The Self in a Social World - Psychology Notes PDF

THE SELF IN A SOCIAL WORLD PSYCHOSOCIAL INFLUENCES ON BEHAVIOR IQRA NAZ INSTITUTE OF PSYCHOLOGY  One morning, you wake up to find your hair sticking up at weird angles on your head. It’s too late to jump in the shower and you c...

THE SELF IN A SOCIAL WORLD PSYCHOSOCIAL INFLUENCES ON BEHAVIOR IQRA NAZ INSTITUTE OF PSYCHOLOGY  One morning, you wake up to find your hair sticking up at weird angles on your head. It’s too late to jump in the shower and you can’t find a hat, so you smooth down the random spikes of your hair and dash out the door to class. All morning, you’re acutely self-conscious about your very bad hair day. To your surprise, your friends in class don’t say anything. Are they secretly laughing to themselves about how ridiculous you look, or are they too  SPOTLIGHT EFFECT AND ILLUSION OF TRANSPARENCY Spotlight Effect ▪ The belief that others are paying more attention to one’s appearance and behavior than they really are. Illusion of Transparency ▪ The illusion that our concealed emotions leak out and can be easily read by others. ▪ From our self-focused perspective, we overestimate our conspicuousness. This spotlight effect means that we tend to see ourselves at center stage, so we intuitively overestimate the extent to which others’ attention is aimed at us. ▪ Keenly aware of our own emotions, we often suffer an illusion of transparency. If we’re happy and we know it, then our face will surely show it. And others, we presume, will notice. In fact, we can be more opaque than we realize.  SPOTLIGHT EFFECT AND ILLUSION OF TRANSPARENCY ▪Kenneth Savitsky and Thomas Gilovich (2003) - people overestimate the extent to which their internal states “leak out.” For Instance, ▪Approaching someone you are attracted to ▪Public speaking ▪Lying ▪Stuttering We also overestimate the visibility of our social blunders and public mental slips. When we trigger the library alarm or accidentally insult someone, we may be mortified (“Everyone thinks I’m a jerk”). But research shows that what we agonize over, others may hardly notice and soon forget (Savitsky & others, 2001). The spotlight effect and the related illusion of transparency are but two of many examples of the interplay between our sense of self and our social worlds. Here are more examples: Social surroundings affect our self-awareness: When we are the only member of our race, gender, or nationality in a group, we notice how we differ and how others are reacting to our difference. A White American friend once told me how self-consciously White he felt while living in a rural village in Nepal; an hour later, an African American friend told me how self-consciously American she felt while in Africa.  Self-interest colors our social judgment. When problems arise in a close relationship such as marriage, we usually attribute more responsibility to our partners than to ourselves. When things go well at home or work or play, we see ourselves as more responsible. Self-concern motivates our social behavior. In hopes of making a positive impression, we agonize about our appearance. Like savvy politicians, we also monitor others’ behavior and expectations and adjust our behavior accordingly. Social relationships help define our self. In our varied relationships, we have varying selves, note Susan Andersen and Serena Chen (2002). We may be oneself with Mom, another with friends, another with teachers. How we think of ourselves is linked to the person we’re with at the moment. As these examples suggest, the traffic between ourselves and others runs both ways. Our ideas and feelings about ourselves affect how we respond to others. And others help shape our sense of self. SELF & SOCIAL WORLD ▪Self-Esteem ▪Self-Efficacy ▪Locus of Control ▪Learned Helplessness ▪Self-Serving Bias ▪Self-Handicapping SELF-ESTEEM ▪ Self-Esteem: The overall positive or negative evaluation an individual has of himself or herself ▪ Is self-esteem —our overall self-evaluation—the sum of all our self-schemas and possible selves? If we see ourselves as attractive, athletic, smart, and destined to be rich and loved, will we have high self-esteem? ▪ Contingencies of Self-Worth: Each person’s self-esteem is tied to the domain which is important to them ▪ For example, someone whose self-esteem is tied to physical appearance will feel high self-esteem when made to feel good-looking ▪ High and low self-esteem are two extremes of self-esteem Self-esteem is contingent on rises and falls with successes and failures in domains on which a person has based his or her self- worth. The investigators have focused on several domains that are important for self-esteem among college students in particular: family support, school competence, competition, virtue, social approval, physical appearance, and religious identity (see also Crocker, Luhtanen, Cooper, & Bouvrette, 2003). Self-esteem represents how we feel about our attributes and qualities, our successes and failures, and our self in general The key prediction of the contingencies of self-worth perspective is that self- esteem tends to rise when things are going well in domains that are personally important to us, but will drop when things go poorly in these domains. Studies suggest that it’s probably wise for people to base their sense of self-worth on performance in many domains, rather than put all their eggs in one basket. Indeed, studies have shown that to the extent we derive our sense of self-worth from multiple domains that are distinct from one another, the more likely we are to avoid feeling devastated by a setback or failure in any one domain (Linville, 1987; Showers, 1992). LOW SELF-ESTEEM ▪People with low self-esteem are less satisfied with life, more hopeless, and more depressed (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001) ▪They are less able to cope with life’s challenges, such as the social and academic demands of college (Cutrona, 1982) ▪They tend to disengage from tasks following failure (Brockner, 1979) ▪They are more prone to anti-social behavior and delinquency (Donnellan, Trzesniewski, Robins, Moffitt, & Caspi, 2005)  HIGH SELF-ESTEEM ▪High self-esteem does have some benefits—it fosters initiative, resilience, and pleasant feelings (Baumeister & others, 2003) ▪Yet teen males who engage in sexual activity at an “inappropriately young age” tend to have higher than average self-esteem ▪So do teen gang leaders, extreme ethnocentrist terrorists, and men in prison for committing violent crimes (Bushman & Baumeister, 2002; Dawes, 1994, 1998) TYPES OF SELF-ESTEEM ▪Trait Self-Esteem ▪State Self-Esteem TRAIT SELF-ESTEEM ▪ Trait self-esteem- is a person’s enduring level of self-regard across time ▪ Studies indicate that trait self-esteem is fairly stable: people who report high trait self-esteem at one point in time tend to report high trait self-esteem many years later; people who report low trait self-esteem at one point tend to report low trait self-esteem later (Block & Robins, 1993) ▪ Relatively consistent idea of one’s strengths and weaknesses. ▪ It is an individual’s self-opinion over long periods, which typically remains stable throughout adulthood. Research suggests that it probably has a genetic component related to temperament and neuroticism (Neiss, Sedikides, & Stevenson, 2002). STATE SELF-ESTEEM ▪ State self-esteem refers to the dynamic, changeable self-evaluations a person experiences as momentary feelings about the self (Heatherton & Polivy, 1991) ▪ State self-esteem rises and falls according to transient moods and specific construal processes that arise in different situations ▪ For example, your current mood, either positive or negative, will shift your self-esteem up or down (Brown, 1998) ▪It is subject to day-to-day fluctuations in self-esteem. ▪ When people experience a temporary setback, their self- esteem frequently takes a temporary dive—especially among those who have low self-esteem to begin with (Brown & Dutton, 1995). When college students watch their beloved college football team lose, their feelings of personal competence often drop (Hirt, Zillman, Erickson, & Kennedy, 1992). ▪ Children of average intelligence have lower self-esteem when they are in a classroom with academically talented children, rather than with children who have lower academic abilities (Marsh & Parker, 1984).It is subject to day-to-day fluctuations in self-esteem. THE DARK SIDE OF SELF-ESTEEM – NARCISSISM ▪High self-esteem becomes especially problematic if it crosses over into narcissism, or having an inflated sense of self ▪Most people with high self-esteem value both individual achievement and relationships with others ▪Narcissists usually have high self-esteem, but they are missing the piece about caring for others ▪Narcissism is the third ingredient in the Dark Triad of Personality  THE DARK SIDE OF SELF-ESTEEM – NARCISSISM ▪ People who are narcissist with high self-esteem find it harder to face criticism ▪ In a series of experiments conducted by Bushman and Baumeister (1998), undergraduate volunteers wrote essays and received rigged feedback that said, “This is one of the worst essays I’ve read!” Those who scored high on narcissism were much more likely to retaliate and act aggressively towards students they believed had criticized them ▪ After tracking self-importance across the last several decades, psychologist Jean Twenge (2006; Twenge & others, 2008) reports that today’s young generation—Generation Me, she calls it—express more narcissism (by agreeing with statements such as “If I ruled the world, it would be a better place” or “I think I am a special person”). ▪ Agreement with narcissistic items correlates with materialism, desire to be famous, inflated expectations, fewer committed relationships, more gambling, and more cheating, all of which have also risen as narcissism has increased. RAISING & MAINTAINING SELF-ESTEEM: SELF-ENHANCEMENT ▪Self-enhancement is the desire to maintain, increase, or protect positive views of the self (Leary, 2007; Sedikides & Gregg, 2008). ▪The theory is based on the idea that human beings have an extremely positive view of themselves and would do anything in their power to maintain it. ▪To satisfy what can be a very powerful motive, people use various strategies. SELF-ENHANCEMENT STRATEGIES ▪Better-Than-Average Effect ▪Self-Affirmation ▪Self-Verification BETTER-THAN-AVERAGE EFFECT ▪Also known as Illusory Superiority. ▪It is the finding that most people think they are above average on various personality traits and ability dimensions ▪Most people think they are above average in popularity, kindness, fairness, leadership, and the ability to get along with others, to name just a few characteristics (Alicke & Govorun, 2005) BETTER-THAN-AVERAGE EFFECT ▪It is easy to fall trap to Better-Than-Average Effect because people typically rate themselves as better than others based on their own definitions of traits ▪People tend to judge other people—how kind, outgoing, or athletic they are—by the way they are on average, and yet define themselves in terms of how they behave when they’re at their best BETTER-THAN-AVERAGE EFFECT ▪There are three reasons for the effect: 1. Nature of feedback 2. Different criteria for goodness 3. Motivation to feel good about ourselves SELF-AFFIRMATION THEORY ▪It is the idea that people can maintain an overall sense of self-worth following psychologically threatening information by affirming a valued aspect of themselves unrelated to the threat ▪Instead of rationalizing and distorting reality, individuals take advantage of self-affirmation by drawing strength from another domain which is unrelated to the threatened domain Self-affirmation is about increasing the positivity of the self, especially after a threat to self-esteem, while self-compassion is about accepting the self as it is. Affirming an important value is the most common method of self-affirmation, which is activated when the self-concept is under threat (Steele, 1988). This is consistent with the self-enhancement motive to seek out positive information to maintain high self-esteem. Such self-affirmation strategies have been found to be helpful in reducing depressive ruminations and increasing positive mood (Koole et al., 1999). SELF-VERIFICATION THEORY ▪The theory that people strive for stable, subjectively accurate beliefs about the self because such self-views give a sense of coherence. ▪More concretely, we strive to get others to conform or verify our pre-existing beliefs about ourselves. ▪For example, if you view yourself as a good student, you will keenly attend to information that verifies this belief. SELF-VERIFICATION THEORY ▪People engage in a number of self-verification strategies: We selectively attend to and recall information that is consistent with (and therefore verifies) our self-views Other self-verification strategies involve displaying identity cues—such as customary facial expressions, posture, gait, clothes, haircuts, and body decorations—to signal important facets of our identity and increase the likelihood that others’ impressions of us will confirm our own self-view SELF-EFFICACY ▪ Self-Efficacy: a person’s particular set of beliefs that determine how well one can execute a plan of action in prospective situations (Bandura, 1977). ▪ The concept was introduced by Albert Bandura (1997) ▪ People with strong feelings of self-efficacy are more persistent, less anxious, and less depressed ▪ They also live healthier lives and are more academically successful ▪ Many people confuse self-efficacy with self-esteem. If you believe you can do something, that’s self-efficacy. If you like what you did, that’s self-esteem LEARNED HELPLESSNESS ▪ Learned Helplessness: The sense of hopelessness and resignation learned when a person perceives no control over repeated bad events. ▪Depressed or oppressed people, for example, become passive because they believe their efforts have no effect. ▪Giving a feeling of control to people promotes health and happiness. ▪The phenomenon was discovered by Martin Seligman in a series of experiments he conducted in 1975 STAGES OF LEARNED HELPLESSNESS 1. We learn an outcome is beyond our control 2. We respond by giving up or ceasing to respond 3. We generalize this response to new situations LEARNED HELPLESSNESS ▪Prisoners given some control over their environments—by being able to move chairs, control TV sets, and operate the lights—experience less stress, exhibit fewer health problems, and commit less vandalism (Ruback & others, 1986; Wener & others, 1987) ▪Workers given leeway in carrying out tasks and making decisions experience improved morale (Miller & Monge, 1986) ▪Institutionalized residents allowed choice in matters such as what to eat for breakfast, when to go to a movie, whether to sleep late or get up early, may live longer and certainly are happier (Timko & Moos, 1989) PERSONAL CONTROL: INMATES OF SPAIN’S MODERN VALENCIA PRISON HAVE, WITH WORK AND APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR, GAINED ACCESS TO CLASSES, SPORTS FACILITIES, CULTURAL OPPORTUNITIES, AND MONEY IN AN ACCOUNT THAT CAN BE CHARGED FOR SNACKS LOCUS OF CONTROL ▪ Locus of Control: The extent to which people perceive outcomes as internally controllable by their own efforts or as externally controlled by chance or outside forces ▪Concept developed in 1950 by Julian Rotter ▪A person with an internal locus of control believes that he or she can influence events and their outcomes ▪Someone with an external locus of control blames outside forces for everything LOCUS OF CONTROL ▪Those who see themselves as internally controlled are more likely to do well in school, successfully stop smoking, wear seat belts, deal with marital problems directly, earn a substantial income, and delay instant gratification to achieve long-term goals (Findley & Cooper, 1983; Lefcourt, 1982; Miller & others, 1986) ▪In general, students who feel in control—who, for example, agree that “I am good at resisting temptation”—get better grades, enjoy better relationships, and exhibit better mental health (Tangney & others, 2004)  SELF-SERVING BIAS ▪ A self-serving bias is any cognitive or perceptual process that is distorted by the need to maintain and enhance self-esteem or the tendency to perceive oneself in an overly favorable manner. ▪ It is the belief that individuals tend to ascribe success to their own abilities and efforts but ascribe failure to external factors. ▪ For instance, ▪ when individuals reject the validity of negative feedback, focus on their strengths and achievements but overlook their faults and failures take more credit for their group's work than they give to other members, they are protecting their self-esteem from threat and injury. ▪ These cognitive and perceptual tendencies perpetuate illusions and error, but they also serve the self's need for esteem. CONT.. ▪Externalizes failure – failed because my friends made me party all night ▪Internalizes success – passed even though was partying all night…must be smart ▪A student who attributes earning a good grade on an exam to their own intelligence and preparation but attributes earning a poor grade to the teacher's poor teaching ability or unfair test questions might be exhibiting the self-serving bias. SELF-HANDICAPPING ▪ Self-Handicapping: Protecting one’s self-image with behaviors that create a handy excuse for later failure (Goffman, 1959) ▪Students sometimes irrationally put too little effort into studying for an exam. Athletes party all night before the championship game. You may act too casually at a job interview. ▪In Goffman’s view, these actions provide an explanation for possible failure, thereby protecting the desired public self SELF-HANDICAPPING ▪Fearing failure, people will : reduce their preparation for important individual athletic events (Rhodewalt & others, 1984). give their opponent an advantage (Shepperd & Arkin, 1991). not try as hard as they could during a tough, ego-involving task (Hormuth, 1986; Pyszczynski & Greenberg, 1987; Riggs, 1992; Turner & Pratkanis, 1993)