3-3-16 Learning Target: SWBAT have a better understanding of social-cognitive theories and students will be able to explore and obtain better knowledge of the self. Daily Drill: Question: What is the social-cognitive perspective and who proposed it?

3-3-16 Learning Target: SWBAT have a better understanding of social-cognitive theories and students will be able to explore and obtain better knowledge of the self. Daily Drill: Question: What is the social-cognitive perspective and who proposed it? Answer: views behavior as influenced by the interaction between people’s traits (including their thinking) and their social context; it was proposed by Albert Bandura

Social-Cognitive Theories & Exploring the Self By: Nayelle Williams

Social-Cognitive Theories Social-cognitive perspective on personality was proposed by Albert Bandura: Emphasizes the interaction of our traits with our situations; individuals and our situations work together Behavioral approach to personality development: Emphasizes the effects of learning; we’re conditioned to repeat certain behaviors and we learn by observing and imitating others Social-cognitive theorists focus on how we and our environment interact!

Reciprocal Influences Bandura views the person-environment interaction as reciprocal determinism “Behavior, internal personal factors, and environmental influences all operate as interlocking determinants of each other.” –Bandura

Internal Personal Factors: Thoughts and feelings about risky activities. Behavior: Learning to rock-climb Environmental Factors: Rock-climbing friends

Optimism vs. Pessimism Social-cognitive psychologists emphasize our sense of personal control Students whose attributional style is pessimistic attribute poor performance to their lack of ability or to situations beyond their control These students are more likely to get low grades than students who have a more hopeful and positive attitude “Expect good things from others, and you will get what you expect.” Such studies fueled Martin Seligman to propose a more positive psychology—a psychology concerned with strength and virtue

Excessive Optimism Excessive optimism can blind us to real tasks Neil Weinstein has shown how our natural positive-thinking bias can promote “an unrealistic optimism about future events.” People display illusory optimism about their groups Natural positive-thinking bias does vanish when we are bracing ourselves for feedback, such as test results Positive illusions also vanish after a traumatic personal experience Victims of catastrophic California earthquake, who had to give up illusions of being less vulnerable than others to earthquakes.

Blindness to One’s Own Competence People are often most overconfident when most incompetent Kruger & Dunning found that most students scoring at the low end of grammar and logic tests believed they had scored in the top half. If you don’t know what good grammar is you may be unaware that your grammar is poor. Thinking we’re good at something drives how we perceive ourselves doing it.

Assessing Behaviors in Situations Social-cognitive psychologists often observe behavior in realistic situations Ex. US Army’s World War 2 strategy for assessing candidates for spy missions was to have them simulate undercover conditions; this would test their ability to handle stress, solve problems, maintain leadership, etc. Despite the cost and lengthy duration of time this test helped predict later success on actual spy missions. These tests exemplified the principle: “The person’s past behavior patterns in similar situations help predict future behaviors.”

Evaluating Social-Cognitive Theories Critics of social-cognitive theories suggest that it focus solely on the situation and does not appreciate the person’s inner traits Personality traits have been shown to predict behavior at work, love, and play Biologically influenced traits really do matter Researchers investigate personality using various methods that have differing purposes

Exploring the Self Self: an organizer of our thoughts, feelings and actions is the center of our personality Hazel Markus and her colleagues suggested that thinking about self is the concept of possible selves Your possible selves include your visions of the self you dream of becoming—rich, admirable and successful; and the self you fear of becoming—unemployed, lonely and unsuccessful. Possible selves motivate us by laying out specific goals and calling forth the energy to work toward them.

Exploring the Self Cont. Spotlight Effect: overestimating others’ noticing and evaluating our appearance, performance, and blunders (as if we presume a spotlight shines on us). In 1996 Thomas Gilovich had individual Cornell University students wear Barry Manilow shirts before entering a room with other students. They felt self-conscious because Barry Manilow was not a popular or cool guy at the time. The t-shirt wearers guessed that nearly half their peers would recognize the shirt as they walked in. However, in reality only 23% actually did. The absence of attention applies not only to bad clothing and bad hair but also to our nervousness, irritation or attraction: Fewer people notice than we presume.

The Benefits of Self-Esteem Self-Esteem: a feeling of self-worth Self-Efficacy: our sense of competence or effectiveness on a task People who feel good about themselves have fewer sleepless nights and succumb less easily to pressures to conform—they’re just happier people

The Benefits of Self-Esteem Cont. Some psychologist have their doubts about high self-esteem being the “armor that protects children.” Children’s academic self-efficacy—their confidence that they can do well in a subject— predicts school achievement. But general self-image does not. Self-esteem may simply reflect reality. Experiments reveal an effect of low self-esteem Those who feel negative about themselves tend to be oversensitive and judgmental

Self-Serving Bias Self-Serving Bias: our readiness to perceive ourselves favorably People accept more responsibility for good deeds than for bad, and for successes than for failures Athletes often privately credit their victories to their own skills, and their losses to bad breaks, lousy officiating, or the other team’s exceptional performance Most people see themselves as better than average

Self-Serving Bias Cont. Threatened egotism, more than low self-esteem, predisposes aggression The most aggressive children tend to have high self-regard that gets punctured by other kids’ dislike Self-serving perceptions are on the rise in North America From 1980-2007 popular song lyrics became more self-focused Narcissism—excessive self-love and self-absorption—is on the rise as well

Two Types of Self-Esteem There are two types of self-esteem: Defensive & Secure Defensive Self-Esteem: is fragile; it focuses on sustaining itself, which makes failures and criticisms feel threatening Secure Self-Esteem: is less fragile because it is less contingent on external evaluations. To feel accepted for who we are relieves pressures to succeed and enables us to focus beyond ourselves

Culture and the Self Individualism: giving priority to one’s own goals over group goals and defining one’s identity in terms of personal attributes rather than group identifications Individualists strive for personal control and individual achievement and share the human need to belong They join groups but are less focused on group harmony and doing their duty to the group

Culture and the Self Cont. Collectivism: giving priority to the goals of one’s group and defining one’s identity accordingly Collectivists often avoid direct confrontation, blunt honesty and uncomfortable topics To ensure diversity within cultures, many individualist countries manifest collectivist values

Exit Ticket Who first proposed the social-cognitive perspective, and how do social- cognitive theorists view personality development? What criticisms have social-cognitive researchers faced? What is self, self-esteem and self-efficacy? How does defensive and secure self-esteem differ?

Works Cited Myers, David G. "Social-Cognitive Theories and Exploring the Self." Myers' Psychology for AP. 2nd ed. New York: BFW/Worth, 2014. 587-601. Print.