Study Guides (248,020)
Canada (121,234)
Psychology (579)
PSYC 473 (3)
Final

Final Exam Lecture Important Information.pdf

11 Pages
40 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Psychology
Course
PSYC 473
Professor
Mark Baldwin
Semester
Winter

Description
PSYC473 Lecture Notes - Important Information February 27: Complexities of Self-Esteem “Implicit self-esteem refers to a person's disposition to evaluate themselves in a spontaneous, automatic, or unconscious manner. It contrasts with explicit self-esteem, which entails more conscious and reflective self-evaluation.” • Our perception of ourself is NOT a reflection of reality; it is not accurate or realistic • HSE can be truly secure or defensive depending on whether they are actually confident or if it’s a coverup • Maybe self-esteem has an implicit and an explicit component • Contingent on successes, HSE may often be fragile and unstable Defensiveness results in hostility and prejudice? • • Kernis et al tested to see if self-esteem was stable by using the Rosenberg scale on participants through multiple days. Found that some people had stable self-esteem while others fluctuates/unstable on a day-to-day basis (called them “defensive high”). Looking at hostility measure (anger-arousing incidents), those with defensive high responded with most anger. • Might it make sense to examine implicit self-esteem with characteristics of automaticity: • Efficient • Unintended • Uncontrollable • Outside of Awareness • Name Letter Task tested participants to rate all the letters of alphabet. Wanted to see if they would rate the first letter of their name being liked or disliked. If liked, they had high implicit self-esteem. If disliked, they had low implicit self-esteem • Implicit Association Task (IAT) tested participants on words that define one of two parameters (i.e. Not self vs Self). When parameters get harder and participants had to put things together mentally that don’t fit together, it becomes harder to respond. Results suggests that implicit self esteem does not correlate strongly with explicit self-esteem • Fazio et al - Prejudice study showed that implicit attitude predicted certain kinds of attitudes while explicit attitudes predicted totally different attitudes • Spalding & Harding measured implicit and explicit SE separately through reaction-time task. Subjects put through a self-relevant interview (describe oneself and health) to see if implicit and explicit SE may correlate with other variables. Results show that people with low explicit SE reported feeling more anxious during interview. People with low implicit SE were reported by interviewer to appear more anxious • Explicit and implicit SE correlated with different things. Reason may be linked to defensiveness whereby people try to overcome low implicit SE (from automatic processes) via controlled processing • Narcissist is a personality trait characterized by vanity, grandiosity, self-centeredness, and sense of entitlement are disproportionately inflated. • Study on narcissism showed that narcissists were most likely to show a drop in daily SE on days where they had a negative achievement event (i.e. Failure). But NARCISSISM DOES SEEM TO INVOLVE DEFENSIVE SE • Jordan et al (2003) thought that people who score highest on narcissism scale have high explicit SE and low implicit SE. They hold negative views of themselves on the implicit (unconscious) level Jordan et al (2005) found that when defensive high SE people had their SE threatened, they would • discriminate a member of an outgroup more (John Pride - white person, John Proudfoot - Aboriginal person). This applies to individuals who had high explicit SE and low implicit SE • Thus, it seems that implicit SE plays a role in emotional reactions, reactions to threats, etc. • Explicit, positive self-statements will only increase implicit SE to a certain extent. This will ONLY help you explicitly and will make people be defensive instead of feeling truly good. March 11: Self-Awareness and Self-Regulation • Self-Awareness allows for thinking about “Who I Am” • Self-Awareness is the degree to which a person is paying attention to his/her own thoughts, feelings and behaviours • Self-Evaluation allows for thinking of “How good or bad am I?” • Self-Regulation allows us to control our behaviour in line with issues of self-image and standards • Examples: Wanting to speed, but not get ticket; wanting to eat yummy food but need to diet • Sources of self-awareness includes: social disruptions (yell at hockey shot in a sports store, made aware of self consciousness), salience of self (feel spotlight on them because they drew attention), personality variable (think more about yourself), and self-focusing stimuli (looking into a mirror) • Humans can think about ourselves, even chimps can BUT is does not mean we are always self-aware • When we think of self-awareness, it’s bigger than self conscious; it makes us feel uncomfortable. If you think about yourself long enough, you find discrepancies between reality and desired self and this produces a negative affect • Wicklund did a study on self-evaluation. Subjects had to rate how they feel after feeling carpet. Three variables: TV showing either an image of them, static, or a cowboy movie. Results indicated that subjects self-evaluation was lowest when they saw themselves on the TV compared to static. When cowboy movie was on in third condition, subjects SE was better because self-awareness was pulled away from themselves. However, when subjects had previous positive news, they may actually feel good but this boost in SE is only short-lived; it doesn’t carry on quite as long • When people become self-aware, they stat to regulate their own behaviour and act according to various norms and values • Diener & Wallbom did an experiment giving participants a chance to cheat in a test. Subjects wrote the test either in front of a mirror or without a mirror. Only 7% of participants cheated while writing the test in front of mirror compared to 71% who cheated when no mirror present (cheating in this case was writing the test after the timer went off). Seeing reflection led to self-evaluation about who I am and who I want to be. • Gibbons thought that we regulate our behaviour to be socially acceptable but questioned is there a time when we bring ourselves in line with what we ourselves want to be? Proposed experiment to test measure attitudes and values to see how do people conform to their own values when they are self- aware.If you measure people’s attitudes and then watch what they do, people don’t conform well. Had subjects tested for pre-measures of sex guilt and then had them read porn literature/watch porn. With no mirror present, no correlation between pre-measure and enjoyment of porn but with mirror, correlation was 0.74. When self-aware, your personal standards are more salient and more likely to act according to them. It is not just standards of society but also personal standards play a role in guiding your behaviour We often have multiple standards that are in conflict (i.e. Wanting to be successful but also have morals • and ethics) • Vallacher and Solodky did an experiment that required subjects to draw a figure shown to them without lifting pencil. External attribution was luck while internal attribution was ability. Told subjects they had one minute to solve each puzzle and 12/15 puzzles were not solvable. Manipulation was given by either telling subjects it was an ability attribution (encourages subjects to make internal attributions) or to say this task is governed by luck (external attributions). When subjects completed task with mo mirrors, the results were roughly the same (luck - 42%, ability - 50%). When there was a mirror, nobody cheated in luck condition while almost everyone (92%) cheated in the ability condition. So with the mirror, you have a standard to perform well, who cares what is moral. Baldwin and Holmes was interested in idea that standards we pursue may have to do with social • relationships and what others expect and demand of you. He recruited undergraduate women and had them visualize being with parents or being with others from campus. 10 mins later they went down a hall and read boring written passages and one about women having sex with men from cosmo. Subjects had to rate each written passage on enjoyment. Half of subjects were in front of mirror while half were not. With no mirror, the subjects were not influenced by who they were visualizing earlier, but those in front of a mirror had big differences (like someone over your shoulder; friend would rate higher while parents would rate it lower). The mirror led to self regulation in line with certain self standards but those standards were activated as a function of certain self schemas (or relational schemas) • Sometimes if self regulation makes us feel bad, one way to deal with is it to regulate ourselves • Duval and Wicklund had an experiment where they had an ambiguous task where subjects were told they did either bad or good on a test. The experimenter then told the subjects they would be right back and timed them. When the subjects waited in a room with no mirror, both the success and failure group waited 8 mins. When subjects were in a room with a mirror, success group waited 8 mins while failure group waited 5 mins. Failure group reflected on their failure and wanted to get out of there • Is there another way to deal with self-awareness such as alcohol? • Hull et al tested subjects to see if drinking helps forget the self. Tested subjects on usage of first person pronouns and then gave them sentences in a foreign language that they had to determine the subject in that sentence. After drinking, people don’t project that focus into the ambiguous measure. Hull then administered a scale for self consciousness that had reflective sentences about the self. His prediction was that people highly self conscious may drink and tested subjects to see how much they drink instead of using mirrors. He had people do a wine tasting study but he also gave them success or failure feedback. Results show that if you are low in self consciousness are similar to no mirror condition; whether they failed or succeeded, it had no effect on the amount they drank. Those in high self consciousness and told they failed drank a lot more (this helped reduce self consciousness and escape unpleasant experience that comes with self consciousness after a failure • Alcoholism: found that a combo of failure and self consciousness making people relapse in drinking • Self-focusing cue → self-awareness → self-evaluation → discrepancies? • If no → positive affect • If yes → negative affect which leads to tendency to escape self awareness by running or drinking but it can also lead to increased self regulation to try and become more in line with those values and standards March 13: Motivation and Cognition • In making real-world decisions, we start off with naive realism, which defines as what we see is really out there; then social cognition comes along and explore information processing, gathering information and making decisions • We use emotions and motivations when we think which leads to errors by affecting our cognition Theory of Lay Epistemics: three categories of motivation that can influence thinking • • Need for structure/closure • Desire for validity • Motive for specific conclusions (overlooked in the textbook…) • The need for structure or closure is provided by an example whereby you have to choose between two individuals with some basic information provided. While you can make a decision base on those initial information alone, you can also engage in more information collection. Once we collected this additional information, we can make an integrated decisions and question certain components of the person’s basic info (i.e. Why are they moody?). The need for structure suggest that sometimes we just want an answer rather than feeling certain but in needing structure/closure, you have a motive to get answers instead of being uncertain and confused. If you have need for closure that leads to “seizing and freezing” (you grab onto the closure which can be the first answer that pops into mind and stop generating alternative hypothesis). If the need is particular strong at the moment, then we have more drive to do this because it is comforting to have some structure in your mind. • Kruglanski and Freund tested the subject of decision making under time constraints by having teachers in Isreal read stories by an 8th grader. Teachers were told the student who wrote the story was named either “Askenazi” or “Sephardi” and were told to give them a grade. Ratings were high for story written by Askenazi. The second variable was that the teachers either had 10 minutes or an hour to grade the paper, and the results showed that stereotype effect only under time pressure. • In another study by Ford & Kruglanski, instead of manipulating time, they manipulated individual differences for structure and organization. Subjects filled out “Need for Structure” scale and were primed with ‘reckless’ or ‘adventurous’. Subjects then had to read a story about Donald and give a one word description about Donald to see how similar the word was to reckless or adventurous. Results suggest that people with low need for structure, neither of the prime words had an affect on impression of Donald. However, individuals high in need of structure given the ‘adventurous’ primewere more influenced by the prime • So individuals with a high need of structure makes judgements based on their personality or situation in addition to relying on stereotyping and priming effects. They gave impressions similar to adventurous because they didn’t want to spend a lot of time thinking about this and did not want to test a series of hypothesis • Desire for validity is the motivation to be accurate. You are either afraid of being wrong or there’s a cost to being wrong; therefore a need to think systematically • Fits into “dual process” model whereby you use Heuristic vs Systematic processing • Heuristic processing allows you to respond using rule of thumbs such as credibility & attractiveness while Systematic Processing requires you to evaluate the pros and cons • So presumably we use heuristics when we don’t care about being accurate? Chaiken tested this hypothesis by exploring ideas that put you in a frame of mind. She looked at how people deal with information about things that are arguably relevant to them. The speech was on changing the system at U of T. The two independent variables consisted of a likable person who made one weak argument versus an unlikeable person who made five well thought out arguments. The second IV was the relevance whereby the plan would be implemented next year versus implementation five years later. Results confirmed the hypothesis where under low relevance → subjects agreed more with likable speaker. When the subject had high relevance, they analyzed the information more in depth and agreed more with the unlikeable speaker because of better arguments • People pay attention to schema-inconsistent information when one variable making a difference is outcome dependency. • Erber & Fiske proposed an experiment that had a subject meet a confederate who describes herself as either creative or uncreative. Subject then reads information about confederate; some implying creativity and some implying lack of creativity. Test was to see how long subject reads the different information. The outcome dependency was that the subject will be working with the confederate on a later task (vs. Not working with confederate for control group). The results show that outcome dependent paid more attention to inconsistent information. The desire for validity stems from outcome dependency The “dual process” model has many examples. Controlled versus Automatic was one of the first. • Then there is Structure or Validity influencing motivation forming conclusions or generating and thinking more about additional hypothesis • The third major component of the Lay Epistemics is motivation for specific conclusions such as “Life is fair”, “We are good people and in control”. We don’t just need validity or structure, but its important to have specific beliefs. • An aspect of motivating processing is that a desired conclusion can produce early closure (if desired conclusion is reached) or delayed closure (if desired conclusion not yet reached) • Ditto & Lopez conducted an experiment where subjects had to identify which of two people is more intelligent by being their partner in a later task. The subject had to ask the two people 18 questions, one at a time. One person gets most questions right while other person gets about half right. The control subject decided who was smarter after 9 question items. The manipulation was that the subject was made to believe that one person was an unpleasant person. If the unpleasant person was more intelligent, it still took about 9 question items. If he was less intelligent and unpleasant, it took 6.6 items to choose the other person. The subject was more likely to seize and freeze the process if they got the answer they wanted. • Kruglanski captures the common elements: we started with automatic and controlled processing; then heuristic and systematic processing which are similar but the key differences are interesting March 18: Motivated Self-Cognition • Motivation influences how you think about the self, but also things you do → “Think is for doing” • Counter-attitudinal behaviour: If we get people to act in some way that is different from their own attitude, they will change their opinion. Is that because they have spent more time thinking about the arguments? That doesn’t seem to account for most of the effect because the strength of the argument is not all that relevant. • If people are led to advocate an opinion different from their own, they come to shift opinion in direction of the behaviour (but only when conditions they feel free to make their OWN choice! If you pay them to do it, it will stop the effect) • Festinger believed in the Cognitive Dissonance Theory which is a Self Consistency Theory whereby people are “motivated to maintain a consistent image of themselves.” We like to know who we are and dislike changing ourselves too much. • His initial theory on cognitive dissonance was all about consistency among beliefs and experience. • Any inconsistent cognitions → leads to psychological tensions (which may be discomfort or distress) → which leads to a motivation to resolve inconsistency (changing behaviour or belief) • Example: “I smoke and believing that smoking causes cancer is an inconsistency that needs to be resolved. We can change behaviour by stop smoking but this is too hard so the easiest thing to do is to change your cognition or belief (i.e. “It can’t be all that bad for it!”) • Cognitive dissonance boils down to “We want our thoughts to fit together and we don’t like inconsistencies” • Self-Enhancement: The idea is that we not only care about how we are doing and evaluate ourselves and have emotional reactions, but we want to have positive self-esteem • When cognitions are important for some reason, they provoke a lot of tension when they don’t fit together • The kinds of situations provoking dissonance finding were related to the motive of self enhancement which led to a self justification model of dissonance: We change our attitude after acting in some contrary way because we want to maintain a positive self-image • Example: Saying ‘Yes’ to increase tuition when you were against it. It’s not the inconsistency that is the problem but the implications of “I’m a hypocrite” which means “I’m bad” is the nature of the threat Steele said “If given the opportunity to affirm a positive self-image (i.e. Writing about a positive • experience), attitude-change effect disappears. This implies that “attitude change was self- justification” • Self-Presentation: We try to control people’s impressions of us; we care about what others think about us (if we become less important to others or if others’ views of us is different from ours, we feel uncomfortable, so motivated to mange what they think of us) • Goffman’s metaphor of play: There is a set of scenes that we all take a character in and act. Depending on the roles we play, we have different costumes and props • Self-presentation is powerful motive, maybe that accounts for attitudinal change where they are trying to appear consistent to the experimenter; it’s not that they have psychological tension but are just trying to maintain positive image • Example: Lecture script - Everyone wants to conform, no one will try to stand out even if our culture is about being non-conforming… will only do it if get paid or get a reward worth it → put a $ figure on what you ask people to do, and will give a sense of pressure of the impression that would be created If we make things public, we will get attitude change even in low choice condition which suggests • the wish to present a positive image of self because we want to control our public image • Self-Assessment: It is a broad self related motive where people are motivated to perceive themselves accurately • Example: We may think we are good at chemistry, but if we’re not, we want to find that out soon to have a reasonably accurate view of who we are • This is related to self-perception theory (“what must my attitude be if I was willing to act this way in this situation?”) which is an example of a self assessment approach • The idea is that we have a general motivation to figure out who we are by examining our own behaviour and situation we’re in and drawing a conclusion • Dissonance is different from self-perception interpretations. Where dissonance involves negative affect and tension (I can’t smoke and say that smoking is bad for me), self-perception interpretations has no tension; it’s more of “What do I believe, I just did X, so I must believe in X” • Misattribution Theory could be tested by giving people a placebo pill and saying that the pill will make them experience tension. If the subjects did blame tension on the placebo pill, then they didn’t really change their attitude • Another test asked subjects to rate attitude to raising tuition at McGill on 1-9 scale (9 in favour). Subjects can accept ratings +/- 1 from their response (i.e. 6). Hypothesis was that if subject was induced to make an argument that matches a view they completely reject (i.e. 2), they will experience dissonance but if it was for (i.e. 7), that will shift the subject’s attitude and produce a self-perception attitude • If subject could attribute arousal to something else, misattribution erased attitude
More Less

Related notes for PSYC 473

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