lecture 4- self-construal 1&2 Flashcards
(15 cards)
what is the self
- the self is an illusion (non-causal product of neutral activity)
the multiplicity of self
- the ‘ontological’ self
the self experienced as single, subjective, and phenomenologically given
-the ‘epistemological’ self
features and processes of the various systems of our bodies (the contents of self experiences)
Rogers, Kuiper, & Kirker (1977)
- depth of processing approach – vary encoding conditions
- poised, manipulative, angry, mature, etc
structural (e.g., printed in capital letters?)
phonemic (e.g., rhymes with XXXX?)
semantic (e.g., means the same as XXXX?)
self-descriptiveness (e.g., describes you?) - superior (incidental) recall for for words encoded with respect to
the self (than other targets) - self-reference effect (SRE)
- robust/reliable effect (Symons & Johnson, 1997)
the self-reference effect: multiple demonstrations
- traits, nouns, definitions, scenes (Symons & Johnson, 1997)
- healthy individuals, mildly depressed persons (Derry & Kuiper, 1981)
- children aged 5 (Sui & Zhu, 2005)
- older adults (Gutchess, Kensinger, & Schacter, 2010)
the self- reference effect: interesting moderators
- target of comparison
In social psychology, the target of comparison refers to the person or group that an individual selects to compare themselves with. This concept is central to Social Comparison Theory (SCT), which was introduced by Leon Festinger in 1954. According to SCT, people choose comparison targets based on their similarity to themselves, as these comparisons are perceived as more informative and meaningful - cultural factors
Mother vs. POTUS:
Maki & McCaul (1985)
In the context of Maki & McCaul’s (1985) research, the target of comparison refers to the person or entity against which an individual evaluates themselves or others. This study, like others in the field, explores how self-referential processing (evaluating traits in relation to oneself) compares to other-referential processing (evaluating traits in relation to others).
Targets of Comparison in Maki & McCaul (1985)
Self: Evaluating personality traits in relation to oneself.
Close Others: Evaluating traits in relation to familiar individuals, such as friends or family members.
Non-Close Others: Evaluating traits in relation to less familiar individuals, such as public figures (e.g., a political figure like POTUS).
Comparison with Mother vs. POTUS
Mother: In studies like those referenced, a mother might be considered a close other. Evaluating traits in relation to a close other like a mother can enhance memory recall similar to self-referential processing, as these individuals are well-known and their traits are more elaborately organized in memory14.
POTUS (President of the United States): This would be an example of a non-close other. Evaluating traits in relation to a public figure like POTUS typically does not yield the same level of memory enhancement as self-referential or close-other referential processing4.
Maki & McCaul’s work contributes to understanding how the choice of comparison target affects memory and self-evaluation. Their findings suggest that while self-referential processing has some unique advantages, these advantages can be reduced or disappear when comparing oneself to a close other
East vs. West:
Sparks, Cunningham, & Kritikos (2016)
In the study by Sparks, Cunningham, & Kritikos (2016), the target of comparison refers to the person or entity against which participants evaluate objects, specifically in the context of ownership and memory. The study explores how cultural differences between Western and Asian participants influence memory biases related to self-owned versus other-owned objects.
Targets of Comparison in Sparks, Cunningham, & Kritikos (2016)
Self: Participants were asked to remember objects owned by themselves.
Close Others: Objects were also attributed to close others, such as a mother or a close friend.
Strangers: Objects were also owned by strangers.
East vs. West Comparison
Western Participants: Showed a significant memory advantage for self-owned objects compared to those owned by others, including close others like a mother. This aligns with an independent self-construal, where the self is distinct from others13.
Asian Participants: Did not exhibit a significant memory advantage for self-owned objects compared to those owned by close others like a mother. In some cases, they even showed better memory for objects owned by close others, reflecting an interdependent self-construal where the self is interconnected with others13.
This study highlights how cultural differences in self-construal influence cognitive biases related to ownership and memory, with Westerners favoring self-owned items and Asians showing less distinction between self and close others.
self referencing in the brain:
The study by Kelley et al. (2002) is a seminal work in understanding self-referential processing in the brain. This research used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to investigate how the brain processes self-referential information compared to other-referential information.
Key Findings
Self-Referential Processing: Participants were asked to judge personality trait adjectives under three conditions:
Self-referential (e.g., “Does the adjective describe you?”),
Other-referential (e.g., “Does this adjective describe the U.S. President George Bush?”),
Case-referential (e.g., “Is the adjective presented in uppercase letters?”).
Brain Regions Involved: The study found that regions within the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) were selectively engaged during self-referential judgments. This suggests that self-referential processing is functionally dissociable from other forms of semantic processing in the brain25.
Implications: The findings support the idea that the MPFC plays a crucial role in representing semantic self-knowledge. This study has been influential in subsequent research on self-referential processing and its neural correlates25.
In summary, Kelley et al. (2002) demonstrated that self-referential processing activates specific areas of the brain, particularly the MPFC, which is distinct from processing information about others. This research contributes to understanding how the brain processes self-related information and why such information is often remembered better than other types of information.
part 2
I’m Fantastic
- Generally speaking, people hold excessively
flattering views of themselves and of things
associated with the self. - self-enhancement motivation – drive to
construe oneself positively (Baumeister, 1998;
James, 1890)
self-advancing (enhance ‘good’)
self-protecting (diminish ‘bad’) - raft of self-related biases
The Better-Than-Average Effect:
Illusionary Superiority
- earliest and most frequently cited demonstration - 1976 College
Board Exams (SAT – 1 million students) - above the median
leadership ability - 70%
athletic ability - 60%
getting along with others - 85% - Cross (1977) – University of Nebraska lecturers
94% of lecturers considered themselves above average in
teaching ability (68% placed themselves in the top 25%)
Want Me to Drive You Home?
- Preston and Harris (1965) compared 50 drivers who had been hospitalized following car accidents (34 of whom had caused the accidents, according to police records) with 50 matched drivers without accident histories. The results showed not only that both groups
considered themselves to be above average in driving skills, but that the accident group’s evaluation of their driving abilities did not differ from those who were uninvolved in accidents. - egocentrism (how difficult/easy is a task for me, then extrapolate to others)
bicycles vs. juggling, riding a unicycle; worse-
than-average effect (Kruger, 1999).
The Spotlight Effect:
Gilovich et al. (2000)
The Spotlight Effect, as studied by Gilovich, Medvec, and Savitsky in 2000, is a psychological phenomenon where people tend to believe they are being noticed more than they really are. This effect is an egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one’s own actions and appearance.
Key Findings
Overestimation of Noticeability: Participants wearing an embarrassing T-shirt (e.g., with a picture of Barry Manilow) overestimated how many people would notice and remember the shirt. This demonstrates how individuals focus intensely on their own appearance and actions, leading them to believe others are equally attentive.
Anchoring and Adjustment Process: The spotlight effect is explained by an anchoring-and-adjustment process. People anchor on their own experiences and then insufficiently adjust to consider others’ perspectives, resulting in an overestimation of how much they are noticed.
Social Judgment and Salience: The spotlight effect influences social judgments, particularly in situations involving embarrassment or perceived importance of one’s contributions. Individuals tend to overestimate the impact of their actions and appearance on others.
Implications: This phenomenon has implications for understanding social anxiety and how people perceive themselves in social settings. It suggests that individuals often feel more visible and judged than they actually are, which can affect their self-esteem and social interactions.
Gilovich et al.’s research highlights how the spotlight effect can lead to biased self-perceptions and emphasizes the importance of considering others’ perspectives to more accurately assess one’s social impact.
Damn, You Know What I’m Thinking!
- people overestimate the extent to which others
can read their internal states. - the power of one’s own phenomenological
states
obvious to me = obvious to you - illusion of transparency
The Illusion of Transparency:
Gilovich et al. (1998)
The Illusion of Transparency, as studied by Gilovich, Savitsky, and Medvec in 1998, is a cognitive bias where individuals overestimate the extent to which others can discern their internal states, such as thoughts, emotions, and intentions. This phenomenon is characterized by people believing that their mental states are more apparent to others than they actually are.
Key Findings
Overestimation of Detectability: The study showed that people tend to believe their internal states “leak out” more than they really do. For example, liars overestimate how easily others can detect their lies, and individuals believe their feelings of disgust are more noticeable than they actually are125.
Anchoring and Adjustment Process: The illusion of transparency is attributed to an anchoring-and-adjustment process. People anchor on their own experiences and insufficiently adjust to consider others’ perspectives, leading to an overestimation of how transparent they are5.
Implications for Social Behavior: This bias affects various social interactions, including public speaking, negotiations, and bystander intervention. For instance, people with fear of public speaking often overestimate how visible their nervousness is to the audience13.
Consequences: The illusion of transparency can lead to increased anxiety and communication problems, as individuals may feel vulnerable or assume others can see through their attempts to hide emotions36.
Gilovich et al.’s research highlights how this bias influences social judgments and interactions, often leading to misunderstandings about how others perceive us.
