Social Psyc

Social Psychology
Elliot Aronson
University of California, Santa Cruz
Timothy D. Wilson
University of Virginia
Robin M. Akert
Wellesley College
slides by Travis Langley
Henderson State University
6th edition

Chapter 5
Self-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 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).

• 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.

• 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.

• 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 Self
Why 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-Schemas
Mental 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-Schemas
Mental structures that people use to organize
their knowledge about themselves and that
influence what they notice, think about, and
remember about themselves.
Self-Reference Effect
The 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 Self
A 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.

Defining the Self
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.

Defining the Self
In contrast, many Asian and other non-
Western cultures have an
interdependent view of the self.
Interdependent View of the Self
A 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.

Defining the Self
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.

Defining the Self
The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
— American proverb
The nail that stands out gets pounded down.
— Japanese proverb

Defining the Self
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.

Defining the Self
• 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.

Defining the Self
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.

Defining the Self
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
Introspection
The process whereby people look inward and examine
their own thoughts, feelings, and motives.

Knowing Ourselves through
Introspection
Introspection
The 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
The 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 Theories
Theories 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.

The Consequences of
Reasons-Generated Attitude Change
Attitude 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.”

The Consequences of
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 Theory
The 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
Intrinsic Motivation
The desire to engage in an activity because
we enjoy it or find it interesting, not
because of external rewards or pressures.
Extrinsic Motivation
The 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
Motivation

Motivation
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.

Motivation
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.

Motivation
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.
Overjustification Effect
The 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.
Overjustification Effect
The 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 Rewards
Rewards that are given for performing a
task, regardless of how well the task is
done.
Performance-Contingent Rewards
Rewards that are based on how well we
perform a task.

Understanding Our Emotions:
The Two-Factor Theory of Emotion
Consider 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.

Stanley 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.

Two-Factor Theory of Emotion
Schachter’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.

An 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:
The 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
Theories 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:
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 Theory
The 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.

If 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 Tuning
The process whereby people adopt
another person's attitudes.

IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT:
ALL THE WORLD’S A STAGE
Impression Management
The attempt by people to get others to
see them as they want to be seen.
People have many impression management strategies.
Ingratiation
The process whereby people flatter, praise,
and generally try to make themselves likable
to another person, often of higher status.

Impression Management
The attempt by people to get others to
see them as they want to be seen.
People have many impression management strategies.
Ingratiation
The process whereby people flatter, praise, and
generally try to make themselves likable to
another person, often of higher status.
Self-Handicapping
The strategy whereby people create obstacles and
excuses for themselves so that if they do poorly on
a task, they can avoid blaming themselves.
Self-Handicapping
The 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-Enhancement
The 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 Psyc

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Social Psyc

Similar to Social Psyc (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Social Psyc