Cognitive Representations of the Self PDF

Cognitive Representations of the Self 383 Trait concepts, such as independence or friendliness, can also be part of your self-schema. That is, you might think of yourself as a friendly person. If that is the case, you frequently evaluate your behavior by asking yourself, “Was that a friendly thing...

Cognitive Representations of the Self 383 Trait concepts, such as independence or friendliness, can also be part of your self-schema. That is, you might think of yourself as a friendly person. If that is the case, you frequently evaluate your behavior by asking yourself, “Was that a friendly thing to do?” However, it might never occur to me to evaluate my actions in terms of friendliness. In this example, friendliness is a feature of your self-schema, but not mine. Because the elements that constitute self-schemas vary from person to person, we process information about ourselves differently. And because of these individual differences in self-schemas, we behave differently. In one study, elementary school children with prosocial as a part of their self-schemas were more likely to give valuable tokens to others than children who did not include prosocial as part of their self-concepts (Froming, Nasby, & McManus, 1998). In another investigation, men and women whose self-schemas included sexuality reported higher levels of sexual desire and stronger romantic attachments than those whose self-schemas did not include sexuality (Andersen, Cyranowski, & Espindle, 1999; Cyranowski & Andersen, 2000). One team of researchers found that Latino Americans were more likely than White Americans to include simpatico (an interpersonal style emphasizing hospitality and graciousness) in their self-schemas (Holloway, Waldrip, & Ickes, 2009). Participants with simpatico as part of their self-schema were found to interact with others in a warmer, more engaged style. But how do psychologists determine what a person’s self-schema looks like? Although examining something as abstract as self-schemas presents a challenge, cognitive personality researchers have developed some creative procedures to test their hypotheses. Essentially, these psychologists look at how people perceive and use information presented to them. For example, answer the following question yes or no: Are you a competitive person? When faced with this question on a personality inventory, some people answer immediately and decisively, whereas others have to pause to think about what it means to be competitive and whether they possess those qualities. In taking the various personality tests in this book, you probably found some items were easy to answer and some for which you simply couldn’t make up your mind. According to a self-schema analysis, the items that were easy to answer are those for which you have a well-defined schema. People who say yes immediately when asked if they are competitive have a strong competitiveness schema as part of their self-schema. We might also say that competitiveness is component of their self-schema. This structure allows these individuals to understand the question, retrieve relevant information, and respond immediately. People without a strong competitiveness schema are unable to process the information as quickly. Much of the early research on self-schemas was based on this reasoning. Participants in one study were classified as possessing either a strong independence schema or a strong dependence schema or as aschematic (Markus, 1977). Later, these participants were presented with a series of adjectives on a computer screen. Their task was to press either a ME or a NOT ME button to indicate whether the adjective described them. Fifteen of the adjectives were related to independence (e.g., individualistic, outspoken) and 15 to dependence (e.g., conforming, submissive). As Figure 15.3 shows, people with strong independence schemas pressed the ME button quickly on the independence-related adjectives but took longer to respond on the Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 384 Chapter 15 / The Cognitive Approach Words Judged Self-Descriptive Latency in Seconds 3.0 2.5 2.0 Dependent Adjectives Independent Adjectives Words Judged Not Self-Descriptive Latency in Seconds 3.0 2.5 2.0 Dependent Adjectives Independent Adjectives Participants: Dependents Aschematics Independents Figure 15.3 Mean Response Latencies for Adjectives Source: From “Self-schemata and processing information about the self,” by H. Markus, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, 35, 63–78. Reprinted by permission of the American Psychological Association. dependence-related adjectives. Participants with strong dependence schemas responded in the opposite pattern. Aschematics showed no difference in making these judgments for any of the words. In addition to allowing for rapid processing of schema-relevant information, self-schemas provide a framework for organizing and storing this information. Consequently, we would expect people to retrieve information from memory more readily when they have a strong schema for a topic than when the information is stored in a less organized manner. To test this hypothesis, researchers presented college students with a series of 40 questions on a computer screen (Rogers, Kuiper, & Kirker, 1977). Participants answered each question by pressing a YES or a NO button as quickly as possible. Thirty of the questions were written so that people could answer easily without using their self-schemas to process the information. For these questions, Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Cognitive Representations of the Self 385 participants simply answered whether a word was printed in big letters, whether it rhymed with another word, or whether it meant the same thing as another word. However, for 10 questions, participants had to decide whether the word described them. That is, they had to process the information through their self-schemas. What the participants were not told was that afterward they would be asked to recall as many of the 40 words as possible. As shown in Figure 15.4, when participants answered questions about themselves, they were more likely to remember the information than when the question was processed in other ways. The researchers point to this finding as evidence for a self-schema. When asked whether a word describes them, participants processed the question through their self-schemas. Because information in our self-schemas is easy to access, the self-referent words were easier to remember than those not processed through self-schemas. But might this finding be explained in other ways? Could it be that the self-referent question was simply harder than the other questions, thus causing participants to think about it more? Apparently not. When people are asked if a word describes a celebrity—a question that also requires some thinking—they don’t recall the words as well as when they are asked about themselves (Lord, 1980). This self-reference effect has been found in a large number of investigations using a wide variety of memory material (Klein, 2012; Symons & Johnson, 1997). Researchers also find that we often relate new information we encounter to something about ourselves. For example, when a friend tells you she went to Paris, you might think of your own visit to Paris. Moreover, information processed in this self-related manner Number of Words Recalled 3 2 1 Big letters? Rhymes with? Means same as? Describes you? Figure 15.4 Mean Number of Words Recalled as a Function of Cue Question Source: From Rogers et al. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 677–688. Reprinted by permission of the American Psychological Association. Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 386 Chapter 15 / The Cognitive Approach should be more readily accessible in memory than information we are unable to relate to ourselves. To test this possibility, one team of researchers asked undergraduates to list some of their friends’ birthdays (Kesebir & Oishi, 2010). The students were significantly more likely to remember a friend’s birthday when that birthday was close to their own. That is, if you and your friend both have birthdays in November, you are more likely to recall that friend’s birthday than if your friend had been born in April. Possible Selves Suppose two college students, Denise and Carlos, receive an identical poor grade in a course on deductive logic and argumentation. Neither of them is pleased with the grade, but Denise quickly dismisses it as a bad semester, whereas Carlos frets about the grade for weeks. Denise turns her attention to the next term, but Carlos looks over his final exam several times and thinks about taking another course in this area. Although many explanations can be suggested to account for the two students’ different reactions, a key piece of information may be that Carlos is thinking about going to law school and becoming a trial attorney, but Denise is not. A negative evaluation of his deductive logic and argumentation skills means something quite different to Carlos than it does to Denise. Our behavior is directed not only by cognitive representations of the way we think of ourselves at the moment, but also by representations of what we might become. You might think about a future self with a lot of friends, with a medical degree, or with a physically fit body. Psychologists refer to these images as our possible selves (Markus & Nurius, 1986; Ruvolo & Markus, 1992; Vignoles, Manzi, Regalia, Jemmolo, & Scabini, 2008). Possible selves are cognitive representations of the kind of person we might become someday. These include roles and occupations we aspire to, such as police officer or community leader, as well as the roles we fear we might fall into, such as alcoholic or divorced parent. Possible selves also include the attributes we think we might possess in the future, such as being a warm and loving person, an overworked and underappreciated employee, or a contributor to society. In a sense, possible selves represent our dreams and aspirations as well as our fears and anxieties. Like other personality constructs, possible selves are fairly stable over time (Frazier, Hooker, Johnson, & Kaus, 2000; Morfei, Hooker, Fiese, & Cordeiro, 2001). Possible selves serve two important functions (Markus & Nurius, 1986). First, they provide incentives for future behavior. When making decisions, we ask ourselves whether a choice will take us closer to or further away from one of our future selves. A woman might enter an MBA program because this decision moves her closer to becoming her powerful business executive possible self. A man might stop seeing old friends if he thinks the association could lead him to the criminal self he fears he might become. The second function of possible selves is to help us interpret the meaning of our behavior and the events in our lives. A man with a professional baseball pitcher possible self will attach a very different meaning to an arm injury than someone who does not think of himself this way. A woman with a possible self of cancer patient will react differently to small changes in her health than someone without this cognitive representation. In other words, we pay more attention to and have a stronger emotional reaction to events that are relevant to our possible selves. Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Application: Cognitive (Behavior) Psychotherapy 387 Because possible selves guide many of our choices and reactions, they can be useful in predicting future behavior. Researchers have used measures of possible selves to look at such varied behaviors as binge drinking (Quinlan, Jaccard, & Blanton, 2006), academic performance (Oyserman et al., 2006; Oyserman, Johnson, & James, 2011), weight loss (Granberg, 2006), and adherence to an exercise program (­Ouellette, ­Hessling, Gibbons, Reis-Bergan, & Gerrard, 2005). Other research has tied possible selves to problem behaviors. One team of investigators examined possible selves in juvenile delinquents (Oyserman & Markus, 1990; Oyserman & Saltz, 1993). Significantly, more than one-third of the juvenile delinquents had developed a criminal possible self. In addition, very few of these adolescents possessed possible selves for more conventional goals, such as having a job. Because possible selves are indicative of our goals, fears, and aspirations, we should not be surprised if many of these youthful offenders were to become adult criminals. Researchers also find gender differences in the possible selves of young men and young women. In particular, female high school and college students are less likely than males to see themselves in traditionally masculine roles in the future. University women are less likely than men to have a possible self that includes a career in a math, science, or business (Lips, 2004). Male students are less likely than women to see themselves in careers related to arts, culture, and communication. However, research also points to solutions for these gender discrepancies. High school girls who have female friends interested in science and who receive encouragement from their peers are more likely to develop a scientist possible self (Buday, Stake, & Peterson, 2012; Stake & Nickens, 2005). Same-gender role models also help. High school girls who see women scientists and business leaders are more likely to incorporate these occupations into their possible selves. People are more optimistic about reaching their hoped-for occupation when they know someone similar to themselves who is already in that position (Robinson, Davis, & Meara, 2003). Application: Cognitive (Behavior) Psychotherapy T he increased attention given to cognitive structures by personality researchers in recent years has been paralleled by the growing popularity of cognitive approaches to psychotherapy. As described in Chapter 13, today many therapists combine cognitive approaches to therapy with procedures from traditional behavioral therapies. But whether they call themselves cognitive therapists or cognitive-behavior therapists, each identifies inappropriate thoughts as a cause of mood disorders and self-defeating behavior. People become anxious and depressed because they harbor anxiety-provoking and depressing thoughts. Consequently, the goal of most cognitive therapies is to help clients recognize inappropriate thoughts and replace them with more appropriate ones. For example, imagine a man who suffers from intense social anxiety (Chapter 8). A cognitive therapist might explore the kinds of thoughts the man tells himself when he anticipates a social encounter. These thoughts most likely include statements like, “I don’t know why I’m going to this dumb party. No one ever wants to talk with me. And when they do, I usually sound awkward and stupid.” In other words, this man has Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 388 Chapter 15 / The Cognitive Approach “The best scientist is one who approaches his subject [as] intimately as a clinician … and the best clinician is one who invites his client to join him in a controlled investigation of life.” set himself up to fail. At the first awkward moment, he will conclude that things are going as poorly as anticipated, and all the nervousness and embarrassment he dreads are likely to follow. A cognitive therapist might help the man to replace these self-­ defeating thoughts with more appropriate, positive ones. This is not to say the man should expect that everything will always go well. Rather, he should be prepared for some disappointments and failures and learn to interpret these in appropriate ways. Like any approach to treatment, cognitive psychotherapy does not work for everyone and may be limited to psychological problems that are based in irrational and self-defeating thinking. Nonetheless, the success many therapists have had with this approach has been encouraging (Butler, Chapman, Forman, & Beck, 2006; Gaudiano, 2005). Cognitive-behavioral therapies have been found to be especially effective for treating emotional disorders like depression and anxiety (Aderka, Nickerson, Boe, & Hofmann, 2012; Cuijpers et al., 2014; Hofmann, Wu, & Boettcher, 2014; Stewart & Chambless, 2009). Not only do these treatments relieve the symptoms of emotional disorders, but people who have gone through cognitive-behavioral therapies are less likely to experience a relapse in the future. Presumably, these individuals have learned how to identify unhealthy thoughts and how to replace them with positive ones. George Kelly Rational Emotive (Behavior) Therapy One of the earliest advocates of cognitive therapy was Albert Ellis, who developed rational emotive therapy (Ellis & Joffe Ellis, 2011). Consistent with the tendency to blend cognitive and behavioral treatments, toward the end of his career, Ellis referred to his approach as rational emotive behavior therapy. According to Ellis, people become depressed, anxious, upset, and the like because of faulty reasoning and a reliance on irrational beliefs. Ellis described this as an A-B-C process. For example, suppose your boyfriend/girlfriend calls tonight and tells you the relationship is over. This is the A, which Ellis calls the Activating experience. However, when clients seek out psychotherapy, they usually identify the reason as the C, the emotional Consequence. In this case, you are probably feeling depressed, guilty, or angry. Of course, an emotional reaction to breaking up is entirely appropriate. But if your reaction is severe and starts interfering with your ability to go to work or attend classes, you might benefit from some cognitive counseling. If you were to seek that counseling from someone like Ellis, you would be asked how you could logically go from A (the experience) to C (the emotion). Why should a personal setback or loss cause such a strong negative reaction? The answer is that you must be using a middle step in this sequence, B—the irrational Belief. The only way you could logically conclude from breaking up with your partner that you should be severely depressed is that you are also saying to yourself something like “It is necessary for me to be loved and approved by virtually every person in my life,” or “I can never be happy without this person.” Of course, when isolated like this, the belief is obviously irrational. None of us is loved and approved by everyone. But these irrational beliefs are so entrenched in our thoughts that it often takes professional help to see the flaws in our thinking. Ellis maintained that each of us harbors and relies on a large number of these irrational beliefs. Imagine that you fail an important class (A). If you then fall back on Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Application: Cognitive (Behavior) Psychotherapy 389 the irrational belief “I need to do well at everything to be considered worthwhile” (B), you’ll lead yourself to the conclusion that this is a catastrophe and become excessively anxious (C). A rational emotive therapist would point out that, whereas failing is certainly an unfortunate event—and something you’d prefer didn’t happen—it does not warrant extreme anxiety. Expecting everything to work out well all the time will only lead to disappointment and frustration. A few of the more commonly used irrational beliefs are listed in Table 15.2. Some of these beliefs are blatantly irrational and therefore easily identified and corrected during therapy. However, Ellis (1987) recognized that other beliefs are more subtle or trickier and thus are more resistant to change. The goal of rational emotive therapy is twofold. First, clients must see how they rely on irrational beliefs and the fault in their reasoning. Second, the therapist works with the client to replace irrational beliefs with rational ones. For example, instead of deciding that your romantic breakup is a reason to be depressed, you might tell yourself that, although you enjoy a stable romantic relationship and wish this one could have continued, you know that not all relationships work out. You also know that this doesn’t mean no one else can love you or that you are never going to have a good relationship again. Thus, whereas the A statement is the same—“I broke up with my partner”—the B statement is different. Because the situation is identified as unpleasant but not catastrophic, there is no need to become overly depressed, the old C. Table 15.2 Some Common Irrational Beliefs Obvious Irrational Beliefs Because I strongly desire to perform important tasks competently and successfully, I absolutely must perform them well at all times. Because I strongly desire to be approved by people I find significant, I absolutely must always have their approval. Because I strongly desire people to treat me considerately and fairly, they absolutely must at all times and under all conditions do so. Because I strongly desire to have a safe, comfortable, and satisfying life, the conditions under which I live absolutely must at all times be easy, convenient, and gratifying. Subtle and Tricky Irrational Beliefs Because I strongly desire to perform important tasks competently and successfully, and because I want to succeed at them only some of the time, I absolutely must perform these tasks well. Because I strongly desire to be approved by people I find significant, and because I only want a little approval from them, I absolutely must have it. Because I strongly desire people to treat me considerately and fairly, and because I am almost always considerate and fair to others, they absolutely must treat me well. Because I strongly desire to have a safe, comfortable, and satisfying life, and because I am a nice person who tries to help others lead this kind of life, the conditions under which I live absolutely must be easy, convenient, and gratifying. Source: From “The impossibility of achieving consistently good mental health,” by A. Ellis, American Psychologist, 1987, 42, 364–375. Reprinted by permission of the American Psychological Association. Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.