Social Cognition experimenter Results: faster if primed rude Other - - PDF document

1

Social Cognition

(continued)

Schemas influence how we behave Bargh and colleagues IV: primed polite or rude DV: how long participant waited to interrupt the experimenter Results: faster if primed rude Other studies:

• -primed elderly stereotype or neutral words and

assessed walking speed How do we decide which schema to use? Depends on schema accessibility Situational cues Recency of schema activation Priming Bargh studies The Donald Study Do not need conscious awareness Personal chronic constructs Schemas can sometimes get us into trouble Confirmation biases: Tendencies to interpret, seek, and create information that verifies our preexisting beliefs or schemas. Examples of confirmation biases Belief perseverance: The tendency to maintain beliefs, even after they have been discredited.

2

Ross et al. (1975) IV: Success, failure, average feedback about ability to detect “real” or “fake” suicide notes Intervention: E explained feedback was randomly assigned and completely false. (Discredited original belief) DV: Estimates of how well would actually do on this task Results: Beliefs persevered. Estimates closely matched false feedback subjects had received, even though it had been discredited. Confirming prior expectations by asking loaded questions Snyder & Swann, 1978 IV: Expectations about person to be interviewed: Introverted or extraverted DV: Selection of interview questions. Slanted toward extraverted, introverted, or neutral. Results: Participants asked loaded questions that confirmed their prior expectations.

The social self

The Social Self

• I. What is the self-concept?

Self as a social construction: James, Cooley, Mead Who am I? Self-schemas

• II. Social Context

Spontaneous self-concept (immediate context) Self-awareness (immediate context) Socio-cultural context (broader context) Sensitivity to context (Self-monitoring)

• III. Mechanisms of self-enhancement

Self-serving cognitions Self-handicapping Defensive pessimism Basking in reflected glory Downward social comparison

3

William James (1890): A person has "as many social selves as there are individuals who recognize him and carry an image of him in their minds." Charles Cooley (1902): Views of self reflect the standpoints of significant others in our lives ("looking glass self") George Herbert Mead (1934): We imagine the perspectives of others and incorporate these into our self views -- and this occurs continuously as we interact with others on an ongoing, moment to moment basis. Who Am I?

• 1. I am ….
• 2. I am….
• 3. I am…

. . . . . .

• 20. I am…

Self-schema (Markus): a set of well-elaborated knowledge about the self that guides the processing

• f self-relevant information and is based on past

social experiences

• -Schematics faster than aschematics to endorse as

self-descriptive words in schematic domain (e.g., independence)

• -Schematics resist evidence contradicting their view
• f themselves in the schematic domain.

Spontaneous self-concept (McGuire): Specific aspects of self that are triggered by the features of the current situation. (Ex: Saying “I’m a young person” in a room where everyone else is elderly.) Self-awareness theory (Duval & Wicklund): The idea that when people focus their attention on themselves, they evaluate and compare their behavior to their internal standards and values. Self-focus is associated with:

• -a drop in self-esteem (probably because comparing

self with a social standard, or with ideal self)

• -behaving in line with socially desirable (and

probably internalized) standards

4

Beaman et al. (1979) Participants: Halloween trick-or-treaters Greeted at a researcher’s door and left alone to help themselves to candy. Asked to take only one piece. IV: Full length mirror behind bowl or no mirror DV: How much candy the child took Results: 34% broke the rule when no mirror versus 12% broke the rule when there was a mirror. When people are self-focused, they tend to behave in line with socially accepted standards. The self is social in at least two ways:

• 1. The way we develop our self-conceptions

depends in part on our interactions with others.

• 2. The situational context (which often includes
• ther people) can affect how we see ourselves

at any given point in time.

Markus & Kitayama INDEPENDENT (individualism):

• -Identity is personal, defined by individual traits and

goals.

• -What matters: Me—personal achievement and

fulfillment; my rights and liberties.

• -Disapproves of conformity.
• -Illustrative motto: “To thine own self be true”
• -Cultures that support: Individualistic Western

INTERDEPENDENT (collectivism):

• -Identity is social; defined by connections with others.
• -What matters: We—group goals and solidarity; our

social responsibilities and relationships.

• -Disapproves of egotism.
• -Illustrative motto: “No one is an island.”
• -Cultures that support: Collectivistic Asian

True or False?

• 1. I find it hard to imitate the behavior of other people.
• 2. At parties and other social gatherings, I do not

attempt to do or say things that others will like.

• 3. I can only argue for ideas which I already believe.
• 4. I can make impromptu speeches even on topics

about which I have almost no information.

• 5. I guess I put on a show to impress or entertain
• thers.
• 6. I would probably make a good actor.
• 7. In a group of people I am rarely the center of

attention.

• 8. In different situations and with different people, I
• ften act like very different persons.
• 9. I am not particularly good at making other people

like me.

• 10. I am not always the person I appear to be.

5

• 11. I would not change my opinions (or the way I

do things) in order to please someone or win their favor.

• 12. I have considered being an entertainer.
• 13. I have never been good at games like

charades or improvisational acting.

• 14. I have trouble changing my behavior to suit

different people and different situations.

• 15. At a party, I let others keep the jokes and

stories going.

• 16. I feel a bit awkward in company and do not

show up quite as well as I should.

• 17. I can look anyone in the eye and tell a lie with

a straight face (if for a right end).

• 18. I may deceive people by being friendly when I

really dislike them. 1 point if true to : 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 17, 18

• r false to:

1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 Mark Snyder: Self-Monitoring Scale Average score of N. American college students = 10-11 High self-monitors: Especially like to change their behavior and stated beliefs depending on who they are interacting with and what the situation demands. Low self-monitors: Respond more consistently from situation to situation on the basis of their existing values. Neither strategy is inherently good or bad. The self-concept is complex and multifaceted. Universe of self-conceptions: all of the ways in which you might see yourself (actual self, hoped for self, ideal self, etc.) Working self-concept: Includes core self-conceptions along with less central self-conceptions that may vary depending on the situational context. Self-esteem: Global positive or negative feelings about the self. Attributions about exam grades when succeed or fail: Degree to which score reflects: Your ability Situation (test was too hard) Mechanisms of Self-Enhancement Self-serving cognitions Shepperd (1993) Asked college students about their performance

• n the SAT.

Findings:

• 1. Most students overestimated their actual score

by about 17 points, and this was more pronounced among students with lower scores.

• 2. Most students with low SAT scores described

their score as “inaccurate” and the test as “invalid.” Nevertheless, SATs predicted GPAs for both low and high scorers.

6

Self-handicapping Berglas & Jones (1978) Cover: “Drugs and intellectual performance” Independent variable: Aptitude test: Participants completed problems that were either extremely difficult (insoluble) or difficult but soluble Dependent variable: Choice of Drug: Drug A: Helps intellectual performance Drug B: Inhibits intellectual performance Helps Inhibits Insoluble problem: 30% 70% Soluble problem: 87% 13% Self-handicapping When a person protects his/her self-image by setting up a situation that makes it difficult to succeed, but creates a handy excuse for failure. Defensive pessimism (Norem & Cantor) A strategy in which a person expects the worst, and works harder because of this expectation. Even among honors students -- everyone in group had high GPA -- defensive pessimists performed better if they were allowed to have negative expectations

• - if blocked negative expectations (by telling them

they would do well), they did not perform as well as their counterparts who were not given these encouraging instructions. Basking in reflected glory Increasing self-esteem by associating with others who are successful (BIRGing) Cialdini et al. (1976) Monday morning after football games, college students (from Arizona State, Louisiana State, etc.) more likely to wear school sweatshirts when team won on the previous Saturday. The larger the victory, the more shirts worn. IV: General knowledge test. ½ success, ½ failure feedback DV: Describe outcome of recent football game. Results: Those who failed were more likely to share team’s victory by saying things like “we won” (or to distance themselves from defeat by saying “they lost”) Downward social comparison Comparing ourselves to people who are worse off than we are on a particular trait or ability. Why? Can help us feel better about ourselves; serves a protective function. Shelley Taylor’s research w/breast cancer patients: Found that many women coped by comparing themselves with others who were doing worse. Explanations for self-serving bias:

• 1. Self-presentation: want to make a good impression
• n others
• 2. Motivation: we are motivated to protect and

enhance our self-esteem.