PSYC2040 Lecture Notes - Lecture 2: Social Comparison Theory, Motivation, Anagram
17 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
PSYC2040 NOTES
COLOUR KEY
Key definitions
Functions, processes and components
Important points
Lecture 2 – the Self
Self-concept
●To develop self-concept we have to be able to see ourselves as a distinct entity
(self-awareness)
●Self-perception theory
○People gain self-insight by observing their own behavior (Bem, 1972)
○We look at our actions and form conclusions about ourselves
●Social comparison
○We tend to compare ourselves to others to assess our own traits and abilities
(Festinger, 1954)
■Relativity
○Informational consequences
■Social comparisons can provide information
■Study: participants were asked to make judgements of artwork and were
given fake feedback about their abilities to do so
●The feedback consisted of absolute scores (60% vs 40%) and
comparative scores (20% higher vs. 20% lower than average)
●People rated their own ability as higher when given the 20%
higher than average comparative score regardless of the absolute
score they received
●This suggests that individuals pay more attention to the social
comparison than their own score
○Emotional consequences
■Social comparisons can influence our emotions
■Upward vs downward comparisons
●Upward comparisons are when we make social comparisons with
people we consider superior or better off; downward
comparisons are when we do this with people we consider
inferior or worse off
●Sometimes we do negative things like put people down to
elevate ourselves
●If the trait can be changed and we care about it, we can be
motivated by this comparison
●Social comparisons can sometimes be good for mental health
○Study: in interviews with breast cancer patients, most of
the comparisons they made were either downward or
lateral e.g. “She has it worse than me, I really shouldn’t
complain,” which provides a positive outlook on a
negative situation
Self-presentation
●Kids don’t engage in it
●“If I’m comparing myself to others they must do the same”
●Self-monitoring (strategic self-presentation): adapting to social situations e.g. picking
up similar behaviours if most members of a group behave that certain way
●Spotlight effect: feeling like everyone is paying attention to you
○Study: participants were instructed to wear a “dorky” shirt and enter a room,
after which they guessed how many people noticed it, which most of them
overestimated
●Illusion of transparency: feeling like your affect is visible to everyone
○Study: participants were videotaped and instructed to disguise their emotional
responses to several drinks, some of which were unpleasant
■The video tapes were then shown to others who were told to guess
which drinks were the unpleasant ones based on the responses
■Participants thought their emotions were obvious but the reviewers of
the tapes were mostly unsuccessful at identifying the unpleasant drinks
Self-enhancement
●We see ourselves as better than we really are
○93% of drivers think they’re better than average
○Only 1% of people rate their marriage as worse than most
○Jailed criminals think that they’re kinder, more trustworthy and more honest
than the general public
●Do we believe these views or is it more about self-presentation?
○Whether it’s about enhancement or presentation is contextual
○Study: Participants’ photos were digitally morphed with the photos of someone
less attractive and (separately) someone more attractive
■People were more likely to recognise their attractively edited face as
their own in a lineup
■Participants were also faster to identify their attractively morphed photo
out of distorted faces
Document Summary
To develop self-concept we have to be able to see ourselves as a distinct entity. People gain self-insight by observing their own behavior (bem, 1972) We look at our actions and form conclusions about ourselves. We tend to compare ourselves to others to assess our own traits and abilities (festinger, 1954) Study: participants were asked to make judgements of artwork and were given fake feedback about their abilities to do so. The feedback consisted of absolute scores (60% vs 40%) and comparative scores (20% higher vs. 20% lower than average) People rated their own ability as higher when given the 20% higher than average comparative score regardless of the absolute score they received. This suggests that individuals pay more attention to the social comparison than their own score. Upward comparisons are when we make social comparisons with people we consider superior or better off ; downward comparisons are when we do this with people we consider inferior or worse off.
