© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. Chapter 6 Self-Justification and the Need to Maintain Self-Esteem

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. Chapter Outline I. The Need to Feel Good About Ourselves

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Feel Good About Ourselves One of the most powerful determinants of human behaviour is the need to preserve a stable, positive self-concept. In recent years researchers have explored in more detail this basic premise: that people have a fundamental need to maintain a stable, positive sense of self.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Feel Good About Ourselves Self-Discrepancy Theory Psychologists have proposed a number theories explaining how we go about maintaining a positive self-evaluation. Self-discrepancy theory is one of these. Self-Discrepancy Theory: the theory that we become distressed when our sense of who we are—our actual self—is discrepant from our personal standards, or desired self-conceptions— our ideal self, or our ought self—the type of person we think we should be.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Feel Good About Ourselves Self-Discrepancy Theory What happens when we become aware of an ideal- real self discrepancy, i.e., we have failed to live up to our standards? There is strong emotional discomfort, e.g., feelings of dejection, sadness, dissatisfaction, depression (see the example of Sarah).

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Feel Good About Ourselves Self-Discrepancy Theory When there exists a real-ought self discrepancy we experience a different pattern of emotions, according to research by Higgins and colleagues, we experience fear, worry, tension, and other anxiety- related emotions.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Feel Good About Ourselves Coping with Self-Discrepancy How do we cope with these anxiety-ridden emotions? One way is to blame external factors for one’s poor performance (e.g., an unfair exam or an inept instructor), rather than internal ones such as low ability, or lack of effort. But, if greater effort is what is needed to succeed then this kind of strategy is doomed to failure in solving the problem in the long term.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Feel Good About Ourselves Self-Discrepancies and Culture In cultures that emphasize interdependence (e.g., Japan), self-criticism is valued because group members are expected to strive continually to improve themselves. It was predicted therefore, that Asian cultures would experience larger actual-ideal self discrepancies than Western cultures. The prediction was supported. For Japanese students, discrepancies were not as depressing as they were for Canadian students (see Heine & Lehman, 1999 UBC study).

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Feel Good About Ourselves Self-Completion Theory Wicklund and Gollwitzer (1985) investigated how the need for self-maintenance impacts on social relationships. This led to the development of self- completion theory. Self-completion theory: the theory that when people experience a threat to a valued aspect of their self-concept, or identity, they become highly motivated to seek social recognition of that identity (see poem example; see Gollwitzer, 1986 dancer study).

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Feel Good About Ourselves Self-Evaluation Maintenance Theory Tessier and colleagues explored how other people’s behaviour can threaten our self-concept in ways that have important implications for our interpersonal relationships (see ‘good cook’ example). This led to the development of self-evaluation maintenance theory.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Feel Good About Ourselves Self-Evaluation Maintenance Theory Tesser’s self-evaluation maintenance theory holds that one’s self-concept can be threatened by another individual’s behaviour, and that the level of threat is determined by both the closeness of the other individual (e.g., close friend) and the personal relevance of the behaviour (e.g., being a good cook is important to us).

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Feel Good About Ourselves Self-Evaluation Maintenance Theory We feel bad when a close friend outperforms us on task that is relevant to our self-definition (eg, good cook). There is no problem if a close friend outperforms us on a task that is not relevant to our self-definition (eg, good artist) In fact, we feel better about ourselves because the glory of a close other’s accomplishments spills over on to us (see Campbell et al, 1986 UBC study; Fig. 6.1; and Guay et al, 1999, French-Canadian study).

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

The Need to Feel Good About Ourselves Self-Evaluation Maintenance Theory Consistent with self-evaluation maintenance theory, Tesser and Smith (1980) found that people are more inclined to be helpful to a friend if the friend’s success does not pose a threat to their own self- esteem (Figure 6.2). -ie, if the task is not self-relevant to people, they want their friends to do especially well, so that they can bask in the reflected glory.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Feel Good About Ourselves Self-Evaluation Maintenance Theory: Restoring our Self-Esteem On the other hand, we feel threatened if a close other outperforms us in a relevant domain, and we seek to restore our self-esteem by: i.distancing ourselves from the person (eg, strained relationship), ii. improving our performance (eg, become a better cook), or iii. reducing the relevance of the task (eg, lose interest in cooking).

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Feel Good About Ourselves Self-Affirmation Theory Another kind of threat to our self-esteem occurs when we behave in ways that are contrary to our attitudes (e.g., I smoke and know that smoking is a health hazard). How then do we restore self-esteem? Through self- affirmation. Self-affirmation theory suggests that people will reduce the impact of a threat to their self-concept by focusing on, and affirming their competence on some dimension unrelated to the threat.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Feel Good About Ourselves Self-Affirmation Theory Research by Steele (1986) and colleagues showed that self-affirmation does occur (see Fig. 6.3). Interestingly, people with high self-esteem were most likely to engage in self-affirmation strategy (see Murray et al, 1998, 2001 University of Waterloo study).

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Feel Good About Ourselves Self-Affirmation Theory and Culture According to Heine & Lehman (1997) the experience of discomfort from attitude-behaviour inconsistency may be unique to cultures in which the self is defined as independent. If the focus in a culture is on the individual, it becomes important for the individual to behaviour in ways that are consistent with his/her attitudes, because the person’s behaviour is seen as diagnostic of what h/she is really like.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Feel Good About Ourselves Self-Affirmation Theory and Culture On the other hand, if the self is defined in relation to others (eg, Asian cultures), behaviour is more likely to be tailored to the demands of the group. So that if an individual behaves in an attitude- inconsistent way, others are likely to invoke situational explanations (Note that Asian cultures do make more situational attributions for others’ behaviour than do Western cultures) and thus, not infer what the person is really like from his/her behaviour.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Feel Good About Ourselves Self-Affirmation Theory and Culture Based on this reasoning Heine and Lehman (1997) hypothesized that people in Asian cultures should experience little dissonance when their attitudes and behaviours are inconsistent. This is what they found in their UBC study. Canadian students behaved in a manner consistent with self- affirmation theory (ie, dissonance reduction), whereas Japanese students did not.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. Chapter Outline II. Self-Evaluation: Biased or Accurate?

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. Self-Evaluation: Biased or Accurate? Another way to feel good about ourselves is to distort, or exaggerate our positive qualities. But, we also want to be accurate in our view of what we are really like. This creates a dilemma. What do we do in these circumstances? We distort reality through the self-enhancement process. Self-enhancement theory refers to the tendency to hold unrealistically positive views about ourselves.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. Self-Evaluation: Biased or Accurate? Self-Enhancement: Wanting to Feel Good Regardless of the Facts Research confirms that we do indeed, engage in self- enhancement behaviour (see Heine & Lehman, 1999 UBC study). And it makes us feel better. In fact, Paulhus and colleagues found that the more we distort reality to paint a flattering picture of ourselves, the higher is our self-esteem.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. Self-Evaluation: Biased or Accurate? Self-Enhancement and Culture Self-enhancement appears to be a Western phenomenon. Individuals in Asian cultures tend to hold a negative view of themselves, known as self- effacement. Heine and Renshaw (2002) found American students perceived themselves more positively than their friends perceived them; Japanese students perceived themselves more negatively than their friends perceived them.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. Self-Evaluation: Biased or Accurate ? Self-Enhancement and Culture The tendency for self-effacement and self- enhancement appears to be established early in life, around age 10 for Chinese students in Hong Kong; And Canadian students.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. Self-Evaluation: Biased or Accurate? Self-Enhancement and Culture Is it possible that Asian people do secretly engage in self-enhancement but do not report it on questionnaires? Apparently not, according to a study by Heine et al, 2000 (see Fig. 6.4).

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. Self-Evaluation : Biased or Accurate? Self-Enhancement and Culture Perhaps self-enhancement takes a different form in Asian cultures? In cultures that value interdependence people might hold unrealistically positive views about the groups to which they belong, rather than about themselves individually. Again, the answer is no (see Heine & Lehman, 1997b).

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. Self-Evaluation: Biased or Accurate ? Self-Enhancement and Culture Chinese form Hong Kong do not show the group- enhancement effect. Do Canadians? Yes (see Heine & Lehman, 1997). Canadian students rated themselves, and the students at their university more positively than they rated the students at their rival university; Whereas, Japanese students rated their own university more negatively than the rival university.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. Self-Evaluation : Biased or Accurate? Self-Enhancement and Culture Heine and Lehman conclude that Eastern cultures simply do not engage in self or group enhancement. A recent meta analysis of 70 studies examining self- enhancement among North American and East Asians supports this conclusion.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. Self-Evaluation: Biased or Accurate? Self-Verification: Wanting to Know the Truth about Ourselves Although we are highly motivated to feel good about ourselves and will distort reality to do so, Swann and colleagues suggest that we are also motivated to know the truth about ourselves, even if it hurts. This is called self-verification. Self-Verification theory suggests that people have a need to seek confirmation of their self-concept, whether the self-concept is positive or negative. Sometimes, this tendency can conflict with the desires to uphold a favourable view of oneself.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. Self-Evaluation: Biased or Accurate? Self-Verification: Wanting to Know the Truth about Ourselves There are two corollaries that stem from self- verification theory: 1)It is unsettling and confusing to have our views of ourselves disconfirmed; 2)2) it can be uncomfortable to interact with people who view us differently from the way we view ourselves.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. Self-Evaluation: Biased or Accurate? Self-Verification versus Self-Enhancement -eg, When people with negative self-views receive positive feedback, opposing needs come into play— self-enhancement needs (ie, the desire to feel good about themselves by believing the positive feedback), versus, self-verification needs (the desire to maintain a consistent, coherent picture of themselves and avoid the embarrassment of being found out) (see the example of Patrick). Which of the opposing needs wins out? It seems that the winner is self-verification needs.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. Self-Evaluation: Biased or Accurate? Self-Verification versus Self-Enhancement But recent research suggests that this is true only under certain conditions (see Swan and colleagues, 2002). These authors suggest that whether we want to have accurate rather than positive feedback depends on: 1)The dimension on which we are being evaluated (eg, with physical attractiveness we want positive feedback); and 2)The nature relationship we have with the person doing the evaluating (eg, if the person is a friend we prefer honesty);

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. Self-Evaluation: Biased or Accurate? Self- Verification versus Self-Enhancement The need for self-verification (accuracy) appears to dominate over the need for self-justification (positive feedback) for people with negative self- concepts (cont’d): 3)when people are highly certain of those self- concepts; 4) when the consequences of being improperly evaluated are not too great; and 5) when people believe there is nothing that can be done to improve their abilities.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. Chapter Outline III. The Need to Justify Our Actions

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Justify Our Actions Cognitive Dissonance Theory Another powerful motivator of human behaviour is the need to justify our actions. Cognitive dissonance theory helps to explain this process. Leon Festinger originated the concept of cognitive dissonance, defining it as inconsistency between any two cognitions. Cognitive dissonance is the feeling of discomfort caused by information that is discrepant from your customary, typically positive, self-concept.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Justify Our Actions Dissonance Reduction Experiencing dissonance motivates an attempt to reduce it. Dissonance can be reduced in three ways: by changing our behaviour to bring it in line with the dissonant cognition (eg, quit smoking), by attempting to justify our behaviour through changing one of the dissonant cognitions (smoking is not really dangerous to my health), or by attempting to justify our behaviour by adding new cognitions (eg, the data relating smoking to cancer is flawed) (see Fig. 6.5).

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

The Need to Justify Our Actions Dissonance Reduction External justification: a person’s reason or explanation for dissonant behaviour that resides outside the individual (e.g., in order to receive a large reward, or avoid a severe punishment). Internal justification: the reduction of dissonance by changing something about oneself (e.g., one’s attitude or behaviour).

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Justify Our Actions Dissonance Reduction Studies support cognitive dissonance theory. Gibbons et al (1997) found that heavy smokers who attended a smoking cessation clinic, quit smoking for a while and then relapsed into heavy smoking again, actually lowered their perception of the dangers of smoking (ie, changing dissonant cognitions). Jones & Kohler (1959), investigating desegregation attitudes in students from the southern US, found that students best remembered plausible arguments agreeing with their own position and implausible arguments agreeing with the opposing position (ie, addition of supporting cognitions)

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Justify Our Actions Dissonance Reduction Research has yielded similar results on a wide variety of issues, from whether or not the death penalty deters people from committing murder, to the risks of contracting AIDS through heterosexual contact. All of the research indicates that we do not process information in an unbiased manner. Rather, we distort it in a way that fits our preconceived notions.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Justify Our Actions Decisions, Decisions, Decisions Every time we make a decision—whether it is between two cars, two universities, or two potential lovers—we experience dissonance. Why? Because the chosen alternative is seldom entirely positive, and the rejected alternative is seldom entirely negative. This is called postdecision dissonance. It is reduced by enhancing the attractiveness of the chosen alternative and devaluating the rejected alternative.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Justify Our Actions Decisions, Decisions, Decisions Following a decision we rate the chosen alternative even more positively than we did initially, and the nonchosen alternative more negatively than initially (see Brehm, 1956 consumer testing study). This serves to make us feel better about the choice we made. Dissonance reduction is greater when we are forced to chose between two unattractive alternatives than when we chose between two attractive ones (see Shultz et al, 1999 Montreal study).

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Justify Our Actions The Permanence of the Decision Decisions may differ in terms of how permanent they are—i.e., how difficult they are to revoke. As expected, the irrevocability of the decision always increases dissonance and the need to reduce it (see Knox & Inkster,1968 race track study).

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Justify Our Actions The Decision to Behave Immorally Dissonance reduction following a difficult moral decision can cause people to behave either more or less ethically in the future, and can change their system of values (see Mills, 1958 cheating study) ie., those that cheated became more lenient towards cheating behaviour, while those who did not cheat became more harsh towards cheating.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Justify Our Actions The Justification of Effort What happens when a person works hard and the goal doesn’t seem worth it after all? People change their attitude towards the goal and see it positively—the justification of effort (see Aronson & Mills, 1959 severity of initiation study; Fig. 6.6). The justification of effort: the tendency for individuals to increase their liking for something they have worked hard to attain.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Justify Our Actions Insufficient Justification: Counter-attitudinal Advocacy Another source of dissonance occurs when people say something against their attitudes (counter- attitudinal advocacy) when there is low external justification. When this happens they find internal justification for their behaviour, coming to believe what they say (see Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959, $1-$20 study). Counterattitudinal advocacy is the process by which people are induced to state publicly an attitude that runs counter to their own attitude.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Justify Our Actions Insufficient Justification: Counter-attitudinal Advocacy in Real Life The counter-attitudinal advocacy notion was tested in a real life study about race relations (see Leippe & Eisenstadt, 1994, 1998). As predicted, students in these studies became more favourable towards and more supportive of African Americans after having to write a counter-attitudinal essay publicly endorsing a controversial proposal at their university.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Justify Our Actions Insufficient Justification: Hypocrisy & Aids Another test of dissonance theory was conducted in a real life situation. This was the problem of AIDS and the small percentage of condom-use every time students had sex. Aronson and colleagues had considerable success convincing people to use condoms by employing a variation of the counter-attitudinal advocacy paradigm (see Stoner et al, 1994 study).

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Justify Our Actions Insufficient Justification: Hypocrisy & Aids Stone et al (1994) hyocrisy study (cont’d) University students in the high dissonance condition (eg, those who made a video for high school students after having been made mindful of their own failure to use condoms- hypocritical) subsequently bought significantly more condoms than those in any of the other conditions (see Fig. 6.7). In a follow-up telephone interview several months later it found that the effects are long-lasting.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Justify Our Actions Insufficient Justification: Insufficient Punishment Another form of insufficient justification is insufficient punishment. Insufficient external justification is justification that is sufficient to produce the behaviour, but insufficient for people to believe that they were “forced” through external justifications to do it.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Justify Our Actions Insufficient Justification: Insufficient Punishment Insufficient punishment: the dissonance aroused when individuals lack sufficient external justification for having resisted a desired activity or object, usually resulting in individuals devaluing the forbidden activity or object. The insufficient punishment effect has been supported by experimental studies (see Aronson & Carlsmith, 1963 preschooler toy study).

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Justify Our Actions Insufficient Justification: Insufficient Punishment Aronson & Carlsmith, 1963 preschooler toy study (cont’d) Lacking sufficient external justification for refraining from playing with the forbidden toy, the children in the mild threat condition needed an internal justification to reduce their dissonance. They did this by convincing themselves that they didn’t really like the attractive toy, and rated it as less attractive than they had at the beginning of the study.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Justify Our Actions Insufficient Justification: Insufficient Punishment Aronson & Carlsmith, 1963 preschooler toy study (cont’d) This is an example of self-justification leading to self- persuasion in the behaviour of very young children. Self-Justification is the tendency to justify one’s actions in order to maintain one’s self-esteem.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Justify Our Actions Insufficient Justification: The Permanence of Self-Persuasion The insufficient punishment effect demonstrated by Aronson & Carlsmith (1963) preschooler toy study was replicated and participants were questioned again after several weeks. Results showed that attitudes generated by self- persuasion and self-justification can have long- lasting effects (see Freedman, 1965 replication and follow-up of the above study; Figure 6.8).

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Justify Our Actions Insufficient Justification: The Permanence of Self-Persuasion Freedman (1965) follow-up study (cont’d) Results: mild threat was still effective in preventing the undesired behaviour several weeks following the manipulation, while severe threat was not. The reason the mild threat persisted for at least several weeks was that the children were motivated to convince themselves that the toy was undesirable.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Justify Our Actions Insufficient Justification: Insufficient Punishment Harsh punishment teaches us to try to avoid getting caught, and thus requires constant vigilance to be effective. In contrast, insufficient punishment induces dissonance about why we are not engaging in the forbidden behaviour, and inspires dissonance reduction by devaluing the forbidden activity, or object.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Justify Our Actions The Evidence for Motivational Arousal The theory of cognitive dissonance assumes that discomfort and arousal are what motivate people to change their attitudes and/or behaviour. Does dissonance produce physiological arousal and subsequent dissonance reduction? The answer is yes to physiological arousal (see Wright et al, 1992, U. of Alberta study; and the classic study by Zanna & Cooper, 1974; Fig. 6.9). And yes to dissonance reduction so long as people attribute the arousal to dissonant cognitions and not to some external source (eg, the pill).

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Justify Our Actions The Aftermath of Good and Bad Deeds We know that if we like someone, we tend to treat them well, speak kindly to them, and do them favours, etc; if we don’t like someone we don’t do these things for them. What happens when we are induced to do a favour for someone we don’t like? Will we like them more? Or less? Dissonance theory would predict that we would like them more. Is this true? Yes (see Jecker & Landy, 1969 study; Fig. 6.10).

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Justify Our Actions The Aftermath of Good and Bad Deeds Thus, it appears to be true that, as folklore would have us believe, ‘we do not love people so much for the good they have done us as for the good we have done them.’ —Leo Tolstoy

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Justify Our Actions The Aftermath of Good and Bad Deeds; How we come to Hate our Victims But, what happens if we harm another person instead of doing them a favour? Will we then like them more? Or less? As predicted by dissonance theory, it seems that we like them less (see Davis & Jones, 1960 study). If we harm someone, this induces dissonance between our action and our self-concept as a decent person; to resolve this dissonance, we derogate our victim.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Justify Our Actions The Aftermath of Good and Bad Deeds; How we come to Hate our Victims Do people in real-life situations also use dissonance to justify cruel actions toward another human being? Yes (see example of Canadian soldiers’ peacekeeping mission in Somalia, 1993). Apparently, some of the higher-ranking officers had issued orders to ‘abuse’ any Somali intruders, and this was sufficient justification for the torture and murder of a 16-year-old Somalian boy.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Justify Our Actions The Aftermath of Good and Bad Deeds; How we come to Hate our Victims Another way in which people reduce dissonance for having committed cruel acts is to derogate, or dehumanize their victims. In the Somalia incident the soldiers dehumanized him by blindfolding the 16-year-old boy. As well, the Somalian people were referred to as ‘gimmes’ ‘smufties’, and ‘nignogs’ by the Canadian soldiers as a way of thinking of them as less than human.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Justify Our Actions Avoiding the Rationalization Trap Unfortunately, reducing dissonance through derogation of victims can lead to a continuation, or escalation of violence against them. This is known as the rationalization trap—an endless chain of violence followed by self-justification, followed by greater violence and further justification is set in motion so that unbelievable acts of human cruelty occur, e.g., the Holocaust.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Need to Justify Our Actions Learning from our Mistakes The rationalization trap has the potential through dissonance reduction to produce a succession of self-justifications that ultimately result in a chain of stupid, or immoral actions. Is there a way that people can be persuaded not to rationalized their behaviour, not derogate their victims when they make mistakes? Yes, self-affirmation (eg, boosting self-esteem) can serve as a cognitive buffer, protecting a person from succumbing to temptation and committing a cruel, or immoral act (see Aronson & Mettee, 1968 cheating study)

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Solar Temple Revisited Extreme Example of Cognitive Dissonance in Action How could intelligent people allow themselves to be led by cult leaders into senseless and tragic behaviour resulting in mass suicide_murders? There are a number of factors involved, ie, charisma, persuasive power of the cult leader, social support of group members, but also cognitive dissonance created by the tremendous sacrifice required to become, and remain a member of the cult.

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. The Solar Temple Revisited Cognitive Dissonance in Action Extreme form of cognitive dissonance (cont’d) Members of the Solar Temple cult abandoned their friends and families, relinquished their money and possessions, and, if they were female, subjected themselves to sexual exploitation. All of these sacrifices served to increase their commitment to the cult. To question their beliefs and actions would have produced too much dissonance to bear. End