Personality & Social Psychology Week 7 2024 (Student) PDF

Identifier first line Second line Personality & Social Psychology Week 7 Perceiving the Self and Others Said Shafa  Assessments Yeah, lab report done! On to debate presentations – Group assignment – Submit a product that is the result of collaborative group effort – Recei...

Identifier first line Second line Personality & Social Psychology Week 7 Perceiving the Self and Others Said Shafa  Assessments Yeah, lab report done! On to debate presentations – Group assignment – Submit a product that is the result of collaborative group effort – Receives a group mark…unless Clear signs of uneven contribution – In final product – In peer assessment form Get together in time (not everyone will be available on the Friday afternoon prior to the deadline), respond promptly to group emails, and contribute to 2 group effort.  General Overview Brief Recap of Introduction to Social Psychology Lecture 7a. Subject: Object: Perceiving the self individual self Perception and understanding Lecture 7b. Subject: Object: Perceiving others individual other #2174915 3 A conceptual framework Relation Subject Object Perception Influence Evaluation Communication Explanation … 4  Methods: Scientific method Overview: Observe: something about the world – through the senses, through engagement with prior theories Hypothesize: proffer a tentative explanation for observation (based on theory) Test: derive prediction from hypothesis and test (usually with an experiment) Infer: make (inductive) inference about hypothesis based on test outcome Repeat/revise: if hypothesis supported, repeat; if not, modify hypothesis and test revised hypothesis 5  Good theories and good evidence Because theories are about abstract constructs, we need to measure (operationalize) these in terms of observable/measurable qualities Construct validity: extent to which manipulations and measures correspond to theoretical constructs Achieve via: selecting appropriate measures; using multiple measures Because theories seek causal explanations, we need to conduct high quality experiments Internal validity: extent to which casual inference (IV -> DV) is justified Achieved via: manipulation and random assignment Because theories seek generalizing explanations, we need to ensure that our evidence (from experiments) can generalize to other people, places, times and settings External validity: extent to which experimental results can be generalized to other people, places, times and settings Achieve via: appropriate sampling and research design (dependent upon type of 6 generalization sought)  General approach Rely on empirical evidence Experiments as case studies in scientific method Organised in coherent and established theories Boundary conditions WEIRD sample (Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic) Including cross-cultural differences Applications: health, education, law, policy, business 7 Perceiving the self Who am I? Week 7a 8  Overview and objectives What is the self? The self concept and multiple selves Where does the self come from? Processes of constructing and knowing the self What does the self do? Functions of the self 9 What is the self? 10  What is the self? In social psychology… Subject: Object: individual self In social psychology the self is the object of self-reflection (the me to the I) Self-concept (self-image) Mental representation of all of a person’s knowledge about their self – Beliefs, thoughts, memories, … – Roles, relationships, groups,… Self-esteem (self-evaluation) How a person feels about their self – More relevant to function of self 11  Self-concept Knowledge and information we have about ourselves Can be defined and organized in different ways Partially addressed in Personality Psychology lectures 12  Who am I? Content dimensions Big Five: OCEAN “Big Two” – Communion: social relationships (friendly vs. hostile) – Agency: goal attainment (powerful vs. weak) 13  Who am I? Self-aspects Self-aspects: summaries of a person’s beliefs about the self in specific domains, roles or activities Personal aspects (personal selves, personal identities, individual selves) – Features that distinguish you from others – Often traits (warm, extraverted) Social aspects (social selves, social identities) Roles (relational) – Features we posses in virtue of the roles and relationships we have – Boss, sister, friend Domains: at work, at home, with friends, … – Sometimes overlap with roles and groups; sometimes not Group/social category memberships (collective) – Features we possess because we are group 14 members; that we share with others – Man, Australian  Who am I? Schema Self-schema: knowledge structure that links, organises and ‘weights’ self-concept components Provides organized summary of characteristics that a person believes define them across situations. Aspects closer to core more likely to be accessible. Aspects closer to each other more likely to be accessible in given context Self-schemas guides interpretation of the environment and performance of behaviour  Who am I? Narratives Narrative self/identity : the story of who I am and how I have become me Internalized, evolving story of the self that binds, organizes and provides meaning to self components aspects across time  Who am I (now)? Accessibility through salience Working self-concept: the ‘now’ self, that guides acting, thinking and feeling in the moment Components of the social situation may make some aspects of the self more accessible For example, gender identity is more central to self-concept for those who are part of gender minority in their household. 17 McGuire et al (1978)  Who am I (now)? Self-accessibility and behaviour The working self-concept guides behaviour Fazio et al (1981) Experimental condition: Situational cues (interview topic) encourage activation of introversion vs extraversion-related self-knowledge. Outcome: Accessible self-knowledge impacted subsequent behaviour irrespective of actual personality traits. 18  Key take-aways The self is the object of self-reflection (self-concept and self-esteem) Self-concept (cognitive self-representation) is multi-faceted – Traits, aspects, etc. Schemas and narratives organise self-knowledge in terms of structure and time Situational cues can activate working self-concepts which in turn influence our behaviour Defining the self in a certain way has advantages and disadvantages (detail, quantifiability, comparability) 19 Where does the self come from? Sources of the self; processes of self construction  How do I know who I am? We construct and know ourselves via a range of processes Personal construction of the self (intrapersonal/intrapsychic processes) – Introspection – Self-perception Social construction of self (interpersonal processes) – Social comparison – Social feedback 21  Personal construction of the self: Reflecting on thoughts and feelings Introspection: looking inward at the contents of consciousness (thoughts and feelings) Reasonable route to self-understanding Richer and more private than behaviour When processing deeply, it can improve accuracy of self-knowledge When introspection reveals that one meets one’s standards, positive feelings can result It can increase self-consistency in behaviour – more likely to act in accordance with one’s values 22  Personal construction of the self: Observing own behaviour Self-perception Self-perception theory (Bem, 1972) – People infer self-knowledge by observing their own behaviours This is most likely to occur when self- knowledge is limited or ambiguous and for behaviours that they have freely chosen If people don’t have a good situational explanation, they infer a self-related explanation 23  Personal construction of the self Implication: Over-justification effect Lepper, Greene & Nisbett (1973) – Expected award: extrinsic motivation (I do this because I am rewarded for it) – No award: intrinsic motivation (I do this because it’s something I want) – Unexpected award: intrinsic motivation (I do this because it’s something I want) 24  Social construction of the self: social comparison Social comparison: process of comparing oneself to others Social comparison theory: self-knowledge (Medvec et al., 1995) comes from comparing one’s own traits, abilities, attitudes, emotions…to those of others (Festinger, 1954) – Especially under conditions of uncertainty Target matters 25  Social construction of the self: Target matters Social comparison can lead to contrast effect or assimilation effect (depending on target) – If compared to extreme target – contrast away from target – If compared to moderate target – assimilate towards target Accurate self-concept comes from comparing to similar others 26  Social construction of the self: Target matters Social comparison can lead to contrast effect or assimilation effect (depending on target) – If compared to extreme target – contrast away from target – If compared to moderate target – assimilate towards target Accurate self-concept comes from comparing to similar others 27  Social construction of the self: social feedback Social feedback Our selves are shaped by how we think others see us Internalize our perceptions of how others see us Other people act as mirrors into our own self-concepts 28  Social construction of the self: social feedback Our selves are shaped by how we think others see us Miller et al (1975) – Control: No information – Persuasion: ‘be tidy’ (implies that you are perceived as not being tidy) – Attribution: ‘you are tidy’ (implies that you are perceived as being tidy) Control condition Attribution condition Persuasion condition 29 Culture and self-construal 30  Key take-aways We construct and know our multi-faceted selves via range of processes Social: Social comparison Social feedback Personal: Introspection Self-perception Culture shapes self-construal (independent vs. interdependent) 31 What does the self do? Ffunctions of the self  Functions of the self The main function of the self is regulating, protecting and guiding the self in a dynamic and complex world. Valuing me and mine: Self-esteem Feeling good about myself protects me psychologically from adverse events. Mastery: Our selves guide behavior towards mastery goals If I know I have difficulty with statistics, I will put more effort into it when I am writing my lab-report. Connectedness: Our selves help us fit in ▪ I can adapt and present myself favourably to a complex social world. 33  Self and valuing me and mine: Self-esteem Self esteem: evaluation of the self (do I feel positive about who I am?) Global liking of the self: monitors successes and failures resulting in net self- evaluation Regulates behavior toward desired goals and states (like a thermostat) Protects against anxiety and psychological stress Trait self esteem: cross-situationally stable State self-esteem: temporary, situation-specific 34  Self and valuing me and mine: Self-enhancement Better than average effect Most people see themselves as above average Self-enhancement serves the self, which is defined differently across cultures (Brown & Kobayashi, 2002; Kitayama et al., 1997) Higher self-esteem in the US than Japan (importance of uniqueness and self-expression) Higher pursuit of self-criticism and over- estimation of group serving characteristics in Japan than the US (importance of appropriateness and fitting in) High self-esteem can help us cope with threats See Smith et al (2015). pp. 125-137 for more on threats to self-esteem and coping Although excessively high self-esteem can bleed into narcissism 35  Self-protection Protecting ourselves from criticism Self-defensive attributions Explain negative behaviours as stemming from the situation Claim positive behaviours as arising from the self Self-affirmation When one aspect/domain of the self is under threat, people can protect themselves by affirming the importance of a different aspect/domain Self-defensive social comparisons Under the self is under threat, people make downward social comparisons 36  Self and mastery: constructing selves in the name of accuracy and control Accuracy: Seek accurate self-knowledge – “I am bad at statistics; I might need to practice a bit more” But also “Accuracy” : Seek confirmation of one’s self views – Self-verification: confirming what one believes about the self – “I am bad at statistics, so there is no point in practicing.” – The after failing stats class: “I failed because I am bad at statistics.” People report more closeness to relationship partners who’s views of them agrees with their own self-image, even if those views are negative (Swann et al., 1992) 37  Self and mastery: constructing selves in the name of accuracy and control Control People make upward social comparisons to motivate behaviour and seek rewards Blanton et al. (1999) – Upward comparisons improve grades This process can: – Provide info on how the task is done – Change expectations about what is possible to achieve – Increase motivation But remember…compare to others whose success is attainable 38  Self and belonging Just as the self is constructed via social processes, the self operates in a social matrix Plays a key role in how we define, manage and present ourselves to the social world Presenting and reinforcing one’s true self to others (irrespective of fit) Self-expression Seeking the acceptance and approval of others through impression management Self-presentation 39  Self-presentation for multiple goals Strategies of self presentation (Jones & Pittman, 1982) Ingratiation (belonging): seek affection Self-promotion (mastery): seek respect Intimidation (mastery): seek fear in others Exemplification (mastery): seek emulation Supplication (belonging): seek compassion 40  Key take-aways The self serves multiple functions/goals: Valuing me (and mine): self-esteem Self-regulation, self-enhancement, and self-protection Mastery Accuracy (self-verification); control (upward comparison) Belonging Self-expression and self-presentation to social world 41  Overall summarys Selves are shaped and expressed under the guidance of self-enhancement, mastery, and belonging goals Selves serve to regulate and guide behaviour in complex social world Selves help us cope with stressors in multiple ways – Provided self-perception is more or less realistic Culture moderates the way selves serve their function 42  Additional Reading Fiske (2014). Ch 4. The self Swann & Bosson (2010). Self and identity. In Fiske et al (2010). Handbook of Social Psychology. Strohminger et al (2017) ‘True self’ Listed as a debate reading 43 Perceiving others Who are they? Week 7b 44  Overview and objectives Building first impressions First impressions and the correspondence bias Beyond first impressions Theories of attribution Global impressions Goal dependence of impression formation WARNING !!! please close your eyes for the next 30 seconds if you are easily startled (or skip next slide) 45 Building blocks and first impressions  Building blocks: what impinges on our senses Physical characteristics Attractiveness – ‘Beautiful is good’ (Dion et al., 1972) Height (US presidential elections) Clothing Social category characteristics (stereotypes) Gender, nationality… (Stulp et al. 2013) Context – environment (Gosling et al., 2002) We are reflected in the spaces we occupy Behaviours Verbal and non-verbal Intentional and unintentional (conspicuous consumption) 47  Constructing first impressions These sense data are integrated with our existing knowledge structures – attitudes, self-schemas, beliefs, … – in automatic first impressions Our existing knowledge structures (esp. that info which is accessible) give meaning to sense data Accessible knowledge structures shape the interpretation of cues Salient cues get more weight in the impression 48  Accessibility Accessibility of knowledge structures from: Concurrent activation Frequent activation Recent activation – E.g., Higgins, Rholes & Jones (1977) Persistence Adventurous Risk-taking Reckless 49  Cue salience Cue salience: ability of a cue to attract attention Unpredictability - stand out from context 50  Explaining other peoples’ behaviour In social psychology… – Understanding how people explain (give meaning to) other peoples’ behaviour Fritz Heider: People are ‘Naïve (lay, everyday) psychologists’ – Attribute others’ behaviours to causes – located in the person – internal, dispositional causes – – in the situation – external, situational causes Attribution: process of attributing behaviours to causes 51  Correspondent inferences First impressions are often grounded in dispositional explanations of behaviour We see behaviours as reflecting something about the person (rather than the situation) Correspondent inference: – Assuming that behaviours correspond to traits – Linking that trait to the person 52  Correspondent inferences Although some conditions warrant correspondent inferences Free choice Outcome unique to that behaviour Unexpectedness (e.g., risky or socially undesirable) People tend to form such inferences even in the absence of such conditions i.e., suffer from correspondence bias Aka. Fundamental attribution error (FAE; Ross, 1977): “general tendency to overestimate the importance of personal or dispositional factors relative to environmental influences” 53  Correspondence bias Jones & Harris (1967) 54  How fundamental? Culture matters Nature and amount of information considered to explain deviant behaviour 5 Choi et al., 4.5 4 (2003) 3.5 3 2.5 2 Internal External USA Korea 55  Key take-aways We use a variety of cues, in conjunction with accessible knowledge, to construct first impressions of others These often take shape via automatic processes and lead to impressions that centre on dispositions People tend to make correspondent inferences even when they are unwarranted: correspondence bias 56 Beyond first impressions 57  Beyond first impressions Impressions can be formed rapidly, with minimal information via automatic, superficial processes With more motivation, ability and time, we can gather more information and engage in deeper processing We may overcome our initial, automatic tendencies towards the correspondence bias 58 Depth of processing and overcoming the FAE Gilbert et al (1988) 59  Beyond mere correspondence When we process more deeply we can go beyond mere assumptions about correspondence and look at more complex information about covariation Kelley (1967) Covariation Theory Consensus: does everyone else perform the same behaviour towards the same stimulus? Distinctiveness: does the person perform the same behaviour towards other stimuli? Consistency: does the person always perform this behaviour to this stimulus? 60 Applying covariation analysis to a behaviour 61  A critique of attribution theories More to explaining behaviour than merely assigning situational vs. personal causes FAE in certain conditions (Malle, 2006) – Highly idiosyncratic actor – When hypothetical events were attributed – When actor and observer were intimates – Free-response explanations – Negative behaviour of others, reversed for own positive behaviour! Culture matters too (independent vs. interdependent self-construal)  Key take-aways With more time, motivation and capacity we can process information and potentially overcome the correspondence bias This can be achieved in part by considering covariation information There are other ways of explaining behaviour other than internal vs external attribution which may also help judgement formation. 63 Forming global impressions 64  Putting it all together Once building blocks have been processed, first impressions have been formed and attributions have been made, we need to integrate trait inferences into global impressions How do we integrate trait information into global evaluative impressions? 65  Simple addition or averaging? (Friendly + warm + intelligent - direct) = +2 But are all traits equal? Are some more important than others? Weighted averaging? – Anderson (1974) algebraic model Where w = weight or importance of trait t and v = value or evaluation of trait t What determines importance? Negativity bias: negative characteristics weighed more heavily than positive But also positivity bias: motivation to form positive global evaluations about 66 people  Inter-trait relationships Trait gestalts a whole that is more than the sum of it’s parts Trait meanings are dependent upon inter-trait context (Asch, 1946) – Intelligent and cold: intelligent = sly – Intelligent and warm: intelligent = wise 67  Agency and communion We tend to summarize others’ traits along two major dimensions – Communal – Agentic A third? – Moral (Goodwin)? (Bruckmüller & Abele, 2013) 68  Influence of motivational principles on judgement formation Mastery People seek more accurate impressions of others when they will be held accountable or when their own outcomes depend on the other person (Neuberg & Fiske, 1987). Belonging People evaluate others with more consideration (or less consideration) if this evaluation does not threaten (or does threaten) their existing relationship (Simpson, Ickes, & Blackson, 1995). Me and mine People formed positively biased impressions about others with disabilities prior to possible interaction to make themselves look good (Klein & Kunda, 1992). 69  Key take-aways Organizing info into coherent, global impressions is complex Simple arithmetic averaging typically doesn’t capture it Traits vary in importance and their meanings are often context dependent Impression formation in service of key phycological needs and processing principles. 70  Overview and objectives (revisited) First impressions occur rapidly based on salient cues and accessible information, often resulting in correspondent inferences. With more motivation, capacity and deeper processing, first impressions may be modified as we draw on more information to explain others’ behaviours. We combine a variety of first impressions, causal attributions and other information into global impressions by aggregating across traits. We do this pursuant to motivation goals: mastery, belonging and self-enhancement. 71  Additional reading Fiske (2014). Ch 3 and 4 Malle (1999) 72  Coming up Week 7 tutorial: – Allocation to debate topic (Weeks 9 and 11) Week 8: – Intragroup dynamics – Smith et al. (2015) Chapters 5 and 6 Take care of your SELF ;) 73