Lecture 4 The Self PDF

Preview

Summary

Lecture 4 Spring Term on The Self taught by Dr Emma Pape...

Description

PY2PS Personality and Social Psychology The Self What is the self? Traditional view: Self is stable, genetically determined ‘character’ or personality More recently acknowledged that the self evolves How you view yourself at 18 is not the same as how you view yourself at 40 Symbolic Interactionism Mead (1934) -

Self is not inherent property of human nature Self is a socially-constructed entity Self cannot be understood in isolation – in terms of interaction with others Society influences individuals – self-concept continually modified through interactions with others Sense of self built upon life-long experience of seeing ourselves through the eyes of others

Self-Construal: Self-definition in relation to other people 2 types: 1. Independent self-construal – distinct from others 2. Interdependent self-construal – important of your place in the community/within a group Western cultures – inward focus on self, autonomous identity, separate from everyone else (independent self-construal) Eastern cultures – promote an interdependent self-construal, importance of groups and place within community

Independent view of self: No matter how close people are – view that as independent of you Interdependent view of self: Others as part of yourself Cohen & Gunz (2002) 1

Asked to tell stories about when they were the focus of attention (e.g. being embarrassed) Canadian = independent self-construal Asian = interdependent self-construal Asians more likely to recall event from an observer perspective – outward focus on social situation Canadians more likely to recall event from first person perspective – inward focus on social situation Kuhn & McPartland (1954) ‘Who am I?’ exercise 20 statements – I am Independent cultures – focus on identity in the absence of context/others – singular statements e.g. I am friendly Interdependent cultures – talk about self in relation to context/other people – e.g. I am Helen’s friend Ma & Shoeneman (1997) Who Am I test on American students and variety of different groups living in Kenya Kenyan students – exposed to western culture, educated in western tradition Workers in Nairobi – exposed to Western culture Maasai tribespeople – minimal Western influence

Westernisation is associated with development of a more independent self-construal Displays what we would expect More exposed to Western cultures = more I statements Less exposed to Western cultures – more group statements Kenyan student act similarly to American students – statements of personal characteristics Workers – more interdependent self-construal, more similar to Maasai tribespeople Western exposure related to independent self-construal Workers in Nairobi had some western exposure but not enough to behave independently 2

Gender Differences In America women tend to have more of an interdependent self-construal compared to men Men typically prioritise differences with other people and their uniqueness Same pattern found across cultures e.g. Japan Clancy & Dollinger (1993) – when selecting photos that are most revealing of who they are – women more likely than men to choose photos that include other people Women -

More empathetic Better judges of other people’s emotion More attuned to situational cues/other people’s reactions

Men -

More attuned to internal responses Increased heart-rate

Reasons for Gender Differences in Self-construal Media -

Men typically portrayed in positions of power and agency Women in more nurturing roles

Parental Style -

Parents tend to talk more with their daughters (vs sons) about emotions and being sensitive to others

Friendships -

Girls and bous tend to play in gender-segregated groups that reinforce and amplify differences in self-construal Girls tend to focus on cooperative games orientated towards interpersonal relationships (e.g. families) whereas boys tend to emphasize competition (e.g. sport)

Self-awareness -

Self is essential aspect of every person We do not need to think about it all the time

Self-awareness Theory (Duval & Wicklund, 1972) Self-awareness: a psychological state in which we become aware of ourselves as objects (traits, feelings and behaviour) Objective self-awareness generated by circumstances that focus attention on self - e.g. in front of audience or mirror Development of Self-awareness -

Not born with self-awareness Develops at about 18 months

Lewis & Brooks (1978) 3

Spot on Nose Study -

Placed spot on nose of infants and placed them in front of mirror 9-12 months: Treated mirror image as other child, no recognition of spot on own nose 18 months: Infant curiously looks at mirror reflection and touches spot on nose – aware it is them

Private Self Private, thoughts, feelings Tendency to focus on internal states People become privately self-aware when: -

See face in mirror Experience physiological arousal leading to reflection on emotional state e.g. happy, excited, angry

3 important consequences: 1. Intensified emotional response 2. Experience clarification of knowledge 3. More likely to adhere to personal standards or ideals Intensified emotional response Focus on internal states – intensifies our experience of those feelings Schier & Carver (1977)

Reading aloud statements Designed to elicit feelings of elation/happiness or depression “I feel fantastic” “The whole world is meaningless and shallow” Participants who looked in mirror – more extreme reactions If read statements designed to elicit elation – more happy compared to participants not in front of mirror If read statements designed to elicit depression – significantly less happiness to those not in front of mirror Being privately self aware makes you experience whatever emotion you are experiencing in more depth Clarification of Knowledge 4

Tends to make people more accurate in report on own internal state Gibbons et al (1979) Placebo drug – told drug induces arousal and side-effects Participants in front of mirror (privately self-aware) reported fewer side effects and arousal – focussing more on how they were really feeling rather than information they were given about how they should feel When privately self-aware more likely to be aware of own beliefs and more likely to act in line with those beliefs, less likely to conform When privately self-aware – focus on how we really feel (more accurate) Adhering to Personal Standards Being more aware of one’s true beliefs Acting in line with those beliefs as opposed to being vulnerable to social influence Schier & Carver (1980) Participants wrote counter-attitudinal essay Cognitive dissonance theory – change attitude to fit with behaviour Would expect participants to change attitude to fit behaviour Participants who were not privately self-aware – less attitude change When we are privately self-aware – tend to focus more on our own attitudes, less influenced by attitudes of other people Public Self Focus on how perceived by others Can become publicly self-aware in different ways: -

Giving a presentation Being photographed/filmed Being the focus of others attention in general

Can be chronic – social media! Constant awareness that we are in the focus of someone’s attention whether we know it or not Consequences 1. Can lead us to worry about how others will evaluate us – can make us feel nervous/reduce self-esteem 2. Can alter our behaviour – more likely to adhere to social standards/presentation of idealized version of self Self-esteem Self-esteem: A person’s overall self-evaluation of self-worth Self-evaluation as intrinsically positive or negative (Sedikides & Gregg, 2002) Tend to focus on self-evaluations on specific domains that enhance feelings of self-worth 5

Most people strive to feel good about themselves Development of Self-Esteem Parenting styles: 1. Demanding parent style (controlling, imposing rules, punishments) 2. Responsive parent style (warm and supportive) Authoritative Parent High demanding High responsive High self-esteem

Authoritarian Parent High demanding Low responsive Reduced self-esteem

Permissive Parent Low demanding High responsive Reduced self-esteem

Stability of Self-esteem -

-

Chronic self-esteem may be determined in childhood 6-11 yrs old: unstable self-esteem/easily influenced by external factors – still developing self-concept at this age, once have a defined self-concept less susceptible to situational affects 20s: Most stable – less affected by temporary life changes Mid-adulthood: Remains relatively stable 60 yrs +: Decline in stability, major life changes – people dying, retirement etc.

Self-esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) Indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements: (0 strongly disagree; 1 Disagree; 2 Agree; 3 Strongly Agree) 1. At times I think I am no good at all 2. I take a positive view of myself 3. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am failure 4. I wish I could have more respect for myself 5. I certainly feel useless at times 6. I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal with others 7. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself 8. I feel I do not have much to be proud of 9. I feel that I have a number of good qualities 10. I am able to do things as well as most other people Determining Score: Reverse coding for 5 negatively framed items- 1,3,4,5,8 0 = 3, 1 = 2, 2 = 1, 3 = 0 Add scores across 10 items Score falls between 0 and 30 Higher the score, higher the self-esteem Trait Self-esteem: Person’s enduring level of self-regard -

Remains fairly stable across time in adults

6

-

People who report high trait self-esteem at one point in their life tend to report high trait self-esteem later (same for low trait self-esteem)

State Self-esteem: Dynamic, changeable self-evaluations which can be dependent on situational influences e.g. rejection by a love interest/low exam grade Self-enhancement When self-esteem is threatened people tend to engage in a number of strategies to regain feelings of self-worth -

When our self-esteem is threatened people tend to engage in a number of strategies to regain feelings of self-worth: 1. Self-affirmation: Affirming oneself in a domain unrelated to the threatened domain 2. Comparing and reflecting: Social Comparison Theory and Self-evaluation maintenance theory

Self-Affirmation Theory Domain 1: Self-esteem threatened in one area (rejection by love interest) Domain 2: Affirm valued aspect of self-unrelated to threat (focus on academic ability) Social Comparison Theory Comparing ourselves to others Upward Social Comparison: Self-improvement, compare to someone better than us Downward Social Comparison: Self-enhancement, compare ourselves to someone worse than us Accurate Self-evaluation: Make a comparison between a variety – some upward, some downward social comparisons The success of people close to us can affect our self-esteem in one of 2 ways: 1. Social Reflection – self-esteem is boosted by others’ accomplishments 2. Social Comparison – self-esteem is threatened by close others’ accomplishments What happens when the only available comparison target is superior or better off than we are? Self-Evaluation Maintenance Theory Tesser (1988) The success of people close to us affects our self-esteem in one of two ways: 1. Social Reflection (self-esteem is boosted by others’ accomplishments) 2. Social Comparison (self-esteem is threatened by close others’ accomplishments) When close other is successful in a domain that is relevant to us – uncertain whether our ability in that domain – we engage in social comparison What determines whether we will engage in social reflection or social comparison? Relevance Other is successful in domain irrelevant to you

Certainty Certainty in own ability in that domain 7

Outcome Social reflection

OR Other is successful in domain relevant to you AND

Uncertainty of own ability in that domain

8

Social Comparison...