Study Guides (238,471)
Canada (115,151)
Psychology (925)
PSYCH 2C03 (74)

PSYCH 2C03 - notes for final exam.docx

24 Pages
Unlock Document

McMaster University
Jennifer Ostovich

PSYCH 2C03 – Nov 13 final th Self-Esteem: What is self-esteem? (Rosenberg’s SE Scale) If SE high.. – agree on the whole I am satisfied with myself, I feel that have a number of good qualities, I am able to do things as well as most other people, I take positive attitude toward myself => even making theses statement make us feel good If SE slow.. – at times, I think I am no good at all, don’t have much to be proud of, feel useless at times, inclined to feel that I am a failure Self-esteem is important! - Caveat: independent/individualist vs. interdependent/collectivist selves => Western/Europe culture =>individualistic culture. China/ japan/India => collectivist selves. In fact it is irrelevant to most cultures. The Cross-cultural self Individualist ‘self’ Collectivist ‘self’ - Individualists define themselves in terms of - Collectivist define themselves in terms of personal traits; things about them, why relationships to other people; I belong to they do, their personality this group - Very self-centered - Give priority to groups goals - Give priority to own goals - Who am i? Father, Buddhist, Japanese - Who am i? I am outgoing, smart, funny, (they focus on group membership), what is great doctor (not using social category, my group? they care how they are doing it, ‘great’) Individualist ‘self’ - Others circle you, they are part of you, they are important, but they are not completely twined Collectivist ‘self’ - Their selves are interacting, they are twined - View of ‘self’ is different from across cultures Three sources of evidence of ‘why self-esteem is important’ in individualists cultures - People from western culture have high SE - Engage in cognitive biases to enhance or maintain their SE - Do whatever it takes to maintain their positive SE - Most people have high SE - High end – most of people pretty feel good about themselves - Graph is more shifted more to given standard deviation - Do most people think they are better than other people than actually what they are?  Small correlations between SE and actual success => Low correlation of success and SE, hard to predict self-esteem on what they can do  Large correlations between SE and self-perceived success: predicts how you think you are doing on things => how well you believe you are doing something associated with your self- esteem-ness ex) how smart you think you are? => can predicts self-esteem - Cognitive bias is going on here  Even larger correlations between SE and self-perceived success on SE relevant tasks: it’s not how we actually do on something, how we ‘THINK’. - Why these differences? - Cognitive bias – enhance or maintain our SE a. Encoding/recall biases: encoding or recalling that help you remember about all your successes and make it difficult to bring them remind about your failures => you selectively encode your successes b. Definitional biases: you think you are considerate person => what is ‘considerateness’? Different definition of ‘considerate’ => You change definition c. Self-serving attributional bias (SSAB): refers to tendency to take more credit for success and blame for failure => own your success ‘I did it because of me’. Failure =>nothing to do with me’.  Internal attributions - (internal quality ‘I am super smart’) – good thing  External attribution – ‘because I was not lucky’ – bad thing => they stop forcing them to do, no motivation d. Unrealistically positive self-views (positive bias): you think you are better than average => help you feel good about yourself. e. Unrealistic optimism: we have this belief that bad things happen to bad people, good things happen to good people. I am a good person so only good things going to happen to me, not bad things Ex) optimistic about not using condoms => what will happen? Ex2) you are good person, so no cancer? Ex3) average person getting divorce 43%, You will get divorce 15% Ex4) what do you think what will be class average on first midterm d- , your average? B-  Very dangerous but can boost or maintain our self-esteem f. Illusory control over good events: we believe we have some sort of control over events that no one has control over; ex) dice game: bat more when they are rolling a dice than when others rolling dice.  Langer lottery ticket expt: buying $1 ticket IV: choice (buy their own or given) Can I get ticket back? I will pay as much as you want DV: Sell-back Price Result:  No choice: about $1 to 2  Choice: really wanted to make a profit => over 8 dollar  There is illusion of control over chance events that allows you anything you make allows you something 3) Doing whatever it takes- associating with Winners, Dissociating from losers. we need to protect our self-esteem - Most people will do anything even hurting others to maintain a positive SE - Basking in reflected glory: One thing we do very often, associate with winners, dissociate from looser; We want to be seen with them, friend with them, so we can borrow success - NB: association won’t always boost SE, associate with people whose successes help our SE, dissociate from people whose failures hurt our SE. Research? Arizona State U. football study (Cialdini) on factors predicting associations vs. dissociation: depend on how football team does. Call people at home during the football game week Ask them if they want to associate or dissociate - IV: SE=> false feedback on trivia test; success or failure or no feedback (to manipulate self- esteem) Before hanging up, ask them about football games (based on language use) - DV: % SS using ‘we’ when describing football wins and losses – to imply association and dissociation ‘we won or we lost’ – including yourself - association ‘they won or they lost’ – not including yourself- dissociation Results:  Success condition(their self-esteem is already high): no s.d whether their team won or lost  Control (no feedback) => little bit of dissociations from looser; significantly less saying ‘we lost’. More likely to say ‘they lost’ to protect their self-esteem  Failure condition => boosted association ‘we won’, Dissociation ‘they lost’. - BUT there are other ways of dealing with other’s successes and failure;  Downward social comparisons: you are looking down at the person who is not as good as you ex) ‘I am better than this person, I am above them’  Up wards social comparison: we hate to make upward social comparisons ‘ that person is amazing’ => painful. We are trying to avoid it Tesser’s Self-esteem maintenance model: how this test is relevant to my self-esteem? Task is of Low relevance Task is of High relevance Close relationship Bask Compare - Who is doing well here? - They are wonderful, but Do I have some sort of you suck, put strain on relationship with them? relationship hard and My best freidns is x x hard to maintain champion! I relationship Distant/no relationship Don’t care Bask - Bask yourself in glow of his success even he is better than you, it’s fine - Self-Handicapping: sometimes, we will hurt ourselves to preserve our self-esteem; not practicing so not going well. I even didn’t practice, but I did well! Even though you are losing, but chance of you could win. 1) Lowering chance of success => but if she wins, she is a hero (I bit her without practice). 2) Nice excuse for failure Research support? (Berglas & Jones, 1978) – recruited subjects in the lab=> effects of brand new drugs on intellectual performance => take a test =>after seeing how you did on test, you can choose to take drug => and re-do the test IV: test difficult (easy vs. hard – you take either easy or hard test) DV: % choosing disruptive drug Results: will they choose disruptive drug? ‘re-test’ – great harm of self-esteem if I do worse  Subject who took easy test: very rarely take disruptive drug, about 10 % choosing disruptive drug. They are not in risk of harming self-esteem  Subject who took hard test: I don’t think I can do that again, over 50% choosing disruptive drug. Even I fail on re-test, its drug, not me. No matter what the result is, I still feel good about myself => save their self-esteem Summary - We behave as though we have a need for high SE; SE is very important to us so we do many things to preserve our SE o We use self-serving bias o We all ourselves with successful groups and people o We dissociate from unsuccessful groups and people o We will hurt our friends to feel good about ourselves o We will hurt ourselves to feel good about ourselves - Caveat: But this is not representing most other cultures; this is very North American, (high individualism). In other country, it is not very self-finding, they are less likely to blame ‘self’ - Individualistic: disposition attribution => with one rude behavior, we attribute it to that person’s disposition Attribution theory – how do we interpret out own and other’s behavior? Overview - What are attributions? Why did x happen? Because.. (explanation) - Why use attributions? We much need to understand world around us – rules of thumb; you don’t need to think deeply, you have implemented thought Individualistic country => disposition attribution: ‘they did this because they are’ - We can use attributions to help us understand; our emotions, our behaviors, and others’ Fundamental Attributional Error (FAE) – explaining other’s behavior - Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE, aka Correspondence Bias): it is tendency to explain other’s behavior in terms of disposition, while ignoring situational factors. Their behavior corresponds to their disposition. - Impression formation: we imagine their disposition based on impression when we first see them. ‘people are what we see them do’ Ex) wee someone name ‘smart’ => we think that person is smart ‘I am not SPOCK’ – everyone thought he is spock Ex2) movie actor playing only good guy => we believe he is really good guy - Interpreting Milgram’s obedient subjects: 65% of people are obedient in this experiment. In research, do you think you will behave in this way? – but what we don’t see is the ‘situation’. - Most of time, we don’t think about situation; it requires lot of works, so we just use heuristic - Interpreting other’s knowledge: smart or stupid – can make person far more knowledgeable or less knowledgeable ** We can draw conclusion by witnessing one behavior More FAE - Interpreting essays (jones &harries, 1967) : subjects read and rate Fred’s attitude towards Castro. - IV: Condition under which Fred wrote essay:  Free choice: he chose he own topic  No choice – he is given topics to write  Coin flip – he chose topic by flipping coin  Was provided with arguments  Copied an essay written by someone else  Read the essay aloud, but didn’t write it - DV: rating of Fred’s attitude toward Castro (negative to positive)? - Castro study results:  Free choice: when controversial essay (anti-Castro) is chosen by Freud’s own decision, they believed Fred hates Castro vice versa.  With other IVs, with pro-Castro essay => more likely think he is more toward liking Castro even if he didn’t write himself. (including just reading aloud, coping paper, no choice) Is the FAE truly ‘fundamental’? Cross-cultural evidence - Maybe in other culture (collectivist cultures), they are more likely to make situational factors - Miller (1984) – subjects are told negative stories such as someone did something bad and given lists of why this person behaves this way, it was either due to situational factor or dispositional factors Results?  % of dispositional Attributions: In U.S, Older Americans were => more likely to make dispositional attributions; he is jerk, clumsy. In India, they are far less likely to make dispositional attributions  % of situational attributions: In U.S, they are less likely to make situational attribution. In India, they are much more likely to make situational factors.  Across cultures, very different attributions according to disposition or situation - Is the FAE truly ‘fundamental’? there are attribution errors but different across cultures AOB: Actor observer bias – explaining Own & others’ behaviors (Jones & Nisbett, 1971) - We explain others’ behavior in terms of disposition - BUT also, we explain our own behaviors in terms of situation (also can help self-esteem) - Because we know our situation! (we focus on our self) - Why is actor studying so hard? Actor – upcoming difficult exam, observer – well, she is very hard working and ambitious. - Mechanism? Why does this happen?  Knowledge of the actor: if you know the actor well, easy for you make a situational factors. If we don’t know, it is much easier to attribute dispositional factor  Point of view: perceptual salient - we just can’t perceptually capture other’s situation because we are not motivated to his situation Knowledge of the Actor (Nisbett et al., 1973) - Does how well we know someone affect our likelihood of viewing them dispositonally vs. situationally? - Ask target’s personality - IV: knowledge of target (self, best friend, acquaintance (don’t know very well), Walter Cronkite(news reader) Ex) example of traits descriptors: is this person serious or lighthearted? Or depends on situation? - DV: rating target on trait descriptors out of 20 possible description (% dispositional vs. situational) - Results:  Self: about 10 dispositional descriptors used – half of time, we use dispositional description, half of things are depends on situation (we know ourselves)  Best friend: about 13  Acquaintance: 14  Walter Cronkite: about 16. No one consider about his situations => mostly used dispositonal description  **Better I know someone less likely to use dispositional attribution, more likely to consider situation. Point of view (Lassiter &Irvine Mock Jury Experiment) – what am I noticing? - Subjects choose guilty or not-guilty after they watch video of a confession. - IV: Point Of View – video is focused either on defendant (disposition) as he made confession or on cop (situation - you can hear angry cop in the video, but you can’t see him => (subject is forced to look at defendant) - DV: Verdict – do you still think he is guilty? Or innocent? - Results:  Focused on defendant (disposition) =>They believed what they saw on clip, this is guilty person confessing to crime  Focused on cop (situation) => more likely to vote for not guilty => this is pretty scary situation, he might confessed because of scary cop - Real-world implications? Effects of P.O.V on own behavior - What happens when we see ourselves as others do?  Subjective self-awareness - Deiner &Wallburn cheating experiment: subjects taking intelligence test individually - IV: P.O.V (mirror vs. no mirror) - Mirror either facing the subject or turned around - DV: % cheating – here cheating is keep working on test after buzzer went (time limit) - Results?  When Mirror is present: unlikely to continue after buzzer went  No mirror: about 70% of subject cheated - As soon as we don’t have to watch ourselves doing cheating, we cheat - Just looking at mirror make you aware of yourself as an object (when we are able to make a disposition attribution) How do we know what we’re feeling? - Continue on next class… Psych 2C03 – Nov 20 th How do we know what we’re feeling? - Attribution theory: how we know what emotions we are feeling - Two factor theory of emotion (Schachter) - we deduce our emotional state by assessing our: o physiological arousal o situation (allow us to make a attribution about what is causing arousal) - Our assessment usually leads to correct attributions. Ex) arousal is high, someone is just caught on highway => terrified - BUT: unexplained physiological arousal is sometimes misattributed to arousal-irrelevant situational factors, thus creating a false emotion. Ex) not expected arousal by caffeine => you think that person is very attractive Ex2) not expected high arousal + people laughing = ‘joy’ Research evidence (Schachter & Singer, 1962 experiment) - 2IVs:  arousal (placebo – no effect, epi-informed (speed) – going to feel agitated , epi- uninformed(no side effect)  situation (euphoria vs. anger conditions) - Subject took drugs and some of them took placebo, and others took vitamins and half of them are told the effect of vitamins - After taking drugs, they are sent to waiting room - In waiting room , there is confederate behaving euphoria manner or extremely angry man - Attributional process ( unconscious) give explanation - DV: emotion; self-report (rate your feeling on scale) and facial expression (asked subjects in waiting room and they were being watched by readers) Results? Anger Condition Euphoria Condition Placebo group Not angry Not euphoric - You got extra arousal, but you know why Epi-informed Not angry Not euphoric - You know why are you are aroused Epi-uninformed ANGRY EUPHORIC - You don’t know why you are aroused, so you consider situation even it is wrong. - If you don’t know about arousal, you look at situation and decide - This is not all about anger, also happiness - We try to make adjustment unconsciously, but we can’t quite make it well.. Summary - Attributions help us quickly make sense of the world - They sometimes help preserve our SE; recall SSAB’s - They help us preserve processing power: we have pre-programmed way of explaining other people, you don’t have to think, you automatically make disposition or situation attribution - Recall value of peripheral processing vs. central processing - Does it matter that our attributions about others and ourselves may be incorrect? Even it is sometimes incorrect, it seems to work for us after all. It is accurate enough and save energy Dissonance Theory - Most interesting theory in social psychology Overview - Dissonance Theory is about the relationship between attitudes(cognition and belief) and behaviors - We used to use attitude to predict behaviors by theory of planned behavior/reasoned action - BUT DT introduced the idea that we use behavior to predict attitudes Roots of DT: when prophecy fails (field study) - Recall the Doomsday Cult field study: there will be a huge flood and world will end. There’s a cult in belief of god will send aliens to save us from huge flood. What if world doesn’t end? - No flood on the date - No flying saucer  Cult member left feeling dumb - What to do? You put all effort for preparing for world to end  Quit cult and feel like an idiot: all my SE is destroyed  Or stay with cult and feel like a hero: - Message from God => god told her that reason world hadn’t ended was that Cult member changed his mind. Publicity seeking, more devotion (they save the world) Cognitions? o I am a smart and reasonable person (one of the member in Cult will say) o I joined a cult o I joined this cult in order to escape from a great flood, be saved by aliens, and then..return to re-populate earth o But The flood never happened o But the aliens never came => Dissonance! Psychological inconsistency => discomfort, we call it ‘dissonance’=> therefore distortion - They had essentially distorted what it happened to So what is Dissonance theory? (Festinger’s original Operationalization) - Dissonance arises as a result of psychological inconsistency: refers to inconsistency between attitude and behaviors Ex) when our behavior is at odds with out attitudes, we feel psychological inconsistency - Dissonance is physiologically and psychologically uncomfortable; you feel very distress when you feel dissonance Discomfort => drive state that motivated us to do anything we can to get rid of it You will do anything to get rid of horrible discomfort - Two methods of dissonance reduction (DR) 1) Automatic attitude change: make your attitude and behavior consistent; destroy attitude so it matches behavior (unconscious) 2) Controlled motivated reasoning bias => create consistency ( making them match by reasoning bias) Example 1: attitude change o people who go to lot trouble to join the club seems to like club after all. (attitude change) o Horrible initiation to get into club => you like club too much o Process of being torture by member of club => something in you is changed to allow people to torture you o Aronson &Mills (1959): Women are randomly assigned to initiation (no pre-motivation) and after they passed initiation, they go into each discussion based on book 'sexual behavior of animal’  Methods: discussing about sex (interesting topic)  Control: they think they are listening to discussion but it is recorded. Interesting or board discussion o IV: severity of initiation  no initiation control  mild – 5 words related to sex (prostitute, virgin)  Severe – read aloud 12 horrible scene words, 2 vivid pornographic words.. o DV: dissonance reduction; attitudes re. value of discussion (scale zero to 200) Results?  Control/mind condition: no significant difference in value of discussion (about 165~)  Severe condition: there is significant increase in value of discussion (little bit of attitude changing) o Severe condition did change their attitude in a direction of making them feel better about what they’ve been trough o In terms of dissonance theory, they used automatic attitude change Cognitions? 1. That discussion was very boring.. it was all about animal 2. I went through a very embarrassing initiation to get into it  Dissonance! Therefore distortion of #1 = easiest to distort (unconscious attitude changing, automatic). Distort easiest thing to distort 1. That discussion was very boring 2. I went through a mildly embarrassing initiation to get into it  No dissonance, no distortion Example 2: attitude change o Festinger & Carlsmith (1959): subjects participate in an extremely dull study o IV: Control vs. lie to next subject (favor is lying to next subject that experiment is very interesting and exciting). Why?  Two experimental group: one group is paid $ 1 other group is paid $20 o DV: ‘separate study’ - how enjoyable was the study you just participated in? would you participate in a similar study again? o Results:  Control: didn’t like experiment, they were below 0  Paid $20: they didn’t like experiment either  Paid $1: liked experiment. Why? Cognitions? What are they unconsciously experiencing? 1. That experiment was very boring 2. I told the next subject that it was great fun 3. I was paid $1 to tell him that  DISSONANCE! Therefore distortion of #1  What’s left to distort, how enjoy experiment was, only thing you can make you less feel sleazy 1. That experiment was very boring 2. I told the next subject it was great fun 3. I was paid $20 to tell him that  No dissonance, no distortion: it is perfectly fine, it was really board and I got 20 dollar. 20 $ worth enough to lie Example 3: motivated reasoning bias (conscious process) 4. Smokers: 1. I would like to live a healthy life into old age 2. I smoke 3. Smoking will ruin my health and perhaps even kill me  Dissonance: they are motivated to reject=>  Distortion #1 => I just want to live a ‘fun life’  Distortion #2 => smoking one to two => average => not smoking a lot  Distortion #3 => find to a make a research wrong This is all fascinating, but.. o Definition is incomplete.. o Why is ‘psychological inconsistency’ so uncomfortable? What is it torturous? o Two solutions proposed 1) Psychological discomfort we feel is about to threaten our self-esteem: self-esteem is crucial to our self-esteem 2) Physiological discomfort due to heightened arousal: All about our arousal going up; we want to get rid of raised arousal **In order for someone to engage in dissonance, they need two of them Psychological discomfort (Aronson, 1969) o Aronson: we feel psychologically uncomfortable when we see ourselves acting stupidly or immorally. o ‘sleazily’ shame, sad=> lowers SE, we do
More Less

Related notes for PSYCH 2C03

Log In


Don't have an account?

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.