L2: The Self

L2a: In this section…

How we know who we are:
• Self-Concept
• Self-Awareness Theory
• Self-Perception Theory
 The Self
Self-concept: mental representation or overall
sense of “you”
Cultur
e
Gende Group
r Ties
Self
Concept
 The self
• Development: 18-24 months. Roughly 2 years and develops in
stages.
• In order to have a self identity, you must distinct yourself from
others. We can test this self recognizing from the rouge test.
• Rouge test: Can be done in infants and animals. Red dot is placed
on face and placed in front of the mirror. If they touch or try to
touch the dot on their face while in the mirror in showing that
they are self aware
• Non-human apes, dolphins, elephants, some corvidae can pass the
rouge test
• Moves from physical to psychological with maturation on how we
describe ourselves
 The Self
Self-schema: beliefs about aspects of your
identity that organize the processing of
information related to the self
• Attention
• Perceptions
• Memory
Self-reference effect
The Self
• We remember information related to
ourselves
– E.g. specific words, conversations, characters
– We remember characters from stories when asked
to compare ourselves to them
• Cocktail effect: ability of our auditory stimulus
to focus on one thing and filtering out the rest
• Spotlight effect: we think people are focusing
on us. We overestimate how much of our
behavior is noticed by others
– Study invited ppl. The last person to arrive was
forced to put on an embarissing T-shirt. He was
then asked how many people notice his shirt and
the results are on the right… Estimate vs. actual : 50% vs.
Social identity The Self
• The “we” aspect of our self-concept
• Results from group memberships
“I am…
• female”
• scientist”
• Canadian”
• atheist”
– All these aspects are reliant on group membership, which
means it can change over time as we leave old groups and
enter new ones
 Self-Concept
• Self-concept clarity
– People with high self-concept clarity are stable, clear,
consistently defined self-knowledge
– Low clarity
• Low self-esteem
Depression
– Especially in women
• Rumination
• Less reflection
• Self-handicapping: when we give ourselves an excuse to fail
because we’re afraid what we’ll feel if we don’t succeed
 Cultural Variation in Self Concept
Independent Interdependent

Egocentric Relational
Internal thoughts, emotions, actions Self as determined by others More related
with social tie
Individualist Collectivist

Western Cultures Eastern Cultures

Use more
adjectives like:Exciting, attractive, interesting Kind, accepting, loyal Use more
adjectives like:

Stronger link with self-esteem Weaker link with self-esteem

Self concept theory stronger link

with self-esteem
 The Self
Possible selves
– Our self-concept includes who we might become
– Includes what we aspire to and what we fear
 Self-Awareness Theory
• When we focus on ourselves, we compare our
behaviour to internal standards
• Triggered when we are made aware
• Illuminates disparities between behaviour and
standards
– Either change or deny!
 Culture & Self-Awareness Theory
Heine et al. (2008) Study 1
Ss: American and Japanese students
IV: mirror/control
DV: actual-ideal discrepancies, self-esteem
They were told to do questionnaire and then moved to a different room
with or without a mirror (IV). DV was a self statement test (20 statements
that began with ”I am…”) and then “I would ideally like to be…” and
another scaled examination to test ideal self. They also measure self-
esteem
Results: Mirror = increased self criticism in American but not Japanese
students… lower self-esteem when there was a mirror for Americans but
not for the Japs
Higher self discrepancy with lower self esteem in Americans
Self awareness can influence our self and self-esteem, but only from an
independent culture
 Culture & Self-Awareness Theory
Heine et al. (2008): Study 2
Ss: Canadian and Japanese students
IV: mirror/control
DV: cheating on word test
Subject told to type as many emotional words as possible and told them
that the score is correlated with their own GPA… this increased motivation.
They told them it only was only 2min long. Experimenter returns 5 minutes
later. A software calculated when they stopped typing (measure of cheating)
Results: Mirror = reduced cheating in Canadian but not Japanese students
Not only does our self-awareness influence our self-concept and our
behavior, but cultural differences are an important concept when examining
self awareness.
It was also suggested that the Japanese students evaluated themselves
from other peoples perspectives originally (as if they were already in front
of the mirror). Thus, self-awareness seems to be lower in Canadians
resulting in a greater cueing of self-awareness through the use of a mirror
 The Self
Introspection
- Inward examination of
cognition, affect, etc.
- Not the primary source of our
self-concept
- 8% of thoughts are self-directed
- Less than accurate
- Much of our cognitive
processes are unconscious
 Self-Perception Theory
- asserts that people develop their attitudes by observing their own
behavior and concluding what attitudes must have caused it
- Behaviours can influence attitudes
- When facing ambiguity, we infer from our behaviour
- Compare experience/internal state with social context and draw
conclusions from there
- Ex: someone asks if we like dogs or cats… we will rely on past experiences
- Evidence from choice blindness
- Choice blindness: shown 2 objects and asked to choose 1. they then put the cards
down and switch them. Then they ask the person why they chose that one
- On 75% of trials, people don’t even notice the switch and come up with a reason.
These explanations must have been confabulated (unconscious lying) because
they explain a preference that they did not originally agree with
- Confabulation: unconscious lying. Or making up a reason for a behavior because
we don’t know the real reason or because there isn’t one to begin with cause
original attitude wasn’t strong enough
 Self-Perception Theory
Hall et al., 2002
• Ss recruited for “moral questions” survey
• DV: % corrected/accepted
Measure the degree to which they agreed or
disagreed to each statement. They were then
asked to read 3 of their ratings from the 1st
page. However, the researcher reversed the
statement as seen on the right
Results: 69% accepted 1 of the 3 altered
statements
• Provided a verbal report tracked altered
statements
L2b: In this section…
Who we are in relation to others
• Self-Presentation
• Social Comparison Theory
• Self-esteem
 The Self
• The looking glass self
• Use others as a mirror for perceiving ourselves
• Doesn’t matter what they actually think, it matters what
we believe they think
 Self-presentation
• Behavior intended to create a
specific/ favourable impression of
yourself
• Mostly unconscious
• Self-monitoring: change behavior
based on the situation presented
• Conscious process
• Adjust to the situations
• Less likely to act on own
thoughts/attitudes
Evaluating ourselves: Social
influences
Social comparison theory: we compare ourselves to others to
find out who we are
• When there is no objective standard
• To people who are similar to us
• Divided into downward and upward social comparison
 Social comparison theory
Downward social comparison
• Occur more often than upward
• When we want to feel better about ourselves
• Compare to others who we think we are doing better
than
• Spontaneous
• Generally successful, but not always… especially if
we see ourselves becoming the person we are
comparing ourselves to
 Social comparison theory
Lockwood 2002
• Ss: Intro psych students
• Procedure: read a previous years student bio. Described their
difficulties over the academic year. After the bio some
students were asked to do a mental simulation of what you
think will cause you to have a similar year (this is the social
comparison part). Control group were asked to reflect on 3
things that happens to them over the typical day (self-
reflection but without social comparison component). The no
target group was never exposed to the bio
• IV: simulation vs control (x2: no simulation, no target)
• DV: self-ratings
• Are you/will you experience difficulties?
• Asked to describe themselves on 10 positive and 10 negative items
 Social Comparison Theory
Higher rating= more positive rating
This is result of downward social comparison
Those with high academic concerns
rated themselves lower
This shows the failure of downward
social comparison because they
thought they can be in this persons
shoes
Social Comparison Theory
Study 2
• Procedure: read student bio. But something more
plausible that could happen to them. Described
recent graduate having difficulty finding job.
Farther away situation
• IV: simulation vs control (x2: no simulation, no
target) … same shit as previous study
• DV: self-ratings… same shit
• Are you/will you experience difficulties?
• Then categorized by prevention goals
Social Comparison Theory

The students that imagined their

future unsuccessful rated However, they scored higher on
themselves lower prevention goals
That negative feeling can help to
take action
 Social comparison theory
Upward social comparison
• Relative deprivation
• Generally feel worse
• Especially if low in self-esteem
• E.g. Advertisements & body image
• But, can serve as source of inspiration
• e.g. cancer patients
• We also compare ourselves to ppl we don’t know
and this is because we feel a source of pride with
family or friend who is successful. This can depend
on what the target comparison is. If you both are
swimmers are yo friend gets reward, then you feel
bad. But if he’s a chess player who gets reward then
its not as bad
• Less likely in intimate relationships
 Social comparison theory
Want, Vickers, & Amos, 2009
IV: intervention script/control
DV: appearance-satisfaction ratings
Showed a neutral clip. Script that said that bodies of actors
are not representative of the general population and shit
like that
Results: people who were exposed to the intervention we
more satisfied with their appearance
• Exposure = lower appearance satisfaction
• Prevented by intervention script
• Being aware of unrealistic beauty standards can prevent the
negative impact cause it can prevent upward social comparison
 The Self
Self-esteem
• the evaluative component of the self or overall self-worth
• Sociometer theory: self-esteem functions to keep tract of our place in our
world or social status
• high self-esteem predicts positive outcomes… correlational not causation
• Predicts success (regardless of accuracy)
• A strong motivator
• > boosting self-esteem can be found to be more important than food, alcohol, sex,
friends, or money
• Has a dark side. Gang leaders and extremists have high narcissism. These 2
are different tho
• High self-esteem is having positive attitudes towards themselves. It differ as it
represents an attitude built on accomplishments we've mastered in values we've
adhered to and care we've shown towards other
• Narcissism based on a fear of failure or weakness, focusing on themselves and an
unhealthy drive to be seen as the best, as well as insecurity and underlying feelings of
inadequacy
 Self-esteem
Bushman and Baumeister, 1998
Cover story: reactions to positive/negative feedback
Procedure: narcissism scale, essay, feedback, competitive RT
task
Asked to write a essay and then took it to another student who
didn’t really exist. The experiment returned the essay that said
negative feedback (ego threat) and control group received
favorable comments. Then they had to play a game where them
and a partner had to press a button as fast as possible. Loser
gets a sound blasted at them. The other person could set the
intensity of the sound. The duration of the noise dependent on
how long the winner held the button down
IV: ego threat
DV: weaponized sound
Bushman and Baumeister, 1998

ego threat group was more aggressive, playing louder sounds for
longer than those who are not high in narcissism. Therefore
Narcissism is associated with aggressive retaliation
Self-esteem
“Genuine self esteem”
• Secure self-worth
• More likely to defend victims of bullying
• Less
• Defensive to criticism
• Thin-skinned
• Judgemental
 Self-enhancement
Self-serving biases
• We want to feel good, regardless of the truth
• Take credit for successes, blame external factors for
failures
• “I’m so smart!” vs. “Easy test”
• “Test too hard!” vs. “Didn’t study enough”
 Self-enhancement
•  Illusory superiority: Most people think they are
better than average
• Statistically impossible!
• False uniqueness, common faults
• Unrealistic optimism: person believes that they are
less likely to experience negative event
• Positive distortion inflates our self esteem
• Bias blind spot: we engage in them, but are not
aware “Yeah, but not me!”
 Self-Verification
• Want others to perceive us, the way we perceive ourselves
• People want to confirm their self-concept, be it positive or
negative
• Can conflict with desire to self-enhance
• Which one wins depends on context
• Self-enhancement when from authority on relevant topic (date,
boss, coach), enhancement is meaningful, and for traits we
“can’t change”
• Self-verification when from non-authority peers, when
inaccuracy is low cost (so no harm when they are wrong), and
for traits we “can change”
L2c: In this section…
• Self-handicapping
– One way to protect our self-esteem
• Self-control
– One reason we may use self-handicapping
 Self-protection
Self-handicapping
• Excuse to fail
– Procrastination, missing deadlines
– Not putting forth effort
– Not practicing/studying
– Cramming/partying all night before a
test
– We can think of it as a failure of self-
regulation
 Self-Control
Regulate own behaviour. prevent self
handicapping
• Thought suppression
– Not successful strategy
• Self-regulatory resource model
– Self-control is limited
– Ego-depletion
• Gets used up
• Impairs subsequent control
 Self-regulatory resource model
Vohs & Heatherton (2000)
• Ss: Dieters vs. controls
Procedure
• 2 hr fast, watch neutral film, rate ice cream
• IVs: temptation (close, far), access (help yourself,
don’t touch)
In ego depletion condition, there was a pile of snacks
that were close and far. Access group told to have it or
not to touch it. Then told to eat as much ice cream they
would like and rate it
• DV: grams of ice cream consumed
 Self-regulatory resource model
• Results Not significantly different

NS
The chronic dieters were already using self-control
 Self-regulatory resource model
What about other tasks?
Study 2
• Ss: dieters
• Procedure: same as previous
• IV: Ego-depletion (close, far). But only used chronic
dieters
• DV: persistence on unsolvable task
• Results: 21.8 (non-depleted) vs 17 min (depleted)
• Ego depletion on a previous task can affect an unrelated
task
 Self-Control & Social Rejection
• Social ties critical to sense of self
• We want to belong, be accepted
• Prerequisite for survival & reproduction

Contradiction of rejection
1. More antisocial behaviour
2. More self-defeating behaviour
• Neither helps to solve the problem of rejection
• Both require self-regulation
 Self-Control & Social Rejection
• Baumesiter et al., (2005): Does social rejection impair self-regulation?
Hypothesis based on: if people are to live together, they must curb
selfish impulses and make certain other sacrifices.
Procedure:
• Completed a Extraversion-introversion scale. But gave false feedback
on their prediction of their future belonging. Control was accident
proneness… nothing to do with social acceptance. Told them to drink
a nasty healthy drink
• IV: False feedback (belonging, alone, control)
• DV: “healthy” drink consumption
• Results:
– Alone (2.31 oz) < Belong (7.91oz) = Control (7.50 oz)
– We experience lower self regulation after social rejection
 Issues in Ego Depletion Research

• Willpower can get stronger wit

h use
– Practice makes perfect!
• May only exist if you believe it’
s real
• Some replications have failed t
o detect significant effects r!
w e
• Evidence is mixed il l po
W
 Summary
• Self concept is derived from multiple sources
outside of ourselves

• Social Comparison Theory: we evaluate

ourselves relative to others, for better or worse

• Social exclusions can inhibit self-regulation,

leading to self-handicapping