Social Psychology Elliot Aronson Timothy D. Wilson Robin M. Akert

Social Psychology Elliot Aronson Timothy D. Wilson Robin M. Akert
6th edition Elliot Aronson University of California, Santa Cruz Timothy D. Wilson University of Virginia Robin M. Akert Wellesley College slides by Travis Langley Henderson State University

Chapter 5 Self-Knowledge: How We Come to Understand Ourselves
Introspection is difficult and fallible. The difficulty is simply that of all observation of whatever kind. — William James, 1890

Source of image: Source: http://www.friends-serie.de/image/6022.jpg
Ross was in good company in taking the “pluses and minuses” approach. Over two centuries ago, Benjamin Franklin gave this advice about how to make difficult choices: “My way is to divide half a sheet of paper by a line into two columns, writing over the one Pro, and over the other Con. Then  I put down  short hints of the different motives. When each is thus considered, separately and comparatively, and the whole lies before me, I think I can judge better, and am less likely to make a rash step.” (quoted in Goodman, 1945, p. 746) Not everyone, however, believes in listing pros and cons. Consider the Peruvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa’s reaction to judging films at the Berlin film festival: “I went to every screening with a fresh pack of notecards that I would dutifully cover with my impressions of each and every film. The result, of course, was that the movies ceased to be fun and turned into problems, a struggle against time, darkness and my own esthetic emotions, which these autopsies confused. I was so worried about evaluating every aspect of every film that my entire system of values went into shock, and I quickly realized that I could no longer easily tell what I liked or didn’t or why.” (Vargas Llosa, 1986, p. 23) 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? Source of image: Source:

Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
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. Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.

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. 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). In this chapter, we will consider both aspects of the self—the nature of the self-concept and how we come to know ourselves through self-awareness.

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. (Gallup, Anderson, & Shillito, 2002; Keenan, Gallup, & Falk, 2003) A good place to begin is with the question of whether we are the only species with a sense of self. Some fascinating studies suggest that we are not alone in this regard (Gallup, 1997 ). Researchers placed a mirror in an animal’s cage until the mirror became a familiar object. The animal was then briefly anesthetized and an odorless red dye was painted on its brow or ear. What happened when the animal woke up and looked in the mirror? Chimpanzees and orangutans immediately touched the area of their heads marked with the red spot. Dolphins have also shown signs of recognizing themselves in mirrors. When a spot was drawn on their bodies (with a nontoxic marker), the dolphins swam directly to mirrors and twisted their bodies to see the spot (Emery & Clayton, 2005; Reiss & Marino, 2001). Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.

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. (Courage, Edison, & Howe, 2005; Lewis & Ramsay, 2004) A 9-year-old answered the question this way: “I have brown eyes. I have brown hair. I have brown eyebrows. I’m a boy. I have an uncle that is almost 7 feet tall” (Montemayor & Eisen, 1977, p. 317). Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.

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. (Hart & Damon, 1986; Livesley & Bromley, 1973; Montemayor & Eisen, 1977) Consider this twelfth-grade high school student’s answer to the “Who am I?” question: I am a human being. I am a moody person. I am an indecisive person. I am an ambitious person. I am a very curious person. I am not an individual. I am a loner. I am an American (God help me). I am a Democrat. I am a liberal person. I am a radical. I am a conservative. I am a pseudoliberal. I am an atheist. I am not a classifiable person (i.e., I don’t want to be). (Montemayor & Eisen, 1977, p. 318)

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 (Baumeister, 1998; Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Finch, 1997; Leary & Tangney, 2003) Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.

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-schemas also act as lenses through which people view others. (Showers & Zeigler-Hill, 2003).

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. Here’s a consequence of having a rich set of self-schemas that you can try out on your friends. Read them a list of twenty adjectives, such as warm, colorful, quiet, and soft. Ask one group of friends to think about how much each adjective describes themselves, and ask another group to think about the meaning of each adjective or how much it describes someone else. Then ask both groups to write down as many of the words as they can remember. More than likely you will find a self-reference effect, which is the tendency for people to remember information better if they relate it to themselves (Markus, 1977; Kihlstrom, Beer, & Klein, 2003; Symons & Johnson, 1997). Integrating information with our self-schemas helps us organize it better and connect it to other information about ourselves, which makes us more likely to remember it later.

SELF-REGULATION: THE EXECUTIVE FUNCTION
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. Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.

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. The idea is that people have a limited amount of energy to devote to self-control and that spending it on one task limits the amount that can be spent on another task, just as going for a 5-mile run makes it difficult to immediately play a game of basketball. (Baumeister & Hetherington, 1996; Vohs, Baumeister, & Ciarocco, 2005; Schmeichel & Baumeister, 2004) Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.

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. (Muraven, Tice, & Baumeister, 1998) Although the tasks were quite different, researchers suggest that the first one depleted the resource people use to control their behaviors and feelings, making it difficult to engage in a subsequent act of self-control. Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.

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 well-rested, such as in the morning after a good night’s sleep. (Baumeister, Muraven, & Tice, 2000) Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.

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. (Kitayama & Uchida, 2005; Markus & Kitayama, 1991, 2001; Nisbett, 2003; Triandis, 1995)

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. (Kitayama & Uchida, 2005; Markus & Kitayama, 1991, 2001; Nisbett, 2003; Triandis, 1995)

In contrast, many Asian and other non-Western 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. For example, when asked to complete sentences beginning with “I am  ,” people from Asian cultures are more likely to refer to social groups, such as their family or religious group, than people from Western cultures are (Bochner, 1994; Triandis, 1989).

In contrast, many Asian and other non-Western cultures have an interdependent view of the self. Connectedness and interdependence between people is valued, whereas independence and uniqueness are frowned on. Ted Singelis (1994) developed a questionnaire that measures the extent to which people view themselves as interdependent or independent, and administered the questionnaire to students at the University of Hawaii at Manoa and found that Asian Americans agreed more with the interdependence than the independence items, whereas Caucasian Americans agreed more with the independence than the interdependence items.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease. — American proverb The nail that stands out gets pounded down. — Japanese proverb Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.

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 self-concept, and these differences are likely to increase as contact between cultures increases. It is interesting to note, for example, that Masako’s decision to marry the Japanese prince was unpopular among at least some young Japanese women, who felt that her choice was not a positive sign of interdependence but a betrayal of the feminist cause in Japan (Sanger, 1993). Women are joining the workforce in Japan in record numbers and more women are postponing or forgoing marriage in favor of careers (Faiola, 2004). And the restricted life in the Imperial Household seems to have taken its toll on Princess Masako. In 2004 she stopped making public appearances, and the press office for the royal family announced that she was receiving therapy for depression (Onishi, 2004). Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.

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. (Baumeister & Sommer, 1997; Cross, Bacon, & Morris, 2000; Cross & Madson, 1997; Gabriel & Gardner, 1999, 2004) Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.

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. (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Gabriel & Gardner, 1999) Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.

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. (Cross & Madson, 1997) These differences persist into adulthood, such that women focus more on intimacy and cooperation with a small number of close others and are in fact more likely to discuss personal topics and disclose their emotions than men are (Caldwell & Peplau, 1982; Davidson & Duberman, 1982). Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.

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. (Deaux & LaFrance, 1998, Hyde, 2005) Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.

Knowing Ourselves through Introspection
The process whereby people look inward and examine their own thoughts, feelings, and motives. Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.

Knowing Ourselves through Introspection
The process whereby people look inward and examine their own thoughts, feelings, and motives. People do not rely on this source of information as often as you might think. Even when people do introspect, the reasons for their feelings and behavior can be hidden from conscious awareness. Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.

Focusing on the Self: Self-Awareness Theory
Sometimes we turn the spotlight of consciousness on ourselves, particularly when we encounter something in the environment that triggers self-awareness, such as seeing ourselves on videotape or staring at ourselves in a mirror. For example, if you are watching a home video taken by a friend with her new camcorder and you are the featured attraction, you will be in a state of self-awareness; you become the focus of your attention. (Carver, 2003; Duval & Silvia, 2002; Duval & Wicklund, 1972; Phillips & Silva, 2005) 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. Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.

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. (Baumeister, 1991; Hull, 1981; Hull & Young, 1983; Hull, Young, & Jouriles, 1986).

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. (Baumeister, 1991; Hull, 1981; Hull & Young, 1983; Hull, Young, & Jouriles, 1986) Several studies have found that when people are self-aware (e.g., in front of a mirror), they are more likely to follow their moral standards, such as avoiding the temptation to cheat on a test (Beaman, Klentz, Diener, & Svanum, 1979; Diener & Wallbom, 1976; Gibbons, 1978).

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? In many cases, people are wrong about what predicts their mood. For example, most people believed that the amount of sleep they got predicted how good a mood they were in the next day when in fact this wasn’t true: Amount of sleep was unrelated to people’s moods. (Niedenthal & Kitayama, 1994; Wegner, 2002, Wilson, 2002)

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.” We learn many of these theories from the culture in which we grow up—ideas such as absence makes the heart grow fonder, people are in bad moods on Mondays, or people who have been divorced are a poor choice for a successful second marriage. 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.

The Consequences of Introspecting about Reasons
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. In Wilson’s studies, people report such reasons as how well they communicate with their dating partner and how similar they are in their interests and backgrounds. Though these reasons may often be correct, people probably overlook other reasons that are not so easy to verbalize, such as the special chemistry that can exist between two people. (Wilson, 2002; Wilson, Dunn, Kraft, & Lisle, 1989; Wilson, Hodges, & LaFleur, 1995) (Wilson, Dunn, Bybee, Hyman, & Rotondo, 1984; Wilson & Kraft, 1993)

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.” You assume that your attitudes match the reasons that are plausible and easy to generate (Levine, Halberstadt, & Goldstone, 1996; Wilson & Kraft, 1993). The real reasons people feel the way they do (e.g., the special chemistry between you and your romantic partner) do not go away when people analyze reasons; they just get obscured temporarily by focusing on reasons that are easier to put into words (Wilson, Lindsey, & Schooler, 2000).

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. (Wilson et al., 1993) (Halberstadt & Levine, 1997; Reifman, Larrick, Crandall, & Fein, 1996; Sengupta & Fitzimons, 2004)

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. Bem (1972) proposed self-perception theory. If you’ve always known that you love classical music, you do not need to observe your behavior to figure this out (Andersen, 1984; Andersen & Ross, 1984). Maybe, though, your feelings are murky; you’ve never really thought about how much you like it. If so, you are especially likely to use your behavior as a guide to how you feel (Chaiken & Baldwin, 1981; Kunda, Fong, Sanitioso, & Reber, 1993; Wood, 1982). If you freely choose to listen to the classical music station—no one makes you do it—you are especially likely to conclude that you listen to that station because you like classical music. We observe our behavior and explain it to ourselves; that is, we make an attribution about why we behaved that way (Albarracin & Wyer, 2000; Dolinsky, 2000; Fazio, 1987; Wilson, 2002). We infer our inner feelings from our behavior only when we are not sure how we feel. People judge whether their behavior really reflects how they feel or whether it was the situation that made them act that way.

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.

Source of image:

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. Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.

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. Extrinsic rewards can reduce intrinsic motivation. Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.

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 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. Overjustification Effect The tendency of people to view their behavior as caused by compelling extrinsic reasons, making them underestimate the extent to which it was caused by intrinsic reasons. This is especially likely to happen to children who already liked to read. Such children have high intrinsic motivation—the desire to engage in an activity because they enjoy it or find it interesting, not because of external rewards or pressures (Harackiewicz, Durik, & Barron, 2005; Harackiewicz & Elliot, 1993, 1998; Hirt, Melton, McDonald, & Harackiewicz, 1996; Lepper, Corpus, & Iyengar, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Tauer & Harackiewicz, 2004).

PRESERVING INTRINSIC INTEREST
Fortunately, there are conditions under which overjustification effects can be avoided. Rewards will undermine interest only if interest was initially high. If a child has no interest in reading, getting him or her read by offering free pizza is not a bad idea because there is not initial interest to undermine. (Calder & Staw, 1975; Tang & Hall, 1995)

Fortunately, there are conditions under which overjustification effects can be avoided. Rewards will undermine interest only if interest was initially high. The type of reward makes a difference. Performance-contingent rewards might do better than task-contingent rewards. For example, grades are performance-contingent, because you get a high reward (an A) only if you do well. This type of reward is less likely to decrease interest in a task—and may even increase interest—because it conveys the message that you are good at the task (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Sansone & Harackiewicz, 1997).

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. Thus rather than giving kids a reward for playing math games regardless of how well they do (i.e., a task-contingent reward), it is better to reward them for doing well in math. Even performance-contingent rewards must be used with care, because they too can backfire. Though people like the positive feedback these rewards convey, they do not like the apprehension caused by being evaluated (Harackiewicz, 1989; Harackiewicz, Manderlink, & Sansone, 1984). The trick is to convey positive feedback without making people feel nervous and apprehensive about being evaluated.

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.

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. Schachter says we observe our internal behaviors—how physiologically aroused we feel. If we feel aroused, we then try to figure out what is causing this arousal. For example, suppose you go for a 3-mile run one day and are walking back to your apartment. You go around a corner and nearly walk right into an extremely attractive person from your psychology class that you are just getting to know. Your heart is pounding and you feel a little sweaty. Is it because love is blossoming between you and your new friend or simply because you just went for a run?

Schachter’s idea that emotional experience is the result of a two-step self-perception process in which people: Experience physiological arousal, and then Seek an appropriate explanation for it.

Because our physical states are difficult to label on their own, we use information in the situation to help us make an attribution about why we feel aroused.

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: They prevented people from becoming angry by providing a nonemotional explanation for why they felt aroused. They could make participants experience a very different emotion by changing the most plausible explanation for their arousal. They did the latter by informing some of the people who received epinephrine that the injection would increase their heart rate, make their face feel warm and flushed, and cause their hands to shake slightly. When people actually began to feel this way, they inferred that it was not because they were angry but because the injection was taking effect. As a result, these participants did not react angrily to the questionnaire. The people who became angry or euphoric in the Schachter and Singer (1962) study did so because they felt aroused and thought this arousal was due to the obnoxious questionnaire or to the infectious, happy-go-lucky behavior of the accomplice. The real cause of their arousal, the epinephrine, was hidden from them; so they relied on situational cues to explain their behavior.

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. If a mugger points a gun at us and says, “Give me your wallet!” we feel aroused and correctly identify this arousal as fear. If our heart is thumping while we walk on a deserted moonlit beach with the man or woman of our dreams, we correctly label this arousal love or sexual attraction.

Finding the Wrong Cause: 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). (Ross & Olson, 1981; Sinclair, Hoffman, Mark, Martin, & Pickering, 1994; Thompson, Gold, & Ryckman, 2003; Zillmann, 1978) The moral is this: If you encounter an attractive man or woman and your heart is going thump-thump, think carefully about why you are aroused—you might fall in love for the wrong reasons!

Interpreting the Social World: 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: Do you think an event has good or bad implications for you? How do explain what caused the event? A central idea of appraisal theories of emotion is that it depends on the way in which you interpret or explain this event, in the absence of any physiological arousal (Ellsworth, 1994; Frijda, 1986; Lazarus, 1995; Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988; Roseman & Smith, 2001; Russell & Barrett, 1999; Scherer, Dan, & Flykt, 2006).

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). The theories agree that one way people learn about themselves is by observing events—including their own behavior—and then trying to explain those events.

USING OTHER PEOPLE TO KNOW OURSELVES
Social contact is crucial to the development of a self-concept. Gordon Gallup (1977) compared the behavior of chimpanzees raised in normal family groupings with that of chimps who were raised alone, in complete social isolation. The socially experienced chimps “passed” the mirror test; after red dye was put on their foreheads and they looked at themselves in a mirror, they immediately used their mirrored image to explore the red areas of their heads. However, the socially isolated chimps did not react to their reflections at all—they did not recognize themselves in the mirror, suggesting that they had not developed a sense of self. Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.

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.

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: When do you engage in social comparison? With whom do you choose to compare yourself? (Festinger, 1954; Mussweiler, 2003; Suls & Wheeler, 2000; Wood & Wilson, 2003)

(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. (Suls & Fletcher, 1983; Suls & Miller, 1977)

(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. (Gilbert, Giesler, & Morris, 1995; Mussweiler, Rüter, & Epstude, 2004) Suppose that it is the first day of a college Spanish class and you are wondering about your abilities and how well you will do in the class. With whom should you compare yourself: a student who mentions that she lived in Spain for two years, a student who says she took the course on a lark and has never studied Spanish before, or a student who has a similar background to yours? Not surprisingly, people find it most informative to compare themselves to others who have a similar background in the area in question (Goethals & Darley, 1977; Miller, 1982; Suls, Martin, & Wheeler, 2000). Comparing yourself to a student with a very similar background in Spanish—the one who, like you, took Spanish in high school but has never traveled to a Spanish-speaking country—will be most informative. If that student is doing well in the class, you probably will too.

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. If we want to know the “best of the best” so that we can dream of getting there some day, then clearly we should compare ourselves to the student who lived in Spain and see how well she is doing in the class. In terms of self-knowledge, however, it is often more useful to compare ourselves to someone who is similar to us (Thornton & Arrowood, 1966; Wheeler, Koestner, & Driver, 1982; Zanna, Goethals, & Hill, 1975). Downward social comparison is a self-protective, self-enhancing strategy (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1993; Buunk, Oldersma, & de Dreu, 2001; Lockwood, 2002; Walton & Cohen, 2003).

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. According to more recent research, this is especially true when two people want to get along with each other (Hardin & Higgins, 1996; Sinclair, Huntsinger, Skorinko, & Hardin, 2005). If a close friend thinks that the Simpsons is the best TV show ever made, you will probably like it as well. Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.

Knowing Ourselves by Adopting Other People’s Views
Social Tuning The process whereby people adopt another person's attitudes. Social tuning can happen unconsciously. Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.

IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT: ALL THE WORLD’S A STAGE
The attempt by people to get others to see them as they want to be seen. People have many impression management strategies. If your boss drones on at a staff meeting, nearly putting the entire office to sleep, and you say, “Great job today, Sue. Loved your presentation,” you are probably ingratiating. Ingratiation is a powerful technique, since we all enjoy having someone be nice to us—which is what the ingratiator is good at. However, such a ploy can backfire if the recipient of your ingratiation senses that you’re being insincere (Jones, 1964; Kauffman & Steiner, 1968). Ingratiation The process whereby people flatter, praise, and generally try to make themselves likable to another person, often of higher status. Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.

The attempt by people to get others to see them as they want to be seen. People have many impression management strategies. Doing poorly or failing at a task is damaging to your self-esteem. In fact, just doing less well than you expected or than you have in the past can be upsetting, even if it is a good performance. How can you prevent this disappointment? Self-handicapping is a rather surprising solution: You can set up excuses, before the fact, just in case you do poorly (Arkin & Oleson, 1998; Jones & Berglas, 1978; Rhodewalt & Vohs, 2005). Ingratiation The process whereby people flatter, praise, and generally try to make themselves likable to another person, often of higher status. Self-Handicapping The strategy whereby people create obstacles and excuses for themselves so that if they do poorly on a task, they can avoid blaming themselves. Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.

There are two major ways in which people self-handicap. 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. 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. Obstacles: (Deppe & Harackiewicz, 1996; Kimble & Hirt, 2005; Lucas & Lovaglia, 2005; Spalding & Hardin, 1999) Excuses: (Baumgardner, Lake, & Arkin, 1985; Greenberg, Pyszczynski, & Paisley, 1984; Hirt, Deppe, & Gordon, 1991) Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.

Culture, Impression Management, and 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. Recent studies have produced conflicting findings on whether non-Western individuals will engage less readily in self-enhancement.

Social Psychology Elliot Aronson Timothy D. Wilson Robin M. Akert
6th edition Elliot Aronson University of California, Santa Cruz Timothy D. Wilson University of Virginia Robin M. Akert Wellesley College slides by Travis Langley Henderson State University

Social Psychology Elliot Aronson Timothy D. Wilson Robin M. Akert

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Social Psychology Elliot Aronson Timothy D. Wilson Robin M. Akert"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Social Psychology Elliot Aronson Timothy D. Wilson Robin M. Akert

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Social Psychology Elliot Aronson Timothy D. Wilson Robin M. Akert"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback