PSYCH 2C03 Study Guide - Final Guide: David Buss, Tranquilizer, Attitude Change
29 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
SELF AND SELF-ESTEEM
Social Cognition
-Schemas
oAccessibility & Priming
oSchemas & eating
oSelf-fulfilling prophecy
Rosenthal & Jacobson (1968) – teachers and student IQ
-Embodied Cognition – Cleanliness and morality experiment
-Heuristics
oAvailability
Shwarz (1991) – 6 vs. 12 assertive acts and assertiveness
oRepresentative
-Cultural Differences – analytic vs. Holistic thinking (info-rich)
-Overconfidence barrier
Rosenberg’s SE scale
- If SE is high
oOn the whole I am satisfied with myself
oI feel that I have a number of good qualities
oI am able to do things as well as most other people
oI take a positive attitude toward myself
- If SE is low
- At times I think I am no good at all
- I feel I do not have much to be proud of
- I certainly feel useless at times
- All in all I am inclined to feel that I am a failure
The Cross-culture self
- Individualist self – priority to own goals
oSeveral different groups revolving around the self; self-sufficient
- Collectivist self – priority in terms of relationships with others/group goals
oDifferent groups/aspects of lives interconnected with our self
William James (1842-1910)
-First self “Me” and second self “I” self concept and self awareness
Gallup (1977) – mirrors and chimps – self-recognition at around 2 years old
Self-schemas, Self-reference effect (information to themselves), self-concept clarity
Self-Awareness Theory – focus, evaluate, compare
-Moskalenko & Heine 2003 – failure feedback – escape awareness via video
-Baumeister 1991 – escaping self-awareness through religion
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Self-perception theory – when attitudes are ambiguous, we infer via our behaviour
-Intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation
-Overjustification effect
Self Esteem evidence
- Most people have high SE
- Small correlation between SE and actual success; Large correlations between
SE self-perceived success
- Most people engage in cognitive biases to enhance/maintain SE
oSelf-serving attributional bias – credit self; blame others
oUnrealistic Positive self views (positivity bias) – too great
oUnrealistic Optimism – bad things won’t happen, I’m not bad
oIllusory control over good events
Langer Lottery ticket experiment
IV: choice of ticket vs. no choice
DV: sell-back price
o“We ran out of tickets, sorry; name your price
and I’ll buy it”
No choice: sold $2 for a $1 ticket
Choice: sold $8 for a $1 ticket (mine is lucky)
- Most people will do whatever it takes to maintain SE
oAssociating with success of others to boost SE
oDissociate from people whose failures harm SE
oCialdini – Arizona State University Football study
Really hard quiz
IV: SE false feedback on hard quiz (success vs. failure vs. no
feedback)
Asked, “How did the football team do?”
DV: % of subjects using “we” when describing win/loss
Success on quiz:
20% said “we won”
20% said “we lost”
Control
10% said “we lost”
No difference in “we won” (20%)
Failure
45% said “we won” (association boost)
5% said “we lost” (dissociation protection)
oUpward vs. Downward social comparison
Tesser’s Two-factor Self-esteem maintenance model
- Importance of task to self (high vs. low relevance)
- Closeness of relationship to person you compare (close vs. distant)
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
High Relevance Low Relevance
Distant relationship BASK Don’t care
Close relationship COMPARE BASK
Berglas & Jones (1978)
- IV: Test difficulty (easy vs. hard)
- All given false feedback that they did really well; then take drug
- DV: % of choosing disruptive drug
oEasy test = 10% took disruptive drug
oHard test = 55% took disruptive drug
- Men showed significantly larger pattern where they would choose disruptive
more than women – higher self-esteem than women
Social Comparison Theory
-Lockwood & Kunda (1999) – superstar comparison
-Self-discrepancy theory – real vs. ideal
Self-enhancement vs. Self-effacement (collectivist cultures)
ATTRIBUTION THEORY
Nonverbal communication
-Facial expressions, encode and decode
oBecker et al. (2007) angry & happy vs. males & females
oPaul Ekman’s universal emotions: ASDFSH & CEGASP
oMasuda et al. (2008) – Japanese vs. American eye movements
oAffect blend – registering emotions
-Cultural communication: display rules (collectivist) & Emblems (gestures)
Implicit Personality Theory – pretty people good people
-Dion & Dion (1987) – pretty people = pretty future
-Dion, Pak & Dion (1987) – cultural difference at U of T
-Hoffman Lau & Johnson (1986) – Chinese vs. English impressions (artistic vs.
shi gu personality)
Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE)
- Tendency to attribute disposition to others over situation
- Affects impression formation, interpreting others’ knowledge, interpreting
essays
- Jones & Harris (1967) – Interpreting Essay written by “Fred”
(Correspondence Bias)
oIV: Conditions under Fred wrote essay
Free choice vs. no choice
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Schemas: accessibility & priming, schemas & eating, self-fulfilling prophecy. Rosenthal & jacobson (1968) teachers and student iq. Shwarz (1991) 6 vs. 12 assertive acts and assertiveness: representative. Cultural differences analytic vs. holistic thinking (info-rich) At times i think i am no good at all. All in all i am inclined to feel that i am a failure. I feel i do not have much to be proud of. Individualist self priority to own goals: several different groups revolving around the self; self-sufficient. Collectivist self priority in terms of relationships with others/group goals: different groups/aspects of lives interconnected with our self. First self me and second self i self concept and self awareness. Gallup (1977) mirrors and chimps self-recognition at around 2 years old. Self-schemas, self-reference effect (information to themselves), self-concept clarity. Moskalenko & heine 2003 failure feedback escape awareness via video. Baumeister 1991 escaping self-awareness through religion. Self-perception theory when attitudes are ambiguous, we infer via our behaviour.
