Class Notes (835,730)
Canada (509,354)
Psychology (4,206)
PSY325H5 (88)
Lecture

PSY325- Lecture 2.docx

7 Pages
103 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Psychology
Course
PSY325H5
Professor
Simone Walker
Semester
Summer

Description
PSY325- Lecture 2 - Self knowledge - Self knowledge can take many different forms—humans take it for granted - According to parker, the complexity of self knowledge that an organism has, depends on how complex that organism is in the first time - The more complex an organism, the more complex their self knowledge will be - Some kind of information that organisms have knowledge about their body? According to parker, at the lowest level of taxonomy (cellular and tissue level) – we need not be conscious of this knowledge—we don’t need to be aware of the cellular functions happening in our body at the very moment - Represents very basic form of self - As organisms become more complex, as we continue along the species taxonomy, so too the form of self knowledge becomes more complex - Mirror self recognition to index self knowledge - In order to recognize oneself in mirror, you need to be able to map that visual image of yourself - Visual kinesthetic matching – some argue that in order to recognize oneself in mirror, you don’t need to match that with the image in your head--- you just need to match it with your body movements—match that arm lifting with the sensation of your arm lifting in order to realize that that image is you—some say that’s all you really need, you don’t have to have this conscious idea of you - As we continue along the species taxonomy, the most complex species (us), the complex we get - Self esteem is simply your evaluation of yourself—a person of worth of value, positive or negative attitudes towards yourself, we need to evaluate ourselves, compare ourselves, it is very complicated and complex which only humans do - Self knowledge in humans - How do we acquire self knowledge in the first place? - Through interacting with others. Symbolic interactionists were proposing the same thing—by interacting with others we recognize ourself – reflected appraisal(cooley) - Social comparison theory—when we are unsure of our abilities, we can look to others to figure this information out—compare ourselves with others - 3 main types of social comparisons - Downward comparison—compare with people who are worse than us, objective information about how well you are doing compared to others - Upward social comparison—comparing with people who are doing better than us - Lateral social comparisons—compare yourself with someone who is doing just as well as you - By making social comparisons, we come by self knowledge - We can make use of the groups that we belong - Social identity - Your culture to provide information about yourself, what you are supposed to do, how you are supposed to interpret events - Gender can also be used to identify yourself - Gender stereotypes - Self perception theory we can learn more about ourselves—observe our own behaviors to infer information about our preferences and characteristics - Through introspection—turning your attention inwards, looking inwards to discover information about you - What is required for this process? - William james argues one need be self aware, must be self aware, in order to develop a self concept, in order to learn about your characteristics, beliefs, thoughts, feelings, organisms must be self aware, must have understanding that it has internal processes, in order to develop self concept, one needs to understand that you have internal states (thoughts, feelings, beliefs, etc.) - I self should come before the me self - If the I self is to be the architect of me self - Most researchers only focus on the me self, not able to test whether this proposal is valid - Element of self awareness in human infants; the mirror test, the rouge test - Emergence of self awareness—children are placed in a room with toys, familiarized with the room, place a mark on the face, allowed to interact with the mirror, if he/she touches the face, the child recognizes, and is considered a recognizer, interpreted as evidence that child is self aware—understanding of the object that exists in reality - Non recognizer – does not show any emotional responses - Some children are considered ambiguous - Might display emotional responses - Mirror test is the standard test used for self awareness. Not everyone believes the validity of the test - Valid and reliable? Validity is whether or not what your using to measure something is actually measuring that - Validity is important, if it is not testing then any results you get from using the test, they are not reliable - Reliability is how consistently your measure measures something - Test-re test reliability - A child may also touch the examiner’s mark on his face - You don’t have to have a me self to pass this particular test—that you exist as an object in reality, you can match the visual kinesthetic movements - Courage, Edison, and howe (2004) - Examining the emergence of self knowledge - Developmental course of MSR is unclear - A group of 15 month olds, 16 months old, 17 months old, compare their performance on a particular task - Cross sectional task—major drawback, age is a confound, being a variable other that you think that explains the results - Groups of children at different ages, cohort, developmental stage - Age and developmental stage are related but not the same thing - Convenient to conduct - Infants start passing the rouge test on average at 18 months - Cross sectional studies show that it was an all or nothing phenomenon - Children did not pass the rouge test, after the 18 months, there is a jump and they recognize themselves in the mirror - All or nothing phenomenon, before 18 months, its not there - There were individual differences—some kids were able to pass the test before the 18 months, some passed at 18 months, some passed after 18 months - We didn’t know why there were individual differences - Some studies related that mental age may be a factor - Variables like socio-economic status—found that it doesn’t really matter - Secure attachment style—working model of others being trustworthy—they will be there to deliver your needs - Insecure attachments - Sometimes attachment does predict when they will recognize - Intra-individual differences—within individual - Even within one child, sometimes they would be able to recognize itself, sometimes they wont—a lot of variability - Trial and error - Period of instability/variability—trial of variety of ways of getting the task correct - Mirror recognition not the only test - Verbal self recognition—asses the child’s use of personal pronouns (I,me, my) - Has to has the awareness or understanding that they exist as an object in reality - You have to have that ‘me, I, or my’ exists - Children’s use of personal pronouns studied to know whther they are self aware - Photo recognition—can they recognize themselves in a photograph - Lastly, can the child use the mirror to coordinate body movements for a particular reason? - Did they all emerge at the same time? - If William james is correct, all of these shouldn’t emerge at the same time - We should see a gradual change - One of the goals of this particular study - It has implications for autobiographical memory - Memory of events that has occurred to you at a specific time, location or space - Mental representation of oneself - When that happens, tells us something about when autobiographical memory occurs - How these indices of self knowledge emerge matters - Wanted to use a particular methodology—longitudinal research (when you take the same participants and test them at different time periods) - Remove age being a confound because you control for that - More difficult research method, costly, the problem of attrition - Need large sample of people to begin with - Courage and colleagues decided to use both longitudinal and cross sectional approaches - Micro-genetic approach—when instead of testing the same people at long intervals, testing them repeatedly in very short intervals (once every 2 weeks from 15 months to 23 months) - If you’re interested in the process of development, it is a process of change.. if you use a long interval, you wont be able to observe the change itself—use smaller intervals to capture the before, during and after the change that allows a pretty good description of whats going on - Can we generalize beyond? - Internal or external processes that contribute to the change? - Each child was tested once in the cross sectional method - Longitudinal participants were tested repeatedly - They tested mirror self-recognition test- rouge test - Classified as recognizer, non-recognizer, or ambiguous - Also measured emotional responses - Photo self- identification task - Also interested in verbal task - How much exposure children have had to mirrors in the first place - How many mirrors are in the home? Just to rule out the explanation that rouge test is not valid because they are exposed and familiar with the mirrors - Toy localization task (locate an object seen in the mirror)—this is included because some argue that the mirror test is not valid because it underestimates the age at w
More Less

Related notes for PSY325H5

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit