Aronson 6e ch5_self

Social Psychology

Elliot AronsonUniversity of California, Santa Cruz

Timothy D. WilsonUniversity of Virginia

Robin M. AkertWellesley College

slides by Travis LangleyHenderson State University

6th edition

Chapter 5Self-Knowledge:How We Come to

Understand Ourselves

Introspection is difficult and fallible.…

The difficulty is simply that of all observation of whatever kind.

— William James, 1890

Source of image: Source: http://www.friends-serie.de/image/6022.jpg

In an early episode of the television show Friends, the character Ross faces a dilemma. In trying to choose between Rachel who has finally shown interest in him and Julie, his new girlfriend, Ross makes a list of the things he likes and dislikes about each woman, to try to clarify his thoughts.• Was it a good idea to make a list to help him understand his own feelings? • More generally, what is the nature of the self, and how do people discover it?

THE NATURE OF THE SELF

Who are you? How did you come to be this person you

call “myself”? The founder of American psychology,

William James (1842–1910), described the basic duality of our perception of self.

Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.

THE NATURE OF THE SELF• The self is composed of our thoughts and beliefs about

ourselves, or what James (1890) called the “known,” or, more simply, the “me.”

• The self is also the active processor of information, the “knower,” or “I.”

In modern terms, we refer to the known aspect of the self as the self concept, which is the content of the self (our knowledge about who we are), and to the knower aspect as self-awareness, which is the act of thinking about ourselves.

These two aspects of the self combine to create a coherent sense of identity:

• Your self is both a book (full of fascinating content collected over time) and the reader of that book (who at any moment can access a specific chapter or add a new one).

THE NATURE OF THE SELF• Studies suggest that chimps

and orangutans, and possibly dolphins, have a rudimentary self-concept.

• They realize that the image in the mirror is themselves and not another animal, and when someone alters their appearance, they recognize that they look different from how they looked before.


THE NATURE OF THE SELF• Self-recognition develops at around age 2.• As we grow older, this rudimentary self-concept

becomes more complex.• Typically, a child’s self-concept is concrete, with

references to clear-cut, easily observable characteristics like age, sex, neighborhood, and hobbies.


THE NATURE OF THE SELF• Self-recognition develops at around age 2.• As we grow older, this rudimentary self-concept

becomes more complex.• Typically, a child’s self-concept is concrete, with

references to clear-cut, easily observable characteristics like age, sex, neighborhood, and hobbies.

• As we mature, we place less emphasis on physical characteristics and more on psychological states (our thoughts and feelings) and on how other people judge us.

Functions of the SelfWhy do human adults have such a

multifaceted, complex definition of self? Researchers have found that the self

serves both:• An organizational function, and • An executive function


ORGANIZATIONAL FUNCTION OF THE SELF

Self-SchemasMental structures that people use to organize

their knowledge about themselves and that influence what they notice, think about, and remember about themselves.

ORGANIZATIONAL FUNCTION OF THE SELF

Self-SchemasMental structures that people use to organize

their knowledge about themselves and that influence what they notice, think about, and remember about themselves.

Self-Reference EffectThe tendency for people to

remember information better if they relate it to themselves.

SELF-REGULATION: THE EXECUTIVE FUNCTION

The self regulates behavior, choices, and future plans, much like a corporation’s chief executive officer.

We appear to be the only species that can:

• Imagine events that have not yet occurred, and

• Engage in long-term planning.


Consider an approach to self control called the self-regulatory resource model.

According to this model, self control is a limited resource, kind of like a muscle that gets tired with frequent use but then rebounds in strength.


To test this idea, researchers ask participants to exert self-control on one task, to see if this reduces their ability to exert control on a subsequent and completely unrelated task.

In one study, people instructed to suppress a thought (don’t think about a white bear) were worse at trying to regulate their emotions on a second task (try not to laugh while watching a comedy film), compared to people who did not first have to suppress their thoughts.


Former smokers are more likely to take up smoking again when stressed.– Dealing with stress depletes the “self resource,” such that there

is less to spend in other areas. Similarly, efforts at self-control are more likely to fail at night,

when the self resource has been depleted by a day of making choices and resisting temptations.– Dieters are more likely to break their diets at night.– People are best at self-control when they are well-rested, such

as in the morning after a good night’s sleep.


Cultural Differences in Defining the Self

In many Western cultures, people have an independent view of the self .

Independent View of the SelfA way of defining oneself in terms of one’s

own internal thoughts, feelings, and actions and not in terms of the thoughts, feelings, and actions of other people.


In many Western cultures, people have an independent view of the self .

Westerners learn to • Define themselves as quite separate

from other people, and• Value independence and uniqueness.


In contrast, many Asian and other non-Western cultures have an interdependent view of the self .

Interdependent View of the SelfA way of defining oneself in terms of one’s

relationships to other people; recognizing that one’s behavior is often determined by the thoughts, feelings, and actions of others.


In contrast, many Asian and other non-Western cultures have an interdependent view of the self .

Connectedness and interdependence between people is valued,whereas independence and uniqueness are frowned on.


The squeaky wheel gets the grease.— American proverb

The nail that stands out gets pounded down.— Japanese proverb



We do not mean to imply that every member of a Western culture has an independent view of the self and that every member of an Asian culture has an interdependent view of the self. Within cultures, there are

differences in the self-concept, and these differences are likely to increase as contact between cultures increases.


Gender Differences in Defining the Self

• Is there any truth to the stereotype that when women get together, they talk about interpersonal problems and relationships, whereas men talk about anything but their feelings (usually sports)?

• Although this stereotype of “clueless men” is clearly an exaggeration, it does have a grain of truth and reflects a difference in women’s and men’s self-concept.



• Women have more relational interdependence, meaning that they focus more on their close relationships, such as how they feel about their spouse or their child.

• Men have more collective interdependence, meaning that they focus on their memberships in larger groups, such as the fact that they are Americans or that they belong to a fraternity.



Starting in early childhood, American girls are more likely to:

• Develop intimate friendships,• Cooperate with others,• Focus their attention on social

relationships.Boys are more likely to focus on their

group memberships.



When considering gender differences such as these, we need to be cautious: The psychological differences between men and women are far fewer than the ways in which they are the same.

Nevertheless, there do appear to be differences in the way women and men define themselves in the United States, with women having a greater sense of relational interdependence than men.


Knowing Ourselves through Introspection

IntrospectionThe process whereby people look inward and examine

their own thoughts, feelings, and motives.


Knowing Ourselves through Introspection

IntrospectionThe process whereby people look inward and examine

their own thoughts, feelings, and motives.

(1) People do not rely on this source of information as often as you might think.

(2) Even when people do introspect, the reasons for their feelings and behavior can be hidden from conscious awareness.


Focusing on the Self: Self-Awareness Theory

Self-Awareness TheoryThe idea that when people focus their attention on

themselves, they evaluate and compare their behavior to their internal standards and values.



• Sometimes people go far in their attempt to escape the self.

• Such diverse activities as alcohol abuse, binge eating, and sexual masochism have one thing in common: All are ways of turning off the internal spotlight on oneself.

• Getting drunk, for example, is one way of avoiding negative thoughts about oneself (at least temporarily).

• The fact that people regularly engage in such dangerous behaviors, despite their risks, is an indication of how aversive self-focus can be.


Self-focus is not always damaging or aversive.

• If you have just experienced a major success, focusing on yourself can be pleasant.

• Self-focus can also be a way of keeping you out of trouble, by reminding you of your sense of right and wrong.

Judging Why We Feel the Way We Do: Telling More than We Can Know

Even when we are self-aware and introspect to our heart’s content, it can be difficult to know why we feel the way we do.

• What is it about your sweetheart that made you fall in love?

• How much does sleep affect your state of mind?• What really determines what mood you’re in?

Judging Why We Feel the Way We Do: Telling More than We Can Know

Causal TheoriesTheories about the causes of one’s own

feelings and behaviors; often we learn such theories from our culture.

e.g.: “Absence makes the heart grow fonder.”

The problem is that our schemas and theories are not always correct and thus can lead to incorrect judgments about the causes of our actions.

The Consequences of Introspecting about Reasons

Tim Wilson and his colleagues have found that analyzing the reasons for our feelings is not always the best strategy and in fact can make matters worse.

When people list reasons why they feel as they do about their romantic partners, they often change their attitudes toward their partners, at least temporarily.

Why? It is difficult to dissect the exact causes of our romantic

feelings, so we latch on to reasons that sound good and that happen to be on our minds.


Reasons-Generated Att itude ChangeAttitude change resulting from thinking about the reasons

for one’s attitudes; people assume their attitudes match the reasons that are plausible and easy to verbalize.

Remember the Friends episode we mentioned in which Ross makes a list of reasons for his feelings toward Rachel and Julie?

As in the research studies, Ross found it easiest to verbalize reasons that did not match his feelings.

Although he loved Rachel, he seemed unable to explain why, so he wrote things like “She’s just a waitress” and “She’s a little ditzy.”


If people base an important decision on their reasons-generated attitude (“Hmm, maybe my partner and I don’t have much of a future”), they might regret it later, when their original feelings return.

Several studies have found that the attitudes people express after analyzing their reasons do not predict their future attitudes and behavior very well.

KNOWING OURSELVES BY OBSERVING OUR OWN BEHAVIOR

Self-Perception TheoryThe theory that when our attitudes and feelings

are uncertain or ambiguous, we infer these states by observing our behavior and the situation in which it occurs.

1. We infer our inner feelings from our behavior only when we are not sure how we feel.

2. People judge whether their behavior really reflects how they feel or whether it was the situation that made them act that way.

Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Motivation

Intr insic MotivationThe desire to engage in an activity because

we enjoy it or find it interesting, not because of external rewards or pressures.

Extrinsic MotivationThe desire to engage in an activity because

of external reasons, not because we enjoy the task or find it interesting.

Source of image: http://www.congregationalbert.org/2000/2000-03/2000-03bbc.htm



Many teachers or parents reward kids for good grades with compliments, candy, gold stars, or toys.

Several years ago, Mel Steely, a professor at West Georgia College, started a program called Earning by Learning in which low-income children were offered $2 for every book they read.



But people are not rats, and we have to consider the effects of rewards on what’s inside—people’s thoughts about:

• Themselves,• Their self-concept, and• Their motivation to read in the future. The danger of reward programs is that kids will

begin to think they are reading to earn money, not because they find reading to be an enjoyable activity in its own right.



But people are not rats, and we have to consider the effects of rewards on what’s inside—people’s thoughts about

• themselves• their self-concept• their motivation to read in the future. The danger of reward programs is that kids will

begin to think they are reading to earn money, not because they find reading to be an enjoyable activity in its own right.

Overjustif ication EffectThe tendency of people to view their

behavior as caused by compelling extrinsic reasons, making them underestimate the extent to which it was caused by intrinsic reasons.

Overjustif ication EffectThe tendency of people to view their

behavior as caused by compelling extrinsic reasons, making them underestimate the extent to which it was caused by intrinsic reasons.

PRESERVING INTRINSIC INTEREST

Fortunately, there are conditions under which overjustification effects can be avoided.

1. Rewards will undermine interest only if interest was initially high.If a child has no interest in reading, getting him or her read by offering free pizza is not a bad idea because there is not initial interest to undermine.


Fortunately, there are conditions under which overjustification effects can be avoided.

1. Rewards will undermine interest only if interest was initially high.

2. The type of reward makes a difference.Performance-contingent rewards might do better than task-contingent rewards.


Task-Contingent RewardsRewards that are given for performing a

task, regardless of how well the task is done.

Performance-Contingent RewardsRewards that are based on how well we

perform a task.

Understanding Our Emotions: The Two-Factor Theory of EmotionConsider how happy, angry, or afraid you feel

at any given time. How do you know which emotion you are

experiencing? This question probably sounds kind of silly;

don’t we know how we feel without having to think about it?

The way in which we experience emotions, however, has a lot in common with the kinds of self-perception processes we have been discussing.

Understanding Our Emotions: The Two-Factor Theory of EmotionStanley Schachter (1964) proposed a

theory of emotion that says we infer what our emotions are in the same way that we infer what kind of person we are or how interested we are in math games:

In each case, we observe our behavior and then explain why we are behaving that way.

The only difference is in the kind of behavior we observe.

Understanding Our Emotions: The Two-Factor Theory of EmotionTwo-Factor Theory of EmotionSchachter’s idea that emotional experience

is the result of a two-step self-perception process in which people:

1. Experience physiological arousal, and then

2. Seek an appropriate explanation for it.

Understanding Our Emotions: The Two-Factor Theory of EmotionAn implication of Schachter’s theory is that

people’s emotions are somewhat arbitrary, depending on what the most plausible explanation for their arousal happens to be.

Schachter and Singer (1962) demonstrated this idea in two ways:

1. They prevented people from becoming angry by providing a nonemotional explanation for why they felt aroused.

2. They could make participants experience a very different emotion by changing the most plausible explanation for their arousal.

Finding the Wrong Cause: Misattribution of Arousal

To what extent do the results found by Schachter and Singer (1962) generalize to everyday life?

Do people form mistaken emotions in the same way as participants in that study did?

In everyday life, one might argue, people usually know why they are aroused.

Finding the Wrong Cause: Misattribution of Arousal

Misattribution of ArousalThe process whereby people make

mistaken inferences about what is causing them to feel the way they do.

Residual arousal from one source (e.g., caffeine, exercise, a fright) can enhance the intensity of how the person interprets other feelings (e.g., attraction to someone).

Interpreting the Social World: Appraisal Theories of Emotion

Appraisal Theories of EmotionTheories holding that emotions result from people’s

interpretations and explanations of events, even in the absence of physiological arousal.

Two kinds of appraisals are especially important: (1) Do you think an event has good or bad implications

for you?(2) How do explain what caused the event?

Interpreting the Social World: Appraisal Theories of Emotion

Schachter’s theory and cognitive appraisal theories differ on the role of arousal, but are not incompatible.

When aroused and not certain where this arousal comes from, how people explain the arousal determines their emotional reaction (Schachter’s two-factor theory).

When not aroused, how people interpret and explain an event determines their emotional reaction (cognitive appraisal theories).

USING OTHER PEOPLE TO KNOW OURSELVES

Social contact is crucial to the development of a self-concept.


Knowing Ourselves by Comparing Ourselves to Others

How do we use others to define ourselves? One way is to measure our own abilities and

attitudes by seeing how we stack up against other people.

• If you donate $50 to charity and find out your friend Sue donates $10, you can feel generous.

• If you find out Sue donated $100, you might not feel like you’ve been generous.


Social Comparison TheoryThe idea that we learn about our own

abilities and attitudes by comparing ourselves to other people.

The theory revolves around two important questions:

(1) When do you engage in social comparison? (2) With whom do you choose to compare

yourself?


(1) When do you engage in social comparison?– When there is no objective standard to

measure themselves against and when they experience some uncertainty about themselves in a particular area.Example: If your office donation program is new and you are not sure what amount would be generous, you are especially likely to compare yourself to others.


(2) With whom do you choose to compare yourself? – People’s initial impulse is to compare

themselves with anyone who is around.– This initial comparison occurs quickly and

automatically.

Knowing Ourselves by Comparing Ourselves to OthersIf we want to know the

top level to which we can aspire, we engage in upward social comparison: comparing ourselves to people who are better than we are on a particular ability.

You’ll feel better about yourself if you engage in downward social comparison:comparing yourself to people who are worse than you on a particular trait or ability.

Knowing Ourselves by Adopting Other People’s Views

Charles Cooley (1902) described the “looking glass self,” by which he meant that we see ourselves and the social world through the eyes of other people and often adopt those views.


Knowing Ourselves by Adopting Other People’s Views

Social TuningThe process whereby people adopt

another person's attitudes.


IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT: ALL THE WORLD’S A STAGE

Impression ManagementThe attempt by people to get others to

see them as they want to be seen.

People have many impression management strategies.

IngratiationThe process whereby people flatter, praise,

and generally try to make themselves likable to another person, often of higher status.



Impression ManagementThe attempt by people to get others to

see them as they want to be seen.

People have many impression management strategies.

IngratiationThe process whereby people flatter, praise, and

generally try to make themselves likable to another person, often of higher status.

Self-HandicappingThe strategy whereby people create obstacles and

excuses for themselves so that if they do poorly on a task, they can avoid blaming themselves.

Self-HandicappingThe strategy whereby people create obstacles and

excuses for themselves so that if they do poorly on a task, they can avoid blaming themselves.



There are two major ways in which people self-handicap. 1. People may create obstacles that reduce the likelihood

they will succeed on a task so that if they do fail, they can blame it on these obstacles rather than on their lack of ability – drugs, alcohol, reduced effort on the task, and failure to prepare. Example: pulling an all-nighter before a test.

2. People devise ready-made excuses in case they fail – blaming shyness, test anxiety, bad moods, physical symptoms, and adverse events from their past.Example: complaining about not feeling well when you take a test.


Culture, Impression Management, and Self-Enhancement

Self-EnhancementThe tendency to focus on and present positive

information about oneself and to minimize negative information .

The desire to manage the image we present to others is strong in all cultures, though the kinds of images we want to present depend on the culture in which we live.

Social Psychology

Elliot AronsonUniversity of California, Santa Cruz

Timothy D. WilsonUniversity of Virginia

Robin M. AkertWellesley College

slides by Travis LangleyHenderson State University

6th edition

Date post:	13-Jul-2015
Category:	Education
Upload:	mrkramek
View:	231 times
Download:	3 times

Aronson 6e ch5_self

Education