Gopnik in 1997 showed that infants actually have a basic understanding of other people's desires.

• Experiment: Betty Repacholi and Alison Gopnik had two plates placed in front of the infant. One plate had crackers on it, and the other plate had broccoli.

• The experimenter then sat next to the infant, and expressed to the infant that they don’t actually like crackers, but prefered broccoli instead.

• Eighteen month-old infants reached out and gave the experimenter their preference, even if the infant themselves may have preferred the crackers themselves, they gave the broccoli to the experimenter.

• This suggests that 18 month-old infants have a fundamental understanding that their desires may contradict from other people's desires (Repacholi & Gopnik, 1997).

• The infant’s understanding that their own desires can be different from others is also scaffolded by their mother or primary caregiver.

• Mothers talk to their infants about their own desire first, then, between 18 to 36 months of age, the mother talks to the infant about their thoughts and beliefs, because they have a good basic grasp of desire by then.

• After that, the mother talks about other people's mental states.

• Talking to infants about the thoughts and beliefs of others foster the infant

Helping Behavior

• We help our family, friends, neighbours, and even strangers in countless ways.

  • Imagine a world in which nobody helped anybody do anything; our society would break down.

• Between 6 to 18 months, particularly at the beginning of the 2nd year of life, infants start to engage in prosocial behaviour.

• The first prosocial behaviour that they show is helping.

• Helping behaviour emerges around 14 months of age.

• In experiments evaluating infant helping behaviour, the experimenter typically tries to do something, like putting pegs on a clothesline.

• The experimenter then drops a peg while completing their task; the infant quickly walks over, picks up the peg, and gives it back to the experimenter.

• In another experiment, the experimenter carries a pile of books from one end of the room to a cupboard on the other side.

• When they get to the cupboard, they make it obvious to the infant that they can’t put the books inside because the doors are closed.

• The infant then walks over and opens the door for the experimenter.

• Some argue this helping behaviour suggests infants understand the other person's needs or mental state.

• Others argue that one doesn't need to consider the other person's mental state to know they should pick up the peg because they can see that it fell.

• Some argue this might be a fundamental form of understanding other people's mental states, while others argue it could be an association between a behaviour and an action. Thus, there are two sides to the argument.

Sharing Behavior

• Around 18 months is also around the time when infants show some sharing behaviour.

• Experiments investigating children’s sharing behaviour typically set up a situation where the experimenter only has one toy block, and the child has many, so we can see if the child is willing to share with the experimenter.

• Children start to develop sharing behaviour at around 18 months, and this development continues throughout their life.

• When children are in a situation where they have more toys than the experimenter, it seems that, at the very beginning, sharing behaviour is not spontaneous for them.

• The experimenter needs to say things like…

  • "I only have one block."

  • "Can you share with me?"

• Children at around 18 months of age really need explicit cues at the beginning to prompt them to share.

• At around three and a half to four years of age, children start to spontaneously share without being prompted.

Comforting Behavior

• The next type of prosocial behaviour to emerge is comforting, which emerges at around 24 months of age.

• Comforting is actually one of the hardest prosocial behaviours for children to demonstrate.

• When children see an experimenter knocking their knee on the edge of a table, they might say something like… “you weren't looking where you were going", which is not very empathetic.

• Comforting behaviour emerges later than anything else.

• Children start to develop helping behaviours at around 14 months.

• They develop sharing behaviours at around 18 months, then comforting behaviours at around 24 months.

Why Are Comforting Behaviors Difficult?

• It's because in helping and sharing, it’s easy for children to actually see the needs of the experimenter, or the other person.

• They can see that the clothes peg has dropped on the floor, or the experimenter has only one toy block.

• When children elicit helping and sharing behaviours, it's very clear, visually, what the other person's needs are.

• In the case of comforting, children can't see pain or sorrow very clearly, as it's really an internal state.

• they really need to be able to put themselves in the other person's shoes in order to elicit comforting behaviour.

Theory of Mind

• Think about a friend.

• You likely understand when they're happy or upset.

• Around age 4, children develop theory of mind.

  • Ability to understand others' mental states.

  • Predicts subsequent behaviour.

  • Also known as mindreading or mentalizing.

• Mental states include:

  • Desire (I want).

  • Perception (I see).

  • Thoughts (I think, I know).

  • Beliefs (I believe).

• These are abstract, grasped around 4-5 years.

Evidence from Language

• Around age 3, children use contrastive statements contrasting each other.

  • Example: "I love princesses, but my brother doesn't."

  • Suggests a sense of self different from others.

Understanding 'Seeing'

• Behavioural tasks test theory of mind development.

• Visual perspective taking test:

  • Child and puppet on opposite sides of a desk.

  • Three mountains obstruct views.

  • Place a pink house; ask if puppet knows the colour.

  • 3-year-olds struggle: "Puppet sees everything I see."

  • 4-year-olds understand different perspectives.

• Hide-and-seek:

  • 3-year-olds cover faces, thinking they're hidden.

  • Assume if they can't see others, others can't see them.

Understanding Knowledge

• Theory of mind includes understanding that others' knowledge may differ from your own.

• Appearance reality task:

  • Tests understanding of differing knowledge.

  • Children under 3 expect contents to match container (e.g., Band-Aids in a Band-Aid box).

  • If a Band-Aid box contains markers, they forget others don't know this.

  • Analogy: Nike shoebox with cake inside.

Understanding Belief

• Understanding that others possess beliefs different from one's own or reality is a key aspect of having a theory of mind.

• This concept is explored through the false belief test (Wimmer & Perner, 1983).

• The false belief test, created by Wimmer & Perner in 1983, remains a crucial assessment for theory of mind.

• It highlights the understanding that behaviours and knowledge can vary among individuals.

• The test involves characters like Sally, who has a basket, and Anne, who has a box.

• Sally places a marble in her basket and then leaves.

• While Sally is away, Anne moves the marble into the box.

• The question is posed: Where will Sally look for the marble upon her return?

• Typically, children around 42 months old suggest Sally will look in the box, whereas those around 52 months old indicate she will look in the basket.

• Older children grasp that Sally's belief differs because she didn't witness the marble's relocation.

• Hence the name, false belief test.

• While the timing of passing the test varies slightly across cultures, a significant advancement in theory of mind occurs between ages four and five, observed globally (Wellman, Cross & Watson, 2001).

Cultural Relevance of Theory of Mind

• For instance, when testing children from the Baka tribe in Cameroon, a hunter-gatherer society, cultural relevance is crucial.

• Adapting the test to align with the culture—for example, using nuts instead of marbles—is essential.

• When culturally tailored to the Baka children, they also pass the false belief test around age four.

• This developmental shift typically occurs between ages three and six across various cultures.

School Environment

• When children go to school, mindreading or theory of mind plays a significant role in their lives.

• Children who pass the false belief test earlier tend to be more popular among their peers in school.

• They often have more friends and are well-liked.

• These children engage in prosocial behaviour more frequently. This includes helping, sharing, and comforting others, because they understand that others have different needs, thoughts, and feelings.

• However, understanding other people's mental states doesn't always motivate children to engage in prosocial behaviour.

• Sometimes, theory of mind can manifest in bullying, as understanding others' thoughts may make it easier to manipulate them.

• Children with a more developed theory of mind may also be more sensitive to teachers' criticisms, which can be damaging.

• Therefore, there are both positive and negative aspects to developing theory of mind early.

Autism Spectrum Disorder

• Theory of mind development typically occurs between three and six years of age.

• Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder often struggle with developing a theory of mind.

• Autism is characterized by deficits in social abilities, such as:

  • Reluctance to make eye contact

  • Avoidance of social interaction

  • Preference for playing alone

• Researchers suggest that difficulties in social abilities may stem from struggles with theory of mind.

Baron-Cohen et al. (1985)

• Simon Baron-Cohen and colleagues tested this in 1985 with three groups:

  • Children with autism

  • Children with Down Syndrome

  • Typically developing four-year-olds

• The study measured the percentage of correct judgments in the false belief test.

Results

• Approximately 85% of typically developing four-year-olds and children with Down Syndrome passed the false belief test.

• Only about 20% of children with autism passed the test.

• This suggests that children with autism struggle with developing a theory of mind, which may contribute to their deficits in social abilities.

the self-

Learning goals-

• Understand the importance of the self

• Explain the uniqueness of the self for humans

• Describe how accurate our self knowledge is, and the reasons for some common biases in self knowledge

• Describe the benefits of self-esteem

• Explain what self control is, and the role that self-control plays in our adjustment

Introduction-

• Consideration of self-awareness and identity throughout history, including in caveman times.

• Questions regarding whether cavemen had a sense of self and experienced identity crises.

• Exploration of whether they sought profound self-discovery.

• Contemporary individuals actively pursue self-understanding—through various methods:

  • Taking personality tests.

  • Seeking feedback from friends about personal perceptions.

  • Engaging in psychoanalysis to learn about oneself.

• Inquiry into the universality of self-knowledge.

• Historical reference: "Know thyself" at the ancient Greek oracle at Delphi, indicating a long-standing human yearning for self-understanding.

• Contrasting opinions on the implication of the phrase "Know thyself"; some argue it suggested understanding one’s place in society rather than deep self-discovery.

• Absence of evidence to suggest cavemen had identity crises or sought inner knowledge.

• Modern notion of a hidden self, distinct from outward behaviour, is a recent development.

• Uniqueness of the human self, distinguishing humans from other mammals.

• Ability of humans to adopt multiple roles in various situations and shift between them comfortably (e.g., at work, home, with friends).

• Capacity for self-management and adaptation in different environments and roles within the same organization.

• High self-awareness in humans characterized by self-criticism and self-approval, enabling personal change.

• Lack of similar self-reflective behaviour observed in other animals, which tend to live in the moment.

• Asking what differentiates human self-awareness from that of other species and encouraging learning about oneself and others.

The self- where does it come from?

• Inquiry into how we feel often involves reflecting on our likes and desires.

• People frequently ask us about ourselves and we usually respond without difficulty.

• Self-knowledge appears accessible yet raises questions about the nature of the self.

• One perspective argues that individuals create their own selves through choices.

• Existentialism stresses that people are defined by their actions and decisions.

• Conversely, another view suggests that certain predispositions at birth dictate our paths.

• Sociological viewpoints contend that individuals are products of their circumstances and society shapes identities.

• Historical and social forces play significant roles in shaping individuals.

• Cultural and historical differences influence interpretations of the self.

• While individuals have agency over their choices, their choices are still influenced by circumstances.

• The self may not be defined solely by individual choices or external influences; a combination of both might apply.

• Sociologists emphasize that to some extent, individuals are products of their circumstances.

• However, people often interpret and react to their circumstances diversely.

• The metaphor of a buffet illustrates this interaction: society presents a variety of options, and individuals choose from them, shaping their personal realities.

The remarkable human self-

• Questioning whether a gorilla could hold a job in human society and thrive in such an environment.

• Humans incorporate abstract principles into their behavioural choices, including moral rules, responsibilities, and financial calculations.

• Unlike other animals, humans exhibit complex self-serving behaviours in thoughts, feelings, and actions.

• Animals manage their biological needs, but human beings do this at a much more advanced level.

• Humans are capable of principled self-sacrifice, risking their lives or fortunes for abstract principles, a behaviour not observed in gorillas.

• Logical reasoning and future planning are unique to humans, allowing us to envision our past and future selves.

• Self-regulation enables humans to adapt their behaviour according to rules and societal expectations.

• We organize complex sequences of actions over time and manage our reputation, deeply concerned with how we are perceived by others.

• Most animals do not demonstrate the capacity for such self-reflection and adaptation.

• Human beings consistently adjust their behaviour based on these considerations, highlighting the complexity of self-awareness and identity distinct from other animals.

Self-knowledge-

• The assumption that individuals know themselves better than anyone else.

• Some people believe their spouses may know them even better than they know themselves.

• Many children, when asked, claim that their mother knows them best.

• This concept is referred to as "Privileged Access"—the belief that self-knowledge is superior.

• Self-knowledge is relative and can be biased; information about oneself may not always be accurate.

• Quick answers regarding self-knowledge do not guarantee accuracy.

• Individuals may deceive themselves about their traits and abilities.

• The challenge for psychology is evaluating the accuracy of self-reported information.

• Psychological research can validate self-knowledge by comparing subjective reports with direct measurements (e.g., weight).

• Studies show most people tend to rate themselves as above average, often in contrast to reality.

• In large studies, only a small percentage of participants consider themselves below average in social skills.

• Some people overestimate their abilities; for instance, 25% rated themselves in the top 1%, which is statistically impossible.

• Recognizing that self-rating is often inflated illustrates systematic distortion in self-perception.

• Ultimately, the average person thinks they are above average, which contradicts the mathematical definition of average.

• Evidence suggests that self-knowledge can be significantly skewed in a self-serving direction.

Positive illusions-

• Psychology has identified a phenomenon where people believe they are better than they actually are, with evidence emerging in the 1970s.

• An early survey showed that 90% of respondents rated themselves as above average drivers.

• Researchers found this trend in various studies across different contexts, confirming that many people think they are above average in multiple areas.

• Psychologists identified three key types of positive illusions where individuals overestimate positive aspects of their lives.

  • The first positive illusion is an inflated self-assessment of abilities and successes, where individuals downplay faults and failures, leading them to believe they are more capable than reality.

  • The second positive illusion is the overestimation of personal control over life events; people believe they can influence outcomes significantly, underestimating the role of chance.

  • Laboratory studies show that participants often neglect random chance when assessing their control.

  • Interestingly, individuals with depression tend to have more accurate perceptions compared to non-depressed individuals, who often have overly positive views.

  • The third positive illusion is unrealistic optimism, where people expect good things to happen to them more often than the average person and believe negative events will happen less frequently.

  • Studies have consistently shown that respondents believe their chances of promotions, happy marriages, and avoiding bad outcomes are better than average.

• Overall, it is evident that people generally have a tendency to overestimate their good qualities and positive future outcomes.

Sustaining positive illusions: self-serving bias-

• Many people know individuals who significantly overestimate their abilities and qualities.

• Evidence shows that most people fool themselves by overestimating their strengths and positive futures.

• This raises the question: how do people maintain these distortions throughout life despite receiving feedback from experiences?

• We do encounter successes and failures yet retain a more favourable self-image than what facts suggest.

• Psychologists previously sought strict methods to demonstrate how self-deception operates, recognizing the complexities in being aware and unaware of one's abilities simultaneously.

• Experimentally, it was challenging to confirm instances of simultaneous knowledge and ignorance.

• The research evolved to embrace concepts like 'wishful thinking,' where individuals convince themselves of exaggerated or distorted realities.

• This shift led to increased research on how people manage to maintain positive illusions of self.

• A notable concept is the 'self-serving bias,' which affects how individuals perceive their successes and failures.

• Successes are typically attributed to personal qualities, boosting self-esteem, while failures are often externalized, diminishing self-blame.

• Self-esteem is thus largely based on successes rather than failures, facilitating the maintenance of positive illusions.

• Importantly, while individuals don’t become delusional geniuses, they often view themselves as slightly better than they are.

• This slight margin of illusion can create a more positive self-perception without a drastic departure from reality.

• For instance, studies on intelligence reveal that individuals slightly inflate their test scores when recalling them, indicating a common tendency to remember experiences more positively than they were.

• This phenomenon of positive illusions represents a slightly idealized version of oneself that diverges from the absolute truth.

Selective criticism and memory bias-

• Dismissing failures and making excuses while valuing successes contributes to self-deception.

• Other methods sustain positive illusions:

  • Selective criticism: people accept positive feedback without question but become sceptical of negative news.

  • For example, if a test result is good, individuals believe it; if it's bad, they might think the test is flawed.

  • This behaviour is also reflected in political biases, where individuals trust studies that support their beliefs but discredit those against them.

• Selective criticism allows individuals to filter out unwanted information and maintain a positive self-view.

• Memory bias also plays a role: people tend to forget negative experiences.

  • They remember positive events more vividly, often rehearsing them, while downplaying and rationalizing negative ones.

  • Consequently, when faced with unfavourable information, individuals may deflect their attention or dismiss it, leading to a skewed self-image.

• Positive feedback is often studied in detail and memorized, while negative feedback is skimmed over or ignored.

• This selective attention can be likened to ignoring spam emails; negative information is noted but quickly discarded.

• Unlike Freudian repression, negative thoughts are acknowledged but not dwelled upon, resulting in less mental impact over time.

• Overall, this behaviour reduces the memory trace of negative feedback, leading to a sustained positive self-illusion.

Other self-deception strategies

• When something bad happens to a friend, it's common to say, "It could have been worse," which may help them feel better.

• This reflects a broader self-deception strategy that many people utilize.

• A common technique is selective comparison where individuals choose whom to compare themselves to strategically.

• People typically compare themselves to others who are similar but slightly worse off.

• A study by Taylor (1983) showed that women with breast cancer often compared their condition to those with less severe cases.

• Regardless of the severity, they frequently referred to others who were worse off, such as, "At least I didn’t lose my breasts."

• This practice is known as downward comparison and helps individuals feel better about their situation.

• Additionally, people utilize mental strategies such as false consensus and false uniqueness.

• False consensus involves overestimating how many people share your opinions or characteristics.

• False uniqueness is the tendency to underestimate how many people have your abilities or traits.

• Both strategies serve to protect self-esteem by distorting perceptions of similarity.

• Individuals often think that most people agree with their opinions, reinforcing their beliefs.

• Conversely, individuals emphasize their unique abilities to feel special—such as believing they are skilled at playing piano, which not many can do.

• Overall, these comparisons, whether downward or through false consensus/uniqueness, can boost self-esteem even when recognizing one’s standing.

• Research shows that individuals with high self-esteem engage in these strategies more frequently than those with low self-esteem.

• They believe they are superior not necessarily due to their actual qualities, but because of how they perceive themselves.

• Techniques like comparing one’s strengths and relying on slippery definitions of success contribute to maintaining positive illusions.

• An example is that many can highlight unique aspects of themselves, leading them to think they are better than average.

• This phenomenon is akin to children believing their dog is the best dog due to unique attributes, which illustrates the subjective nature of assessment.

• Ultimately, these self-deception strategies allow individuals to inflate their positive self-image and maintain a favourable view of themselves, despite reality.

Interview with Bill von Hippel on self-deception-

• Blake McKimmie initiates the discussion on self-deception.

• The conversation explores how individuals develop the ability to lie and what that means for their self-perception.

• Questions raised include why people would develop skills to deceive themselves and how they can believe their own lies.

• Bill von Hippel emphasizes the complexity of self-deception, highlighting the difficulty in lying to oneself while genuinely believing the lie.

• There is a paradox where it seems more beneficial to understand reality rather than deceive oneself.

• Robert Trivers provides insight, suggesting societal pressures drive individuals to lie for personal gain.

• This leads to a co-evolutionary struggle, where individuals develop lying strategies and counter-strategies for detecting lies.

• Lying to oneself first can provide an advantage in real deception by eliminating signs of deception when telling the lie to others.

• If someone successfully deceives themselves, they no longer see their statement as a lie, thus not emitting cues of deceit.

• Self-deception can be accomplished through various means, including avoiding, hiding, or casting doubt on the truth.

• People can use sexual innuendo or deflections in conversation to divert attention from uncomfortable truths.

• Not everyone engages in self-deception equally; the frequency and methods vary among individuals.

• Techniques include selective focus on preferred news while avoiding contrary facts.

• Research evidence such as post-choice dissonance reduction highlights how people view chosen options more favourably post-decision.

• Self-serving biases exemplify how individuals manipulate perceptions in their favor.

• Self-deception is often employed to restore self-integrity, but von Hippel argues it also serves to persuade others and enhance social perceptions of oneself.

• People may exaggerate their qualities in order to present themselves more favorably to social circles.

• This tendency implies a functional aspect to being skilled in self-deception, leading to better social outcomes.

• Von Hippel shares personal anecdotes about his own weaknesses with memory and how that influences his self-perception of contributions in collaborative efforts.

• The discussion concludes with an acknowledgment of the pervasive nature of self-deception in various facets of life.

Self-esteem

• Individuals have varying views of themselves, from highly positive to less positive.

• Self-esteem reflects personal evaluations of oneself.

• Few individuals have extremely negative self-views; most lie somewhere in between positive and negative.

• Mentally healthy individuals generally possess higher self-esteem and may have positive illusions about themselves.

• Low self-esteem is often associated with depression, leading to fewer positive illusions.

• Historical views in clinical psychology suggested that depressed individuals distorted reality negatively.

• Earlier beliefs held that correcting these perceptions could alleviate depression.

• Research from Alloy & Abramson (1979) revealed that depressed individuals may actually perceive reality accurately.

• In contrast, those not suffering from depression may display overly positive perceptions (Taylor & Brown, 1988).

• This suggests that achieving a realistic view of the world might not be the solution to depression, but could reflect its underlying characteristics.

• The shift in psychological focus toward boosting self-esteem emerged around this time, with a view that many individuals experience low self-worth.

• Evidence linking low self-esteem to various issues, including academic failure, addiction, and mental health problems, accumulated.

• As a result, there was a movement advocating that enhancing self-esteem could address broader societal challenges.

How good is high self-esteem-

• The 1970s and 1980s were considered the heyday of self-esteem.

• Nathaniel Branden, a well-known therapist, was a prominent figure in the self-esteem movement.

• He claimed, "I cannot think of a single psychological problem — from anxiety and depression, to fear of intimacy or of success, to spouse battery or child molestation — that is not traceable to the problem of low self-esteem" (Branden, 1984).

• This bold assertion suggested that low self-esteem was at the root of various psychological issues.

• Such thinking influenced governments, schools, and parents to focus on raising self-esteem in children.

• California even established a commission to improve self-esteem state-wide, hoping to tackle problems like drug addiction and crime.

• There was a belief that higher self-esteem would lead to increased earning potential and thus contribute to state tax revenues.

• Ultimately, this initiative did not yield the expected results.

• In the late 1990s, the Association for Psychological Science (APS) commissioned research to evaluate the actual benefits of high self-esteem.

• Investigators examined whether high self-esteem truly led to better outcomes in life and if boosting self-esteem was worthwhile.

• Many studies looked at the correlation between self-esteem and academic performance, as improving students' motivation was a key aim of the self-esteem movement.

• Initial findings noted higher self-esteem among students with better grades, leading to hopes for improved learning by boosting self-esteem.

• However, psychologists realized they had confused correlation with causation; self-esteem was a result, not a cause, of academic success.

• Longitudinal studies indicated that self-esteem did not lead to better grades; instead, better academic performance predicted higher self-esteem.

• Raising self-esteem proved ineffective in increasing academic achievement; believing oneself to be good at math doesn’t improve mathematical ability without practice.

• Research also looked at interpersonal relationships, with people with high self-esteem believing they are well-liked and popular.

• Laboratory studies showed that high self-esteem individuals rated their impressions more positively than others rated them, often leading to perceptions of egotism.

• Concerns about teenage behaviour prompted hopes that raising self-esteem could help youths resist peer pressure to engage in risky behaviours.

• However, large-scale studies revealed that self-esteem levels bore no relation to smoking or drinking; high self-esteem adolescents exhibited similar or increased likelihoods of alcohol consumption.

• The finding applied to teenage sexual behaviour as well, with evidence indicating that adolescents with high self-esteem might engage in these activities earlier.

• It suggests that popularity among peers correlates with riskier behaviours, showing that raising self-esteem does not inherently promote abstinence from alcohol or prevent sexual activity in teens.

• Overall, the evidence suggests that the belief in boosting self-esteem as a solution to various problems is unfounded.

Benefits of self-esteem: initiative-

Higher self-esteem seems to bolster initiative.

• People with high self-esteem are more likely to act on their thoughts, believing they are correct.

• They have greater confidence in their views, opinions, and plans, even when they are wrong.

• While this can lead to stubbornness, in general, higher initiative is seen as beneficial.

In contrast, individuals with low self-esteem lack faith in their abilities.

• They may struggle with decision-making and are often influenced by others.

• Their self-doubts hinder initiative, leading to passivity.

People with high self-esteem tend to think they know what’s right and act on what they believe is best.

• They show resilience in the face of failure and are willing to reject directives from others if they disagree.

• High self-esteem individuals are more likely to voice dissenting opinions within a group, whereas those with low self-esteem may remain silent.

Ultimately, enhanced initiative is a key advantage of self-esteem, promoting decisiveness and action.

Benefits of self-esteem: happiness-

• People with high self-esteem are generally happier than those with low self-esteem.

• High self-esteem provides resilience during hard or stressful times, making individuals feel better.

• Low self-esteem can lead to devastating effects during challenging times, making recovery difficult.

• High self-esteem helps individuals bounce back more easily from setbacks.

• It contributes positively to overall well-being and feelings of self-worth.

• There is a strong link between low self-esteem and depression.

• The relationship between low self-esteem and depression is complex, as one can exacerbate the other.

• Understanding this link highlights the importance of fostering high self-esteem to promote happiness.

• Researchers face challenges in establishing the benefits of high self-esteem objectively.

• Individuals with high self-esteem often perceive themselves positively, which can skew research findings based on subjective reports.

• Objective measures sometimes suggest that these perceived benefits may not hold when assessing traits like intelligence or attractiveness objectively.

• Studies show that while those with high self-esteem rate themselves positively, objective assessments may not reflect this superiority.

• Nevertheless, high self-esteem is associated with overall happiness and greater initiative.

• The main takeaways are that high self-esteem may lead to greater happiness and motivation, but often correlates with overestimation of personal traits and abilities.

Why do people care about self esteem-

• There is limited perceived value in self-esteem itself, prompting the question of why it matters.

• People inherently care about self-esteem, which raises questions about its evolutionary significance.

• Self-esteem may not have direct value, but it functions like a gas gauge, indicating something important – possibly how well others perceive you.

• The gauge (self-esteem) does not drive the car (your actions) but is a measure of your social acceptance and reputation.

• Historically, being liked and accepted by others has been crucial for survival and reproduction.

• Humans are inherently social beings, and belonging to groups is essential for our survival based on evolutionary criteria.

• Thus, self-esteem may serve as an internal monitor of our social desirability and status amongst peers.

• While individual self-esteem may not influence survival directly, the perception of others towards us does.

• Self-esteem helps track external perceptions, thus allowing individuals to gauge how they are viewed socially.

• On the topic of self-deception, while it may seem risky, it can sometimes aid in social situations.

• Overestimating one’s abilities can lead to failure in endeavours where realistic assessments are crucial (e.g., academic performance, dating).

• However, self-deception can also aid in persuading others, as convincing oneself of a positive trait can enhance communication of that trait to others.

• Convincing oneself can make it easier to influence others’ perceptions positively, thereby increasing acceptance and inclusion in social circles.

• This highlights the idea that we may engage in self-deception to improve how we appear to others, which is critically important for social validation.

Theories about low self esteem-

It is common to talk about high and low self-esteem as if they represent distinct types of people. However, individuals actually exist on a continuum with self-esteem levels being spread out along a range, with many people falling in the middle.

• High self-esteem individuals are characterized by their positive self-perception; they tend to think they are good, expect to succeed, and desire social acceptance.

• Low self-esteem individuals present more of a psychological puzzle, raising questions about their desires and motivations.

  • There are various theories about low self-esteem, with potential motivations including self-loathing, confirmation of negative self-views, fear of success, or uncertainty about what they want.

  • Research suggests that individuals with low self-esteem actually desire the same things as those with high self-esteem; they want to be loved and to succeed. The difference lies in their expectations—high self-esteem individuals assume they will achieve these desires, while low self-esteem individuals do not.

  • This scepticism may lead them to focus more on avoiding failure rather than pursuing success, fostering a ‘muddling through’ mentality.

  • Most people do not possess extremely low self-esteem, instead, they may exhibit intermediate self-esteem, which can involve mixed or unsure self-concepts.

  • Researcher Jennifer Campbell proposed the theory of ‘self-concept confusion,’ suggesting that people with low self-esteem lack a clear understanding of themselves.

  • High self-esteem reflects a strong belief in one’s own worth, while low self-esteem indicates a lack of that belief rather than an outright negative self-assessment.

  • Those with low self-esteem often express uncertainty about their abilities and are more likely to choose ‘I don’t know’ options on self-assessment scales.

  • Individuals with low self-esteem experience confusion in their self-concept and are often more focused on protecting themselves from failure, leading to hesitation in taking risks or seeking opportunities.

  • For example, a person with low self-esteem may avoid playing chess in public due to fears of looking foolish, while someone with high self-esteem may view such an experience as a chance to showcase their skills.

  • Additionally, people with low self-esteem may be more easily swayed by others' opinions and exhibit gullibility, while those with high self-esteem display greater confidence in their judgments and persistence in the face of challenges.