Transcript The self—chapter 5—all three sets

Chapter 5: The self
Some “great debates” in the
history of research on the self
Unstable/malleable
multidimensional
Unconscious relatively
unimportant
Stable/fixed
unidimensional
Large role of unconscious
Some important aspects of the self that
one might want to capture in a theory

The self as library (memory storehouse)
– Long term memory
– Computer metaphor: hard disk memory

The “on-line” self
– Awareness
– Working memory
– Computer metaphor (again): RAM


Goal-setting/planning
Malleability
– Context-sensitivity

The self (potentially) “at war” with itself
– E.g., Balancing short desires with long-term goals
Contrasting conceptualizations of
the self
Three “multidimensional” views of
the self

William James (1842-1910)
– The known—”Me”
 Repository of beliefs about self
– The active knower—”I”
 Active processor of information

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)
– ID
– EGO

Tory Higgins (contemporary)
– SUPEREGO

Actual self
Ought self
Ideal self
Empirical support



–
–
Actual vs. ideal discrepancies—depressed
Actual vs. ought discrepancies—agitation
Recent “executive control” theories
(e.g. Baumeister & Voss, 2003)
Emphasis on self-regulation, impulse
control
 Localization in brain?

– Pre-frontal cortex
 Appears to be involved in:
– goal-setting
– self-regulation
– Phineas Gage
Self and control

People have a strong drive for control over
their environment
– Reactance theory (Brehm, 1966)
– Illusions of control


Lottery ticket valuation (Langer, 1975)
Detecting contingencies in behavior (Alloy &
Abrahamson (1979)
– Self efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977)
– When control actually taken away…(long term)

Learned helplessness (Seligman, 1975)
Self control as a finite (limited) resource

Baumeister et al. (2000)
– Metaphor: self-control as a “muscle”
– Suppressing urges in one domain uses energy, leads to
depleted resources in totally different domain.

Example:
First task
Resist cookies
Don’t think about white bear
Control (no suppression)
Second task
Try not to laugh
during movie
Baumeister et al. (2000),
continued

Research could explain
– Relapses among former smokers when stressed
– Self-regulatory failures more likely in evening

Vohs et al. (2001)
– Ss asked either to decide between two products
vs. merely indicate how often they used them

Self-regulation failures more likely in decision condition
Cultural and Gender Differences
in the Definition of “Self”

Gabriel and Gardner (1999)
– “Describe either a positive or negative event in
your life”
In the Spotlight: On the Consequences
of Self-Awareness
The “adherence to standards” effect (Duval &
Wicklund, 1972)
 But self awareness can have adverse/negative
consequences too.

– Legend of Narcissus by Ovid (Roman poet)
– “Escape from the Self” (Baumeister, 1991)

Adaptive vs. maladaptive approaches
– “The Curse of the Self” (Leary, 2004)

On the potential costs of “self obsession”
– Depression, anxiety
“Telling More than We Can Know:
Verbal Reports on Mental Processes”
(Nisbett & Wilson, 1977)
General claim: People are remarkably poor at introspection
• accuracy of inferring/assessing internal states
• knowing the actual reasons for our behavior.
Introspection and causal theories






The more sleep I get, the better I feel
Sunny days put me in a good mood
Using a cell phone won’t affect my reaction time while
driving a car
The gender of another person won’t affect my evaluation of
them (i.e. I am not sexist)
The race of another person is irrelevant to whether I like
them or not.
“I love her/him because _______”
The Nisbett and Wilson (1977) thesis
pre-existing causal theories
often easy to access
Queries about mental states
actual mental states
often difficult to access
Evidence?

What factors determine whether you are
in a relatively good or bad mood?
– Wilson, Laser, & Stone (1982)
Nisbett & Wilson (1977)—the “distraction” study
Participants watch film under two
conditions: No distraction vs. Distraction
 Two questions:

– How did the noise actually influence
ratings (objective influence)
– How do people think the noise influence
ratings (subjective influence)
Results:
+
Objective influence—actual rated enjoyment of
film by participants in distraction condition
No
distraction
distraction
But when these participants were asked how the distraction
might have influenced ratings these participants subjectively
believed that it decreased their enjoyment.
But they were wrong!
Rebuttal to the Nisbett and Wilson
thesis—are people really that clueless?
vs.

Smith & Miller, 1978
– Studies have often focused on mundane
influences
– People have no basis for comparison
– Analyses often based on averaging across
participants
– Theory hard to falsify
Additional research on difficulty
of accurate introspection
1. Affective forecasting
2. Self-perception theory (Bem, 1972)
3. Perceptions of our own emotions
1. Affective forecasting











Exactly how would you feel—and how long would
you feel that way--if you……
Valence
found a ten dollar bill lying on the sidewalk?
won two million dollars in the Missouri lottery?
Intensity
got an A+ on the social psychology exam?
Duration
fell in love?
won the Nobel prize?
suddenly went blind?
found out your significant other was dating someone else?
got a divorce from someone you once loved?
discovered you were genetically at risk for cancer?
found out that you tested positive for HIV?
were sent to a concentration camp?
General findings from this literature
People often think that their emotion reactions will be
more extreme, and last longer, than is really the case.
Assistant professors and tenure decisions
Relationship outcomes
Loss/death of close others
Election outcomes
Student’s feelings after exams
Buheler & MacFarland (2001)

Predicted vs. actual emotional experiences
 General methodology
Buheler & MacFarland (2001)
predicted
experienced
7.46
6.85
above
5.54
5.19
expected
2.47 3.06
below
Nature of Actual Performance Relative to Expectations
Why do you get these effects?





Misconstrual
Inaccurate theories
Motivated distortions.
Underestimation of emotional defense
(survival) skills
“Focalism”
+ -
+
Other mundane events
of everyday-life
-
Focal event (+)
+
-
+
2. Self Perception Theory
Self-perception theory (Bem, 1972)
“Individuals come to “know” their own attitudes, emotions
and other internal states partially by inferring them from
observations of their own overt behavior and/or the
circumstances in which this behavior occurs.
Thus, to the extent that internal cues are weak,
ambiguous, or uninterpretable, the individual is
functionally in the same position as an outside observer,
an observer who must necessarily rely upon those same
external cues to infer the individual’s internal states. “

Valins (1966): The bogus feedback study
Overjustification effects

Ubiquitous “reward systems” in the
educational system, and elsewhere
– E.g. read a book, “earn” a pizza

Unfortunately, there is a downside– Receiving rewards  changes in self-perception


E.g. person thinks: I’m doing X for the reward, not out of
my own intrinsic interest
Problem arise when rewards cease (e.g., Greene,
Sternberg, & Lepper, 1976)
Understanding (perception of)
emotions
Perceptions of emotions:
Schacter’s two-factor model
Emphasizes the malleability of
subjective, emotional experiences
 “A + C = E”
 Arousal  cognitive interpretation 
subjective experience of emotion

Design of Schacter &
Singer (1962) study
Behavior of
confederate
Placebo (H2O)
angry
No effect
euphoric No effect
Epinephrine—no
explanation
Epinephrine-explanation
angry
No effect
euphoric
No effect
Misattribution of
emotion/affect

Dutton and Aron (1974)—the scary bridge,
attractive confederate study
 Schwarz and Clore (1983)—the weather
study
No reference
sunny
cloudy
+
--
Indirect reference Direct reference
+
+
+
+
Introspection about abilities
Construal of abilities, like
emotions/attitudes, are often
“constructed” on the spot, depending on
external cues in our environment
 How does this occur?

– Social comparison
Social comparison (Festinger, 1954)

When do you engage in S.C.?
– High uncertainty, no objective standard

With whom to you engage in S.C.?
– Depends on your motive/goal you have in
mind

There are TWO motives
– To gain knowledge (skill—based needs)
– To feel better (evaluative-based needs)

The need for valuable knowledge– Generally speaking, upward comparison
better here

The need to feel good about yourself
– Often, downward comparison serves this
need

A different type of social comparsion
– Present vs. past
Impression management
Basic principles
 Conceptual and methodological
challenges

– Is there such thing as a “real self” How
would you know what is real, and what
isn’t? Who decides?
David Duke
“White people don't need a law against rape, but
if you fill this room up with your normal black
bucks, you would, because n____ are basically
primitive animals.”
—The Sun (Wichita, Kan.), April 23, 1975
“I don’t call myself a white
supremacist,” “I’m a civil rights
activist concerned about EuropeanAmerican rights.”
Early 1970s
1980s
1963:
I draw the line in the dust and
toss the gauntlet before the feet of
tyranny, and I say segregation now,
segregation tomorrow, segregation
forever!
--Georgia Governor George Wallace
1982: After a four-year political hiatus, Wallace returns
to the Governor's Mansion, defeating his opponent easily,
largely with the help of the majority black vote. During what
would be Wallace's final term as governor, he appoints a
record number of black Alabamians to government positions
and establishes the so-called Wallace Coalition, which
included the Alabama Education Association, organized
labor, black political organizations, and trial lawyers.
Wallace addresses the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference and pronounces his past stand on segregation in
the schools "wrong."