Transcript Document 7217922

The Self
Self-concept
• Self-concept – knowledge and thoughts
related to who you think you are.
– Personal attributes
– Social roles
– Group memberships
• Self-esteem – how you feel about yourself
in general.
Cognitive Views of Self
• Self-schemas – generalizations about your
most important characteristics.
– Information processing
– Evaluation of others
• Self-reference effect – information related
to oneself is easier to remember.
The self-reference effect.
• Step 1: Participants make yes/no
judgments about target words.
– Conditions:
• Structural properties – is kind
in lowercase letters?
• Phonemic properties – does
kind rhyme with mind?
• Semantic properties – does
kind mean the same as nice?
• Self-relevance – does kind
describe you?
• Step 2: Surprise recall – write
down as many of the adjectives
you just rated as you can
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
recall
0.1
0.05
0
SelfSemantic Phonemic Structural
reference
Cognitive views of self
• Working self-concept – the portion of the
self that is accessible at the moment.
– Distinctiveness principle – people are likely to
describe themselves in ways that distinguish
them from others in the social situation
Major Influences on Self-Concept
• Culture
– Individualist vs. collectivist
• Research findings
• Self-perception
Bem’s SP theory: when internal cues are difficult to
interpret, people gain self-insight by observing
their own behavior.
– Emotions
– Motivation
Self-Perception Theory
No external reward
Self-perception: “I do
this because I like it.”
Intrinsic
Motivation
Enjoyable
activities
External
reward (e.g., $)
Self-perception:
“I do this
because I’m
paid to.”
Extrinsic
Motivation
Major influences on Self-Concept
3. Social comparison
• Festinger’s SC theory:
– In the absence of objective information,
people compare to others.
– People prefer to compare with similar others,
but also have an upward drive.
Testing the Similarity Hypothesis: Rank
Order Paradigm
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
19
??
??
12  You
??
??
7
• Which score would
you like to see?
Social Comparison
• Upward social comparison – compare to
someone who is better than you.
• Downward social comparison – compare
to someone who is worse than you.
• Contrast effect – self is contrasted to the
target of comparison and thus selfevaluations move away from the target.
Social Comparison
• Assimilation effect- Self-evaluations move
towards the target of comparison.
– Assimilation is likely to occur when:
• You can see yourself reaching the same level as
the comparison target.
• You are similar to the target
Lockwood & Kunda (1997)
9
8.8
8.6
8.4
8.2
8
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.2
No Target
Star Target
First Year
Accounting
Students
Fourth Year
Accounting
Students
Self and Motivation
• Self-Evaluation Motives:
• Self-enhancement – people want to feel good
•
•
•
about themselves.
Accuracy – people want valid info about
themselves
Self-verification – people want info that is
consistent with how they view themselves
Self-improvement – people want to get better
Swann et al. (1987)
Method
• Participants were high or low in social SE
• Task: read a passage from a book while
evaluator watches
• Evaluator gives favorable or unfavorable
feedback.
• Participants rate the evaluator and their
current mood.
Swann et al.
• Favorable feedback condition: “This person
•
seems socially self-confident. He probably feels
comfortable around others he doesn’t know very
well. He seems to have little doubt about his
social competence”.
Unfavorable feedback condition: “This person
doesn’t seem socially self-confident. He probably
feels somewhat anxious and uncomfortable
around others he doesn’t know very well. He
seems to have doubts about his social
competence”.
Swann et al. (1987)
Results
Affect
Affect (high numbers = more positive
affect)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Favorable
Unfavorable
High SE
Low SE
Social Self-Esteem
Swann et al. (1987)
Results
Ratings of the accuracy of the evaluation
Accuracy rating
35
30
25
20
Favorable
15
Unfavorable
10
5
0
High SE
Low SE
Social Self-Esteem
Self-Regulation
• A control mechanism used by individuals
to match behavior to standards or goals.
Feedback loops:
– Example: Goal is 7 min. mile
Comparator
Current State
Output Function
Effect on env.
Effect of self-efficacy and self-focus:
• High self-efficacy – self-awareness leads
to more persistence.
• Low self-efficacy – self awareness leads
to less persistence.
Psychic demonstration
B
U
J
P
C
D
O
M
L
T
Psychic demonstration
B
U
J
P
C
D
O
M
L
T
B
O
J
L
C
Self Esteem
• Disclaimer: This is not a lecture about how
to help people with low self-esteem
Rosenberg Self–Esteem scale
(1965)
• 1. I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on
an equal plane with others.
• 2. I feel that I have a number of good qualities
• 3. All in all I am inclined to feel that I am a
failure.
Choices: 1 strongly agree
2 agree
3 disagree
4 strongly disagree
Compared to other college students of the
same class level and sex as yourself, how
would you rate yourself on the following
characteristics?
1 = considerably well below average
5 = average
9 = considerably well above average
_1.leadership ability _2.athletic ability
_3.tolerance
_4.energy level
• Compared to other students of your sex at
your college, what do you think are the
chances that the following health problems
will trouble you at some point in the future?
• -3 = much below average
• 0 = average
• +3 = much above average
• _1. arthritis
• _3. alcoholism
_2. suicide
_4. lung cancer
Unrealistic Optimism – Class Data
Variable
Mean
Arthritis
Suicide
Pneumonia
.21
-2.07**
-.54**
Overweight (>40 lbs)
Laryngitis
Alcoholism
-.75*
0
-.79**
Killed in an auto accident
Lung Cancer
.11
-.64*
* = p < .10, ** = p < .05
Explaining the Better than
Average Effect
• Self-Enhancement – people want to feel
good about themselves
• Egocentrism – people focus on their own
skill level rather than other people’s skills
• Metacognitive deficit – people who are
unskilled are unable to accurately evaluate
their ability
Above-Average Effects in the College Board Survey
by Domain Difficulty
Ability
Domain Difficulty
% rating themselves
“above average”
Leadership
4.1
70
Mathematics
4.1
57
Creative writing
4.2
56
Science
4.5
52
Organizing For Work
4.6
69
Music
4.8
44
Athletics
5.1
60
Art
5.1
39
Sales
5.3
50
“Unskilled and unaware of it” Kruger &
Dunning (1999)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
B
o
4
th
e
Q
u
a
rt
il
e
il
rt
u
a
Q
3
rd
Q
d
n
2
tt
o
m
Q
u
u
a
a
rt
rt
il
il
e
e
Perceived
Ability
Perceived
Test Score
Actual Test
Score
Evidence for Positive Illusions
• Self-esteem scales
• Better-than-average effect
• Unrealistic optimism for future life events
• Illusion of control over events that are
uncontrollable
How do people maintain such
favorable self- views?
• Self-serving attributions
• The Genius Effect
40
35
30
25
Perceptual 20
Intelligence
Observers' Ratings
Subjects' Ratings
15
10
5
0
Ratings of
Subject
Ratings of
Confederate
Self-Handicapping
Self-handicapping – Undermining
performance so that one has a handy
excuse for failure or a boost to self esteem
in the event of success
Berglas & Jones’ Study
• Cover story: study of drugs and intellectual
•
•
•
performance.
Contingent Success Condition: intellectual test
was tailored so that all subjects performed well.
Non-contingent Success Condition: intellectual
test contained mostly unsolvable items.
All subjects were given favorable feedback.
Choice of Drug
• Actavil facilitates intellectual performance.
• Pandocrin inhibits intellectual performance.
• 10mg 7.5mg 5mg 2.5mg 0 2.5mg 5mg 7.5mg 10mg
Actavil
Pandocrin
Berglas & Jones’ Results
% choosing
Pandocrin
Contingent
Success
Non-Contingent
Success
Male
13%
70%
Female
26%
40%