The Self The Self

Self-conceptSelf-concept

• Self-conceptSelf-concept – knowledge and thoughts – knowledge and thoughts related to who you think you are.related to who you think you are.– Personal attributesPersonal attributes– Social rolesSocial roles– Group membershipsGroup memberships

• Self-esteemSelf-esteem – how you feel about – how you feel about yourself in general.yourself in general.

Cognitive Views of SelfCognitive Views of Self

• Self-schemas – generalizations about Self-schemas – generalizations about your most important characteristics.your most important characteristics.– Information processingInformation processing– Evaluation of othersEvaluation of others

• Self-reference effect – information Self-reference effect – information related to oneself is easier to related to oneself is easier to remember.remember.

The self-reference effect.The self-reference effect.

• Step 1: Participants make Step 1: Participants make yes/no judgments about target yes/no judgments about target words.words.– Conditions:Conditions:

• Structural properties – is Structural properties – is kind kind in lowercase letters? in lowercase letters?

• Phonemic properties – doesPhonemic properties – does kindkind rhyme with mind? rhyme with mind?

• Semantic properties – does Semantic properties – does kindkind mean the same as mean the same as nice?nice?

• Self-relevance – does Self-relevance – does kindkind describe you?describe you?

• Step 2: Surprise recall – write Step 2: Surprise recall – write down as many of the adjectives down as many of the adjectives you just rated as you canyou just rated as you can

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Self-reference

Semantic Phonemic Structural

recall

Cognitive views of selfCognitive views of self

• Working self-concept – the portion of Working self-concept – the portion of the self that is accessible at the the self that is accessible at the moment.moment.– Distinctiveness principle – people are Distinctiveness principle – people are

likely to describe themselves in ways likely to describe themselves in ways that distinguish them from others in the that distinguish them from others in the social situationsocial situation

Major Influences on Self-Major Influences on Self-ConceptConcept

• CultureCulture– Individualist vs. collectivistIndividualist vs. collectivist

• Research findingsResearch findings

• Self-perceptionSelf-perception

Bem’s SP theory: when internal cues are Bem’s SP theory: when internal cues are difficult to interpret, people gain self-difficult to interpret, people gain self-insight by observing their own behavior.insight by observing their own behavior.– EmotionsEmotions– MotivationMotivation

Self-Perception TheorySelf-Perception Theory

No external rewardSelf-perception: “I do this because I like it.”

Enjoyable activities

External reward (e.g., $)

Self-perception: “I do this

because I’m paid to.”

Extrinsic Motivation

Intrinsic Motivation

Major influences on Self-Major influences on Self-ConceptConcept

3. Social comparison3. Social comparison

• Festinger’s SC theory:Festinger’s SC theory:– In the absence of objective information, In the absence of objective information,

people compare to others.people compare to others.– People prefer to compare with similar People prefer to compare with similar

others, but also have an upward drive.others, but also have an upward drive.

Testing the Similarity Hypothesis: Rank Testing the Similarity Hypothesis: Rank Order ParadigmOrder Paradigm

1.1. 1919

2.2. ????

3.3. ????

4.4. 12 12 You You

5.5. ????

6.6. ????

7.7. 77

• Which score would Which score would you like to see?you like to see?

Social ComparisonSocial Comparison

• Upward social comparison – compare to Upward social comparison – compare to someone who is better than you.someone who is better than you.

• Downward social comparison – compare Downward social comparison – compare to someone who is worse than you.to someone who is worse than you.

• Contrast effect – self is contrasted to Contrast effect – self is contrasted to the target of comparison and thus self-the target of comparison and thus self-evaluations move away from the target.evaluations move away from the target.

Social ComparisonSocial Comparison

• Assimilation effect- Self-evaluations Assimilation effect- Self-evaluations move towards the target of move towards the target of comparison.comparison.– Assimilation is likely to occur when:Assimilation is likely to occur when:

•You can see yourself reaching the same You can see yourself reaching the same level as the comparison target.level as the comparison target.

•You are similar to the targetYou are similar to the target

Lockwood & Kunda (1997)Lockwood & Kunda (1997)

7.27.47.67.8

88.28.48.68.8

9

First YearAccountingStudents

Fourth YearAccountingStudents

No TargetStar Target

Self and MotivationSelf and Motivation

• Self-Evaluation Motives:Self-Evaluation Motives:

• Self-enhancement – people want to feel Self-enhancement – people want to feel good about themselves.good about themselves.

• Accuracy – people want valid info about Accuracy – people want valid info about themselvesthemselves

• Self-verification – people want info that is Self-verification – people want info that is consistent with how they view themselvesconsistent with how they view themselves

• Self-improvement – people want to get Self-improvement – people want to get betterbetter

Swann et al. (1987) Swann et al. (1987) MethodMethod

• Participants were high or low in social Participants were high or low in social SESE

• Task: read a passage from a book Task: read a passage from a book while evaluator watcheswhile evaluator watches

• Evaluator gives favorable or Evaluator gives favorable or unfavorable feedback.unfavorable feedback.

• Participants rate the evaluator and Participants rate the evaluator and their current mood.their current mood.

Swann et al.Swann et al.

• Favorable feedback condition: “This person Favorable feedback condition: “This person seems socially self-confident. He probably seems socially self-confident. He probably feels comfortable around others he doesn’t feels comfortable around others he doesn’t know very well. He seems to have little doubt know very well. He seems to have little doubt about his social competence”.about his social competence”.

• Unfavorable feedback condition: “This person Unfavorable feedback condition: “This person doesn’t seem socially self-confident. He doesn’t seem socially self-confident. He probably feels somewhat anxious and probably feels somewhat anxious and uncomfortable around others he doesn’t know uncomfortable around others he doesn’t know very well. He seems to have doubts about his very well. He seems to have doubts about his social competence”.social competence”.

Swann et al. (1987)Swann et al. (1987) Results Results

Affect (high numbers = more positive affect)

01020304050607080

High SE Low SE

Social Self-Esteem

Affe

ct Favorable

Unfavorable

Swann et al. (1987)Swann et al. (1987) Results Results

Ratings of the accuracy of the evaluation

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

High SE Low SE

Social Self-Esteem

Acc

urac

y ra

ting

Favorable

Unfavorable

Self-RegulationSelf-Regulation

• A control mechanism used by A control mechanism used by individuals to match behavior to individuals to match behavior to standards or goals.standards or goals.

Feedback loops:Feedback loops:– Example: Goal is 7 min. mileExample: Goal is 7 min. mile

Comparator

Current State

Effect on env.

Output Function

Effect of self-efficacy and self-focus:Effect of self-efficacy and self-focus:

• High self-efficacy – self-awareness High self-efficacy – self-awareness leads to more persistence.leads to more persistence.

• Low self-efficacy – self awareness Low self-efficacy – self awareness leads to less persistence.leads to less persistence.

Psychic demonstrationPsychic demonstrationB DU OJ MP LC T

Psychic demonstrationPsychic demonstrationB D BU O OJ M JP L LC T C

Self EsteemSelf Esteem

• Disclaimer: This is not a lecture Disclaimer: This is not a lecture about how to help people with low about how to help people with low self-esteemself-esteem

Rosenberg Self–Esteem Rosenberg Self–Esteem scale (1965)scale (1965)• 1. I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least 1. I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least

on an equal plane with others.on an equal plane with others.• 2. I feel that I have a number of good 2. I feel that I have a number of good

qualitiesqualities• 3. All in all I am inclined to feel that I am a 3. All in all I am inclined to feel that I am a

failure.failure.Choices: 1 strongly agreeChoices: 1 strongly agree 2 agree2 agree 3 disagree3 disagree 4 strongly disagree4 strongly disagree

Compared to other college students of Compared to other college students of the same class level and sex as the same class level and sex as yourself, how would you rate yourself yourself, how would you rate yourself on the following characteristics?on the following characteristics?

1 = considerably well below average1 = considerably well below average

5 = average5 = average

9 = considerably well above average9 = considerably well above average

_1.leadership ability_1.leadership ability _2.athletic ability_2.athletic ability

_3.tolerance_3.tolerance _4.energy level_4.energy level

• Compared to other students of your sex at Compared to other students of your sex at your college, what do you think are the your college, what do you think are the chances that the following health problems chances that the following health problems will trouble you at some point in the future?will trouble you at some point in the future?

• -3 = much below average-3 = much below average

• 0 = average0 = average

• +3 = much above average+3 = much above average

• _1. arthritis_1. arthritis _2. suicide_2. suicide

• _3. alcoholism_3. alcoholism _4. lung cancer_4. lung cancer

Unrealistic Optimism – Class DataUnrealistic Optimism – Class Data

VariableVariable MeanMean

ArthritisArthritis .21.21

SuicideSuicide -2.07**-2.07**

PneumoniaPneumonia -.54**-.54**

Overweight (>40 lbs)Overweight (>40 lbs) -.75*-.75*

LaryngitisLaryngitis 00

AlcoholismAlcoholism -.79**-.79**

Killed in an auto accidentKilled in an auto accident .11.11

Lung CancerLung Cancer -.64*-.64*

* = p < .10, ** = p < .05

Explaining the Better than Explaining the Better than Average EffectAverage Effect

• Self-Enhancement – people want to Self-Enhancement – people want to feel good about themselvesfeel good about themselves

• Egocentrism – people focus on their Egocentrism – people focus on their own skill level rather than other own skill level rather than other people’s skillspeople’s skills

• Metacognitive deficit – people who Metacognitive deficit – people who are unskilled are unable to are unskilled are unable to accurately evaluate their abilityaccurately evaluate their ability

Above-Average Effects in the College Board Above-Average Effects in the College Board Survey by Domain DifficultySurvey by Domain Difficulty

AbilityAbility Domain DifficultyDomain Difficulty % rating % rating themselves “above themselves “above average”average”

LeadershipLeadership 4.14.1 7070

MathematicsMathematics 4.14.1 5757

Creative writingCreative writing 4.24.2 5656

ScienceScience 4.54.5 5252

Organizing For Organizing For WorkWork

4.64.6 6969

MusicMusic 4.84.8 4444

AthleticsAthletics 5.15.1 6060

ArtArt 5.15.1 3939

SalesSales 5.35.3 5050

““Unskilled and unaware of it” Kruger & Unskilled and unaware of it” Kruger & Dunning (1999)Dunning (1999)

01020304050607080

PerceivedAbilityPerceivedTest ScoreActual TestScore

Evidence for Positive Evidence for Positive IllusionsIllusions

• Self-esteem scalesSelf-esteem scales

• Better-than-average effectBetter-than-average effect

• Unrealistic optimism for future life Unrealistic optimism for future life eventsevents

• Illusion of control over events that Illusion of control over events that are uncontrollableare uncontrollable

How do people maintain such How do people maintain such favorable self- views?favorable self- views?

• Self-serving attributionsSelf-serving attributions

• The Genius EffectThe Genius Effect

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Ratings ofSubject

Ratings ofConfederate

Observers' RatingsSubjects' Ratings

Perceptual Intelligence

Self-HandicappingSelf-Handicapping

Self-handicapping – Undermining Self-handicapping – Undermining performance so that one has a handy performance so that one has a handy excuse for failure or a boost to self excuse for failure or a boost to self esteem in the event of successesteem in the event of success

Berglas & Jones’ StudyBerglas & Jones’ Study

• Cover story: study of drugs and intellectual Cover story: study of drugs and intellectual performance.performance.

• Contingent Success Condition: intellectual Contingent Success Condition: intellectual test was tailored so that all subjects test was tailored so that all subjects performed well.performed well.

• Non-contingent Success Condition: Non-contingent Success Condition: intellectual test contained mostly intellectual test contained mostly unsolvable items.unsolvable items.

• All subjects were given favorable feedback.All subjects were given favorable feedback.

Choice of DrugChoice of Drug

• Actavil facilitates intellectual performance.Actavil facilitates intellectual performance.

• Pandocrin inhibits intellectual Pandocrin inhibits intellectual performance.performance.

• 10mg 7.5mg 5mg 2.5mg 0 2.5mg 5mg 7.5mg 10mg 7.5mg 5mg 2.5mg 0 2.5mg 5mg 7.5mg 10mg10mg

Actavil Pandocrin

Berglas & Jones’ ResultsBerglas & Jones’ Results

% choosing % choosing PandocrinPandocrin

Contingent Contingent SuccessSuccess

Non-Non-Contingent Contingent SuccessSuccess

MaleMale 13%13% 70%70%

FemaleFemale 26%26% 40%40%