Download Social Psychology - rhinebeckcsd.org

7th edition
Social Psychology
Elliot Aronson
University of California, Santa
Cruz
Timothy D. Wilson
University of Virginia
Robin M. Akert
Wellesley College
slides prepared by
Travis Langley
Henderson State University
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Self-Knowledge: How We
Come to Understand Ourselves
Chapter 5
“Introspection is difficult and
fallible.
The difficulty is simply that of all
observation of whatever kind.”
— William James, 1890
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
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?
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
The Nature of the Self
• 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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
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).
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
The Nature of the Self
• 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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
The Nature of the Self
• 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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
The Nature of the Self
• 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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
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
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Organizational Function of the Self
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
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 wellrested, such as in the morning after a good night’s
sleep.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Cultural Differences in
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Cultural Differences in
Defining the Self
In contrast, many Asian and other nonWestern 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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Cultural Differences in
Defining the Self
In contrast, many Asian and other nonWestern cultures have an
interdependent view of the self.
Connectedness and interdependence
between people is valued,
whereas independence and uniqueness
are frowned on.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Cultural Differences in
Defining the Self
The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
— American proverb
The nail that stands out gets pounded down.
— Japanese proverb
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Cultural Differences in
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 selfconcept, and these differences are likely to
increase as contact between cultures increases.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Gender Differences in
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Gender Differences in
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Gender Differences in
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Knowing Ourselves
Through Introspection
Introspection
The process whereby people look inward and
examine their own thoughts, feelings, and
motives.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Focusing on the Self:
Self-Awareness Theory
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Focusing on the Self:
Self-Awareness Theory
• 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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Focusing on the Self:
Self-Awareness Theory
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
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?
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Judging Why We Feel the Way We Do:
Telling More than We Can Know
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
The Consequences of
Introspecting about Reasons
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.”
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
The Consequences of
Introspecting about Reasons
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Intrinsic versus
Extrinsic Motivation
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Intrinsic versus Extrinsic 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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Intrinsic versus Extrinsic 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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Motivation
But people are not rats, and we have to
consider the effects of rewards on what’s
inside—people’s thoughts about:
Overjustification Effect
• Themselves,
The self-concept,
tendency of people
to view their
• Their
and
behavior
as caused
bythe
compelling
• Their
motivation
to read in
future.
extrinsic
reasons,
makingisthem
The danger
of reward
programs
that kids will
underestimate
the reading
extent to
begin
to think they are
to which
earn it
money,
because
they findreasons.
reading to be
was not
caused
by intrinsic
an enjoyable activity in its own right.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
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.
2. If a child has no interest in reading, getting
him or her to read by offering free pizza is not
a bad idea because there is no initial interest
to undermine.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
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.
2. The type of reward makes a difference.
Performance-contingent rewards might do
better than task-contingent rewards.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Preserving Intrinsic Interest
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Understanding Our Emotions:
The Two-Factor Theory of Emotion
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Understanding Our Emotions:
The Two-Factor Theory of Emotion
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Understanding Our Emotions:
The Two-Factor Theory of Emotion
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Finding the Wrong Cause:
Misattribution of Arousal
Misattribution of Arousal
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).
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Interpreting the Social World:
Appraisal Theories of Emotion
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?
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Interpreting the Social World:
Appraisal Theories of Emotion
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).
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Using Other People To Know Ourselves
Social contact is crucial to the development
of a self-concept.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Knowing Ourselves by Comparing
Ourselves to Others
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?
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Knowing Ourselves by Comparing
Ourselves to Others
(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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Knowing Ourselves by Comparing
Ourselves 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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Knowing Ourselves by Comparing
Ourselves to Others
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Knowing Ourselves by
Adopting Other People’s Views
Social Tuning
The process whereby people adopt another
person's attitudes.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
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
Self-Handicapping
The process
strategy whereby
people
create
obstacles
and
The
whereby
people
flatter,
praise,
excuses
for themselves
so that
if they do poorly
on ato
and
generally
try to make
themselves
likable
task, they can avoid blaming themselves.
another person, often of higher status.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
Impression Management:
All the World’s a Stage
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
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.
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.
7th edition
Social Psychology
Elliot Aronson
University of California, Santa
Cruz
Timothy D. Wilson
University of Virginia
Robin M. Akert
Wellesley College
slides prepared by
Travis Langley
Henderson State University
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education. All rights reserved.