Study Guides (248,357)
Canada (121,502)
Psychology (579)
PSYC 333 (22)

Midterm 1 Lecture Notes P2.pdf

14 Pages
Unlock Document

PSYC 333
Jennifer Bartz

PSYC333 Lecture 5 - Jan. 24 Review: • Most people have illusions about the self: • Positively biased self evaluations • Illusions of control • More than what’s actually within their control • Risk assessments • Overconfident and often underestimate reality • Such illusions are adaptive and associated with more positive outcomes (adjustment to college, more effective coping, onset of symptoms and course of AIDS) The Better than Average Effect Feeling “Holier Than Thou”: (Epley & Dunning, 2000) • False uniqueness about desirable qualities • Cooperative, considerate, fair, kind, loyal, sincere • Also true of specific behaviours (likelihood of rebelling in Milgram obedience studies) • People chronically feel “holier than thou” • Is this because they: • Harbor overly cynical views of their peers • Or overly charitable views of themselves (and accurate views of their peers)? • False uniqueness about desirable qualities: • People consistently overestimated the likelihood that they would chose the kinder course of action by an average of 32% (but only by 4% for others) • People have a lifetime of information about themselves to draw upon, so why do they have more difficulty predicting their own behaviour? • What kind of information do people consider when making these judgments? • Case based information • Information relevant to the specific case or the person relevant to the specific case • Would those individuals participate • Base rate information • Reference distribution of people’s behaviour in general in similar situations or in situations of the past • Although people are pretty accurate in perceiving, learning and reporting distributional information, they prefer to use case-based information when making predictions • People prefer to use case-based information when making predictions • “Internal approach to prediction” • When making predictions about the self in relation to others, people must: • Evaluate their own traits, dispositions and likely behaviour • AND evaluate others’ traits, dispositions and likely behaviour • An error • 4 studies: People overestimate the likelihood that they would choose the kinder course of action by an average of 32% (but only by 4% for others) • Strange finding: People have a lifetime of information about themselves to draw upon, so why do they have more difficulty predicting their own behaviour? “Daffodil Days”: Conducted at Cornell university • • Asked students to purchase daffodil, proceeds go to Cancer Society • 5 weeks before event: • “Will you buy at least one daffodil and, is so, how many?” • Will your peers buy? What is the chance and how many will they buy? • 3 days after event: • “Did you buy any daffodil? How many? • Ps overestimate the extent to • Self-serving attributions errors are more in self view than the predictive behaviours of others Used within subjects design, Ps are compared to themselves; thus a flaw because it is biased since • Ps tend to conform to prediction of their own behaviour • Daffodil study is also flawed because since the event was in the future when asked to predict, maybe they construed the situation to be different then it actually played out “A Saint’s Dilemma”: • Used between subjects design • Not compared to self; compared to other group Every Ps thought about the same situation • Prisoner’s Dilemma (% of Cooperation): • Most participants say they would choose the cooperative method for themselves • Ps would say lower % of other Ps would be cooperative Predicting How Much You Will Donate: • $5.00 paid to you • List of three charities: Salvation Army • • Red Cross • Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals • Compared prediction of what students would do hypothetically in comparison to what they actually physically do • Third scenario had a twist: Ps made prediction, experimenter told Ps distributional information on other Ps. With each new piece of information, Ps would be able to make changes on their choices and predictions of other Ps • Use case-based information when making decisions that affect themselves Influence of Base Rate Information on $ Donation Predictions: • Ps tend to think highly of themselves, they would donate more than peers • Base rate information had no effect on Ps own behaviour, but affected Ps prediction of random peer • Taking base rate information increased their accuracy of their predictions Self Reports of Sources of Influence: • We try to be consistent with our own behaviour • If we predict our own behaviour, we tend to conform to this. However, experimenter says this isn’t a motivator • Experimenter created a new test in which Ps predicted about themselves, the average student and then about a specific peer of which they had case based information • When predicting about a specific peer, they had case based information, Ps preferred to use case based information and disregarded distributional information, so when case based information was present, they used it instead, resulting in the better than average effect for themselves and their peers Comparative Ability Judgments: • Egocentric process • How skilled am I? • How skilled are my peers? • Above average if absolute skills high (or requirements for success low) • Below average if absolute skills low • Anchor and adjustment process • We anchor on the question and then fail to adjust for our peers, therefore, if people are good in a domain that’s easy there is above average, however, if the domain is difficult there is a below average effect • Below average effect ➡ In some domains, people will rate themselves below average (artistic abilities and acting/mechanical abilities) - societal influence? • Below average and above average are the result of same process (egocentric one) Anchoring and (Insufficient) Adjustment: • People’s own skills serve as judgmental anchor, but we fail to fully consider the skills of others in the model: • Ps should see themselves as above average for easy abilities and below average for difficult ones • Ps own abilities should account for more variance in comparative judgments Study 2: • Experimentally manipulate Ps perceptions of their absolute skills: • Assess “integrative ability” • Ps took test to see where they measure on this integrative ability Hard vs. Easy test • • 50% of Ps had hard and 50% of Ps had easy test • Compare ability with peers (0-99 percentile) • Easy test, then ability above average (63% vs. 50%) • Difficult test, then ability below average (41.9%) • Estimate absolute ability (1-10)… Summary: • If we are not good at something AND we realize that we are not good - below average effect • But we tend to think we are good at most things - better than average effect In comparative judgements, we give undue weight to information about our own skills • • We fixate on where we see ourselves and then we do not take into account where their peers are producing above and below average effects Non-motivational Explanations: • Egocentrism: • How sociable am I? Ignore how sociable are students in general • Focalism: • Compared with you how athletic is you classmate • Idea that people focus on how they compare, and not their peers; more focused on the “I” factor • Generalized group: • Single entity compared to larger group • Case vs. Base rate Is any of this MOTIVATED reasoning? • I Have a Positive View of Myself: • Biased search for evidence • Biased evaluation of evidence • Do I even bother to search for evidence? Point: • Both motivational and cognitive processes contribute to the effect • Effect is functional for the most part • Cognitively adaptive biases that serve us well PSYC333 Lecture 6 - Jan. 31 Review: • Perceived superiority (and inferiority) When we make judgments about the self, it is often by way of comparisons to others • • Where does our sense of self come from? • (How) do others influence our sense of self? Reflected Appraisals: • Others’ appraisals (of us) shape self understanding: • The Looking Glass Self (Cooley, 1902) • Our sense of self is based on how others see us... Symbolic Interactionism (Mead, 1934): • The self is developed and understood in the social realm • Others’ appraisals shape our understanding of ourselves • How others see us is the way we see ourselves Evidence? Correlations between self-views and other views are small • • Very little correlations between realistic view of self and others REALLY see us • However, self views correlate highly with how we think others see us Why Inconsistency? • Some distortion when we think about the self (illusions) • We distort the feedback we receive from others • We overestimate the attention we attract • People do not always tell us what they really think of us • What are we transmitting… Self Presentation (and the Search for Social Validation): • Attempts to convey information about and/or images of the self to others • Act of regulating one’s identity for real or imagined audiences; why? Claim rewards • • Gain an identity • Our identity is determined/defined based on how we interact with others How Favourable an Image to Convey? • Test on “social and non-social intelligence” • Ps given negative feedback about abilities • Expect to perform privately or publically • Self-present to group about abilities - who boasts? Who is modest? Only those who will perform privately boast • • But what if you can’t boast? Enhancing with Friends vs. Strangers (Tice et all, 1995): • Strangers can’t contradict claims • Most interpersonal interactions take place between people who known each other • Self presentation to friends more modest than to strangers • Also, requires cognitive effort to override friend/modesty and stranger/enhancement patterns • Tested Ps of memory after presentation • Those who were in friend/modesty and stranger/enhancement had better memory; counter group had impaired memory Failure to Recognize Self-Presentation (Vorauer & Miller, 1997): • Does positivity or negativity of the other influence presenter? • We tune our presentation based on the people we are presenting to • Match behaviour of the other person • Learn the other person has either: • High self esteem and positive experiences Low self esteem and negative experiences • • Interviewed by the other person • Result: • If the observers thought they were interacting with something with the positive condition, they rated them higher; those with a negative condition were rated lower • The Ps who were not informed of the condition of the interviewer had the same rating Self Presentation & Self-Fulfilling Prophecies - Study 1: When a person has a certain expectation about another person, they elicit the behaviour of the • expectations • When we think another person has a certain expectation of us, we act in those ways to verify the expectations • Study 1: Impression formation • Pre-questionnaire: agree/disagree with traditional female stereotypic traits • “Men should be the dominant person in relationships” • “You’re going to interact with a male student” • Form impression based on information provided Attractive/unattractive • • Traditional/untraditional • “Ideal woman would be quiet at a cocktail party…” • Ps then competed questionnaire about themselves (pre-study questionnaire) to give to partner • Do they conform to male stereotype? • If unattractive, no (“who cares what he thinks?”) • If attractive, yes (“gee, I want this guy to like me! What do I know about him?”) • If guy attractive and traditional, women confirmed to stereotype! • Also, women interacting with attractive traditional male performed worse on “intelligence” test Study 2: • Study 2: Mock job interview • Testing students’ interviewing skills; you will be potential applicant • Appearance (make up, jewelry) • Before interview, Ps learn about interviewee (manipulate: traditional/untraditional) “The ideal female should be assigned easy jobs like making coffee” • • Session #2: Interview • Assess appearance (make up, jewelry) • Women interacting with traditional male judged as more attractive, and wore more make up and jewelry • In effort to convey a positive impression, they confirmed traditional male stereotype! • Women interacting with non-traditional man were more assertive during interview • People do things to make a good impression, even if these things are destruction and negative to themselves Harmful Effects of Self Presentation: • Self-presentation associated with: • Skin cancer • Risky sexual behaviour • Eating behaviour • Substance abuse • Steroid use Accidents from not wearing safety equipment • • People will continue to do things will harmful behaviour as long as it give them a positive self presentation The Self as an Arbiter: • Do we always give in to others’ judgments? • Motives for self-presentation: • Instrumental rewards Constructing an image of oneself and claiming and identity • • We see a positive identity of ourselves as a reward Symbolic Self Completion (Gollwitzer & Wicklund, 1984): • Goal striving is in the service of self-definition • Win a match in tennis is because being a good tennis player is our self definition and winning a match means a positive review of our self definition • Difficulty pursuing goals is a threat to self • We compensate with other symbols to complete the self-definition Symbolic Self-Completion Experiments: You do not fit the ideal profile of something that matters to you • • “...female professional” • “Brainstorm” with other participant about personal qualities key to pursuing a professional career • “I am a great organizer” • Compete to answer; whoever answers first gets the point • Results: • Ps who had their self image threatened either won, tied, or loss • More Ps with their self image threatened won the rounds indicative of a female profession in an attempt to beat their opponent • The key about symbolic self-completion is that people need to compete in the domain that’s been threatened, especially in domains that matter to them • Second Study… You do not fit the ideal profile of something that matters you (e.g., journalist) • • Meet attractive female undergraduate, “Debbie” • Before Ps given chance to describe capabilities, they’re told: • “Debbie likes guys who are modest vs. Guys who think they’re great” • Describe yourself to Debbie: “How capable do you think you are (in journalism) in comparison to other students?” • Results: • When Ps self-definition have not been threatened, they do not need to change their views to align with what Debbie looks for • Ps who’s self-definition have been threatened change their views and behaviours to align with what Debbie looks for Summary: Self is constructed through our interactions with others. It is a two way process • • When presenting ourselves to others, we are often motivated to present our best selves • However, our expectations about others’ expectations can lead us astray. We are willing to sacrifice our best selves when we think we will gain rewards with the other person • Occasionally, the self fights back to regain important identities PSYC333 Lecture 7 - Feb. 2 The Self in the Social Context Self-enhancement: Strong desire to have a positive self view • • Positive illusions • Strong desire for others to see us positively • How do we support such positive self views (information processing viewpoints) • Biased evaluations when we compare ourselves to others (better than average effect) • Biased evaluations when we
More Less

Related notes for PSYC 333

Log In


Join OneClass

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

Sign up

Join to view


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.