1. The Self

2. Self-concept
Self-concept – knowledge and thoughts related to who you think you are.
Personal attributes
Social roles
Group memberships
Self-esteem – how you feel about yourself in general.

3. Cognitive Views of Self
Self-schemas – generalizations about your most important characteristics.
Information processing
Evaluation of others
Self-reference effect – information related to oneself is easier to remember.

4. The self-reference effect.
Step 1: Participants make yes/no judgments about target words.
Conditions:
Structural properties – is kind in lowercase letters?
Phonemic properties – does kind rhyme with mind?
Semantic properties – does kind mean the same as nice?
Self-relevance – does kind describe you?
Step 2: Surprise recall – write down as many of the adjectives you just rated as you can

5. Cognitive views of self
Working self-concept – the portion of the self that is accessible at the moment.
Distinctiveness principle – people are likely to describe themselves in ways that distinguish them from others in the social situation

6. Major Influences on Self-Concept
Culture
Individualist vs. collectivist
Research findings
Self-perception
Bem’s SP theory: when internal cues are difficult to interpret, people gain self-insight by observing their own behavior.
Emotions
Motivation

7. Self-Perception Theory
Self-perception: “I do
this because I like it.”
Intrinsic
Motivation
No external reward
Enjoyable
activities
Self-perception:
“I do this
because I’m
paid to.”
Extrinsic
Motivation
External
reward (e.g., $)

8. Major influences on Self-Concept
3. Social comparison
Festinger’s SC theory:
In the absence of objective information, people compare to others.
People prefer to compare with similar others, but also have an upward drive.

9. Testing the Similarity Hypothesis: Rank Order Paradigm19 ??
12  You 7
Which score would you like to see?

10. Social Comparison
Upward social comparison – compare to someone who is better than you.
Downward social comparison – compare to someone who is worse than you.
Contrast effect – self is contrasted to the target of comparison and thus self-evaluations move away from the target.

11. Social Comparison
Assimilation effect- Self-evaluations move towards the target of comparison.
Assimilation is likely to occur when:
You can see yourself reaching the same level as the comparison target.
You are similar to the target

12. Lockwood & Kunda (1997)

13. Self and Motivation Self-Evaluation Motives:
Self-enhancement – people want to feel good about themselves.
Accuracy – people want valid info about themselves
Self-verification – people want info that is consistent with how they view themselves
Self-improvement – people want to get better

14. Swann et al. (1987) Method Participants were high or low in social SE
Task: read a passage from a book while evaluator watches
Evaluator gives favorable or unfavorable feedback.
Participants rate the evaluator and their current mood.

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

16. Swann et al. (1987) Results

17. Swann et al. (1987) Results

18. Self-Regulation
A control mechanism used by individuals to match behavior to standards or goals.

19. Feedback loops: Example: Goal is 7 min. mile Comparator Current State
Output Function
Effect on env.

20. Effect of self-efficacy and self-focus:
High self-efficacy – self-awareness leads to more persistence.
Low self-efficacy – self awareness leads to less persistence.

21. Psychic demonstration
B D
U O
J M
P L
C T

22. Psychic demonstration
B D B
U O O
J M J
P L L
C T C

23. Self Esteem
Disclaimer: This is not a lecture about how to help people with low self-esteem

24. Rosenberg Self–Esteem scale (1965)
1. I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others.
2. I feel that I have a number of good qualities
3. All in all I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.
Choices: 1 strongly agree
2 agree
3 disagree
4 strongly disagree

25. Compared to other college students of the same class level and sex as yourself, how would you rate yourself on the following characteristics?
1 = considerably well below average
5 = average
9 = considerably well above average
_1.leadership ability _2.athletic ability
_3.tolerance _4.energy level

26. Compared to other students of your sex at your college, what do you think are the chances that the following health problems will trouble you at some point in the future?
-3 = much below average
0 = average
+3 = much above average
_1. arthritis _2. suicide
_3. alcoholism _4. lung cancer

27. Unrealistic Optimism – Class Data
Variable
Mean
Arthritis
.21
Suicide
-2.07**
Pneumonia
-.54**
Overweight (>40 lbs)
-.75*
Laryngitis
Alcoholism
-.79**
Killed in an auto accident
.11
Lung Cancer
-.64*
* = p < .10, ** = p < .05

28. Explaining the Better than Average Effect
Self-Enhancement – people want to feel good about themselves
Egocentrism – people focus on their own skill level rather than other people’s skills
Metacognitive deficit – people who are unskilled are unable to accurately evaluate their ability

29. Above-Average Effects in the College Board Survey by Domain Difficulty
Ability
Domain Difficulty
% rating themselves “above average”
Leadership
4.1 70
Mathematics 57
Creative writing
4.2 56
Science
4.5 52
Organizing For Work
4.6 69
Music
4.8 44
Athletics
5.1 60
Art 39
Sales
5.3 50

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

31. Evidence for Positive Illusions
Self-esteem scales
Better-than-average effect
Unrealistic optimism for future life events
Illusion of control over events that are uncontrollable

32. How do people maintain such favorable self- views?
Self-serving attributions
The Genius Effect

33. Perceptual
Intelligence

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

35. Berglas & Jones’ Study
Cover story: study of drugs and intellectual performance.
Contingent Success Condition: intellectual test was tailored so that all subjects performed well.
Non-contingent Success Condition: intellectual test contained mostly unsolvable items.
All subjects were given favorable feedback.

36. Choice of Drug Actavil facilitates intellectual performance.
Pandocrin inhibits intellectual performance.
10mg 7.5mg 5mg 2.5mg 0 2.5mg 5mg 7.5mg 10mg
Actavil
Pandocrin

37. Berglas & Jones’ Results
% choosing Pandocrin
Contingent Success
Non-Contingent Success
Male
13%
70%
Female
26%
40%