Lecture 5 The Self_2023.pdf

Social Psychology: The Self Week 5 LEARNING OBJECTIVES • • • • • • • Identify some key aspects of the self-concept (SC). Explain how individualism and collectivism influence SC Describe self-esteem(SE) Describe correlates of self-esteem SE Development and parenting Define self-regulation Explain...

Social Psychology: The Self Week 5 LEARNING OBJECTIVES • • • • • • • Identify some key aspects of the self-concept (SC). Explain how individualism and collectivism influence SC Describe self-esteem(SE) Describe correlates of self-esteem SE Development and parenting Define self-regulation Explain how explanatory styles (i.e. attributions) are related to adjustment The Self-Concept The nature of the self-concept • Self-concept – “an organized collection of beliefs about the self” • These beliefs are also called self-schemas, which include personality traits, abilities, physical features, values, goals, & social roles • Possible selves – refer to “one’s conceptions about the kind of person one might become in the future” The Self-Concept: Structure Structure of the self-concept & discrepancies (E. T. Higgins; SelfDiscrepancy Theory) • Individuals have the following self-perceptions: • An actual self: qualities people think they actually possess • An ideal self: qualities people would like to posses • An ought self: qualities people think they should possess The Self-Concept • Mind the gap: Self-discrepancies – mismatches between the actual, ideal, and/or ought selves • These can cause various effects: affective states • When the “actual self” falls short of the “ideal self,” we feel dejected and sad. • When the “actual self” falls short of the “ought self,” we feel irritable and guilty. The Self-Concept: Discrepancies & Affect The Self-Concept: Coping with Discrepancies • People cope with self-discrepancies by: • Changing their behavior to bring it more in line with the ideal, or ought selves • Blunting self-awareness by o Avoiding situations that increase self-awareness, or o Reducing self-awareness (e.g., drugs such as alcohol; eating tempting food) The Self-Concept: Self & Others Social comparisons: information type & motivation • Festinger’s (1954) social comparison theory states that we compare ourselves with others in order to assess and/or improve our abilities. • A reference group is “a set of people who are used as a gauge in making social comparisons.” • If we want to improve, we choose reference groups of superior quality, upward social comparison, • If we want to bolster self-esteem, we choose inferior groups, downward social comparison. • Observations are selective & distorted; biased in a positive direction: e.g., ‘Better-Than-Average (BTA) Effect’ (Alicke & Govorun, 2005) Self-Concept: Impact of Others via Feedback • Feedback from others is important in balancing our own observations. • Lifespan: People close = sources of feedback • Early in life: parents and family members are the primary influences. • As children age: teachers, coaches, and peers become progressively more important. • Later in life: close friends and marriage partners play dominant roles. Self-Concept: Impact of Context & Culture • Social context also affects our self-concept. • We may view ourselves more, or less, critically, depending on the situation • Cultural values & self-concept • In cultures that value individualism: putting personal goals ahead of group goals • Identity is defined more in terms of personal attributes • In cultures that value collectivism: putting group goals ahead of personal goals • Identity is defined more in terms of the groups to which one belongs Self-Concept: Cultural Differences • Individualism vs. collectivism (e.g., Hofstede) • People raised in individualistic cultures: • Have an independent view of the self • View themselves as unique, self-contained, and distinct from others • People raised in collectivist cultures: • Have an interdependent view of the self • View themselves as more connected to others Self-Concept: Independent Self Versus Interdependent Self Source: Adapted from Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivations. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. Self-Esteem (SE) • Self-esteem refers “to one’s overall assessment of one’s worth as a person" • It is a global evaluation of many aspects of the self • Self-esteem can be construed two ways: • Trait self-esteem, or sense of value as a person across time and contexts • State self-esteem, or temporary sense of value of a person, highly dependent on contextual changes SE: 4 Central Self-Images as Sources Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton (1976) SE: Measured Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. SE: Important Correlates • SE is strongly and consistently connected to happiness • People with high SE persist longer in the face of failure and cope better with setbacks • High SE associated with being more likeable and attractive, having better relationships, and making better impressions on others; • Consider bias here. Type of measure used? SE, Expectations, & Self-Fulfilling Prophecy SE: Development • Role of parents in development of SE: Important role in shaping selfesteem early in life • Two dimensions of parenting are important: 1. Parental acceptance (emotional support) 2. Parental control (limits, external structure) • Together, these dimensions yield four parenting styles Parenting Styles Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority [Monograph]. Developmental Psychology, 4(1, Part 2), 1-103. American Psychological Association. Parenting style and self esteem In correlational studies: The authoritative style is associated with the highest self-esteem scores. Some studies give other parenting styles the following rank: • Permissive • Authoritarian • Neglectful groups However, these results are mixed. High Self-Esteem • High SE can lead to inflated and unrealistic self-appraisals • A tendency to blame others for problems and overlook their own flaws. Self-Esteem Instability • SE can fluctuate; for some SE fluctuates more than for others: SEInstability (Kernis & Goldman, 2003; Kernis, 2005). • People with high SE-Instability -> highly sensitive to information with implications to self-worth; danger of over-interpretation of such information SE Versus Narcissism High SE versus narcissism (Hyatt et al., 2018) • Feeling too good about oneself is not desirable • Narcissism: “The tendency to regard oneself as grandiosely self-important.” — is pathological & somewhat different from high SE • Narcissistic traits (High Ex, low Ag): • Are preoccupied with fantasies of success • Believe they deserve special treatment • React aggressively when their view of themselves (ego) is threatened • Lack empathy and exploit others Self-Regulation • Self-regulation = process of directing one’s behavior towards goals & controlling one’s behavior. • Self-Regulatory Focus Theory (Tory Higgins, 1997) • Remember self-discrepancies ... Closing the gaps • Promotion focus: Striving for “ideals” (e.g., aspiration) • Prevention focus: Striving for “oughts” (e.g., protection) Self-Regulation • Promotion Focus • • • • Risky response bias Going for “hits” Emphasis on speed Open to changes: Switching to new activity or object • Prevention Focus • • • • Conservative response bias Going for “correct rejections” Emphasis on accuracy Quick initiation of necessary action (to meet minimum standards) Self-Regulation • One important aspect of self-control: • Delay of gratification (Walter Mischel) • Marshmallow Test; children (e.g., 4-5 years old); predictive of success in later life • Programmes to learn how to delay gratification (gain self-control) Self-Regulation • Self-efficacy (e.g., Bandura, 2012): Belief about one’s ability to perform behaviors leading to expected goals. • Functional for adjustment: increasing self-efficacy is beneficial to one’s physical & mental health • Self-efficacy can be learned & changed: 1. Mastery experiences • Learning new skills; through persistence 2. Vicarious experiences (model, imitation; Bandura) • Watching others to learn a new skill 3. Persuasion and encouragement 4. Interpretation of emotional arousal • E.g., nervousness attributed as normal arousal needed to do well, rather than fear Self-Presentation • Private versus public self • A private self = how people see themselves & like to see themselves • A public self = an image presented to others in social interactions • Public selves can vary according to the situation, or role, that people are in • We have multiple public selves • Adjustment is best when there is considerable overlap, or integration, of the various public selves Self-Presentation The Self: Impact of Attributions • Self-attributions – are “inferences that people draw about the causes of their own behavior” • Three-dimensional attribution model (Weiner, 1994): 1. Whether they are internal versus external (Heider, 1958; ‘locus’, e.g., Weiner, 1994) • Internal attributions – “ascribe the causes of behavior to personal dispositions, traits, abilities, and feelings” • External attributions – “ascribe behavior to situational demands” The Self: Impact of Attributions The Self: Impact of Attributions 2. The cause perceived as stable or unstable • Stable: the cause of behavior is perceived as unlikely to change over time (e.g., trait, IQ). • Unstable: the cause of behavior is perceived as variable, or subject to change (e.g., mood). • This dimension interacts with the internal-external one and yields four types of attributions about success and failure. The Self: Impact of Attributions Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L. & Rosenbaum, R.M. (1972). Perceiving the causes of success and failure. In E.E. Jones, D.E. Kanuouse, H.H. Kelly, R.E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Perceiving causes of behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. The Self: Impact of Attributions 3. Whether they are controllable or uncontrollable • Whether or not the individual perceives to have control over the behavior • Additional dimensions mentioned in literature: intentionality, globality • Explanatory style (Seligman, 1991) = consistent use of attribution patterns in life • Optimistic explanatory style: setbacks attributed to external, unstable, & specific factors • Pessimistic explanatory style: setbacks attributed to internal, stable, & global factors The Self: Impact of Attributions Required Reading Required: Chapter 12.1; ‘What is Social Psychology’ in Psychology 2E Additional Hyatt CS, Sleep CE, Lamkin J, Maples-Keller JL, Sedikides C, et al. (2018) Narcissism and self-esteem: A nomological network analysis. PLOS ONE 13(8): e0201088. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201088