Lecture 9: Attitudes About the Self Flashcards
1
Q
Judge et al. (1997) or core self-evaluations (4)
A
- Generalized Self-Efficacy
- Locus of Control
- Emotional Stability
- Self-Esteem: The most basic appraisal people make of themselves; the overall value one places on oneself.
2
Q
generalized self-efficacy (4)
A
- generalized self-efficacy: One’s estimates of one’s ability to perform well and handle a variety of situations.
- Can differ in levels of self-efficacy in different domains, but generalized self-efficacy is the global estimate of our ability across a wide range of situations.
- Measurement: Indicate agreement/disagreement with 8 items on 11-point scale (Judge et al., 1997); e.g. “I am strong enough to overcome life’s struggles,” ”I often feel that there is nothing I can do well” (reverse-scored).
- People higher in self-efficacy are more likely to take on new tasks and are more persistent.
3
Q
locus of control (5)
A
-
locus of control: The degree to which individuals believe they control events in their lives (internal locus of control) or believe that the environment or fate controls events (external locus of control).
- “Internals” believe they control their own environment.
- “Externals” believe outside forces control their lives.
- Measurement: Indicate agreement/disagreement with 24 items on an 11-point scale; e.g. “My life is determined by my own actions,” “Often there is no chance of protecting my personal interests from bad luck happenings” (reverse scored).
- Internals are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs and lives.
4
Q
emotional stability (4)
A
- emotional stability: The opposite of neuroticism; tendency that one is not prone to negative emotions (e.g. anger, anxiety, depression) and reacting negatively to those emotions.
- Measurement—Eysenck Personality Inventory Neuroticism Scale (1968): Indicate agreement/disagreement with 12-items on an 11-point scale; e.g. “I’m a nervous person,” “I’m a worrier.”
- Common alternative: Big Five Inventory, neuroticism subscale.
- Low emotional stability: more insecure, guilty, timid, fearful of new situations, and susceptible to feelings of dependence and helplessness.
5
Q
self-esteem (2)
A
- A person’s overall subjective evaluation of his or her own worth.
- Encompasses beliefs about the self (e.g. I am competent, I am worthy) and emotional states (e.g. pride, shame).
6
Q
direct measures of self-esteem (4)
A
- Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE, 1965): 10-items, 4-point scale; e.g. “I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal basis with others,” “At times I think I am no good at all” (reverse scored).
-
Single Item Self-Esteem Scale, Robins et al. (2001): Single item on a 5-point (or 7-point) Likert scale; 1 (not very true of me) to 5 (or 7; very true of me).
- The single item is: “I have high self-esteem.”
- Both are useful, but susceptible to socially desirable responding.
7
Q
indirect measures of self-esteem (3)
A
- Self-Esteem IAT
- Name-Letter Task
- Name-Liking Measure
8
Q
Self-Esteem IAT (7)
A
- Based on the idea that people with higher self-esteem will extend their positive self-evaluation to words representing the self (without conscious awareness that self-esteem is contributing to these evaluations).
- Pair ME / NOT-ME words with PLEASANT / UNPLEASANT words
- ME: first name, surname, initials;
- NOT ME: familiar same sex first name 1, familiar same sex first name 2, familiar other surname.
- PLEASANT: loved, positive, liked, good, worthy, nice; UNPLEASANT: hated, negative, disliked, bad, failure, awful.
- Easier someone finds it to pair self words with positive words vs. negative words → higher implicit self-esteem.
9
Q
Name-Letter Task (6)
A
- Based on finding that people generally show preference for own initials (and to a lesser extent other letters in one’s name).
- And based on the mere ownership effect: The tendency to evaluate self-related objects more positively than self-unrelated objects.
- Judge all the letters of the alphabet (random order).
- “How much do you like this letter?” or “How attractive do you find this letter?” measured on Likert scale (5-, 7-or 9-point).
- Compare ratings for initials (or all name letters) to ratings of other letters.
- More preference for own initials/name letters theoretically correlates with higher implicit self-esteem.
10
Q
Name-Liking Measure (9)
A
- Also based on idea that self-esteem extends to self-related words and objects, but uses whole name because words are encoded holistically (not a collection of individual letters);
- Distinguishes between names that have the same letters (e.g. Ernie & Irene);
- And easier to administer—single item: “How much do you like your full name (first and surname together), in total?”; 1 (not at all) to 9 (very much).
- Like your name → higher self-esteem.
- The Name-Letter-Task and Self-Esteem IAT scores are often uncorrelated, but Name-Liking Scores correlated with both, indicating that it may be a more global measure of implicit self-esteem.
- Also correlated with:
- Explicit self-esteem, and this correlation is larger when Ps are under cognitive load;
- Well-being measures (with or without controlling for explicit self-esteem).
- Unlike explicit measures, this is also unrelated to impression management.
- Conclusion: Probably the best implicit method to use.
11
Q
self-esteem profiles (6)
A
- High Self-Esteem
- Contingent Self-Esteem
- Non-Contingent Self-Esteem
- Low Self-Esteem
- Narcissism
- Defensive Self-Esteem
12
Q
high self-esteem (6)
A
- Greater sense of self-efficacy, belief in own control over life events (locus of control), higher emotional stability (lower neuroticism).
- Firmer belief in principles, feeling secure enough to defend them.
- Better able to trust own judgment and decisions, even if others do not support choices.
- Live more in the present, not worrying excessively about the past or future.
- Able to accept differences in ability without seeing self as inherently inferior (or superior).
- See self as interesting and valuable to others.
13
Q
contingent self-esteem (3)
A
- Self-esteem derived from external sources, such as what others say and one’s successes (or failures).
- Less stable and reliable.
- Associated with pursuing constant approval from others and avoiding activities where failure is possible (or likely).
14
Q
non-contingent self-esteem (1)
A
- Self-esteem that is based on a stable belief that one is inherently acceptable.
15
Q
low self-esteem (7)
A
- Lower sense of self-efficacy, belief in external control of life events (locus of control), lower emotional stability (higher neuroticism).
- Heavy self-criticism and dissatisfaction.
- Hypersensitivity to criticism from others resulting in chronic general defensiveness.
- Chronic indecision and exaggerated fear of mistakes and displeasing others.
- Dwelling on or exaggerating the magnitude of past mistakes.
- More envy and resentment when others succeed.
- More likely to see temporary setbacks as permanent.
16
Q
narcissism (5)
A
- Excessive or inflated sense of self-worth.
- Agree with statements such as: “If I ruled the world, it would be a much better place.”
- Overly self-focused, struggle with empathy.
- Hypersensitive to any insults (real or imagined); hate people who do not admire them, flatter those who do.
- Exaggerate achievements, persistent bragging, claim to be experts at many things.
17
Q
defensive self-esteem (1)
A
- Positive attitude on explicit measures of self-esteem, but negative attitude on implicit measures of self-esteem
18
Q
Haddock & Gebauer (2011) (9)
A
- Individuals with defensive self-esteem have low ISE and high ESE.
- Study 1: Participants saw six words in a circle, one of which was related to defensiveness.
- Low in ISE and high in ESE —> likely to attend to defensiveness words.
- Study 2: Participants had attitudes towards nuclear power assessed (strength, extremity, ambivalence, and accessibility).
- Low in ISE and high in ESE —> stronger attitudes, less ambivalence, and higher accessibility.
- Study 3: Participants were measured on self-esteem and self-ideal discrepancy.
- Then completed a self-affirmation or control task.
- Defensive self-esteem participants who self-affirmed —> lower self-ideal discrepancy scores.
- Demonstrates how defensive self-esteem participants are most likely to benefit from self-affirmation.
19
Q
formation of attitudes about the self (3)
A
- Parenting & Attachment Theory
- Emotional Learning
- Cognitions About the Self
20
Q
parenting and attachment theory (4)
A
- Over the course of many interactions, children form expectations about the accessibility and helpfulness of caregivers.
- This, in turn, informs their working models about themselves and others.
- Whether or not others can generally be relied upon to provide support and protection.
- Whether or not the self is someone who people are likely to respond to in a helpful way.
21
Q
emotional learning (3)
A
- Evaluative Conditioning: Pairing the self with positive/negative stimuli.
- Others (e.g. “You are so ______.”)
- Self (e.g. “I am so ______.”)
- Behavioural Conditioning: Positive or negative responses to the self.
- e.g. Others smiling when they see you.
- Results in positive or negative feelings about the self.
22
Q
cognitions about the self (4)
A
-
self-concept: Our collection of beliefs about ourselves.
- Made up of multiple self-schemas that are domain-specific.
- self-schema: Cognitive structures that represent one’s qualities/abilities in a given domain with clarity and certainty.
- When need to know whether we are [some trait], or how good we are at [some activity], we refer to the relevant self-schema.
23
Q
models of self-knowledge (5)
A
- Exemplar Models
- Abstraction Models
- Mixed Exemplar-Abstraction Model
- Problem: When we make self-judgements, what’s the baseline.
- Lead to the proposal of Social Comparison Theory and Self-Discrepancy Theory.
24
Q
exemplar models (2)
A
- Proposes that we have separate representations of our behaviours in various domains stored in memory.
- When we need to determine our ability in a given domain, we retrieve the relevant memories and construct the relevant self-schema.
25
**abstraction models** (2)
* Proposes that we use individual behaviours to create summary representations of our traits and abilities in various domains.
* When we need to determine our ability in a given domain, we access the already created and stored self-schema.
26
**mixed exemplar-abstraction model** or **Klein et al. (1992)** (4)
* Concluded that we use both exemplar-based and summary-based self-schemas.
* Initially, when our experience with a given domain is low, we have to create self-schemas based on relevant memories or behavioural exemplars.
* Over time, self-schemas becomes more permanently accessible without having to construct it each time it is needed.
* Patients with impaired episodic memories can rate themselves on personality traits; these ratings are indistinguishable from self-ratings (when memory no longer impaired) or ratings made by close others (e.g. family members).
27
**social comparison theory** or **Festinger (1954)** (5)
* We compare ourselves to others in pursuit of accurate self-evaluation.
* Of course, there are outcomes of our comparisons, and often this has impacts on our self-esteem.
* Prefer comparison targets that are similar to us in other domains.
* If the other person is doing better → **upward comparison**.
* If the other person is doing worse → **downward comparison**.
28
**when upward comparisons have positive outcomes** (3)
* When self-other overlap is high—called ”basking in reflected-glory” (BIRG); e.g. A parent and their child.
* When are seeking inspiration or motivation.
* When see outcome as attainable or likely.
29
**when making downward comparisons have negative outcomes** (4)
* When self-other overlap is high (e.g. a teammate, romantic partners).
* When see that outcome as likely/possible for the self.
* If you have low self-esteem, you might feel like the bad thing will happen to you.
* Low perceived control; e.g. cancer patients.
30
**Morse & Gergen (1970)** (8)
* Participants were applicants for a part-time job.
* Upon arrival, seated at a table to complete forms (including a self-esteem measure, part 1).
* Another applicant (confederate) arrives and is also seated at the table.
* They were either well-groomed, wearing a suit and appearing self-confident and prepared (“Mr. Clean”);
* Or was wearing dirty, ripped clothes appearing unprepared and confused (“Mr. Dirty”).
* Then completed more forms (including a self-esteem measure, part 2).
* Sitting with Mr. Clean → lower self-esteem (presumably because they made an upward comparison).
* Sitting with Mr. Dirty → higher self-esteem.
31
**Wheeler & Miyake (1992)** (6)
* How many comparisons do people make in a day?
* For 2 weeks, participants reported on comparisons they made.
* Reported comparison direction and affective ratings after the comparison.
* Generally, people made more downward than upward comparisons.
* About 1 comparison per day (reported).
* On average: more negative affect after upward comparisons, and more positive affect after downward comparisons.
32
**Claire & Dr. Lockwood's research** (9)
* Participants view Facebook (or other social media) for X amount of minutes/posts.
* For each post: Did you make a comparison?
* Pre-tested for trait self-esteem; post-tested for state self-esteem.
* Participants looking at the 20 most recent posts in their Facebook or Instagram feeds tend to make the most upward comparisons.
* Current findings show that online upward comparisons are associated with:
* Worse self-evaluations immediately afterwards;
* Worse mood, state self-esteem, life satisfaction after the session.
* Importantly, this holds even when taking initial trait self-esteem into account.
* Future research: Does excessive social media use impact trait self-esteem?
33
**De Vries & Kühne (2015)** (4)
* Making upward social comparisons on Facebook negatively impacts self-perception.
* Asked participants about:
* Their tendency to make upward comparisons on Facebook.
* Their self-perceived social competence, physical appearance.
* Making more upward comparisons on Facebook was associated with lower self-ratings of social competence, physical appearance.
34
***Aubrey (2006)*** (8)
* Participants were exposed to a series of magazines and TV shows that were rated externally as being highly sexually objectifying.
* Measured at two time points: self-objectification, appearance anxiety, body shame, thin-ideal internalization, BMI, and global self-esteem.
* College-aged women were exposed to sexually objectifying media at time 2.
* Time 1 body-shame predicted a decrease in Time-2 exposure to sexually objectifying media for women low in thin-ideal internalization.
* Women low in global self-esteem: exposure to sexually objectifying media predicted a decrease in trait self-objectification.
* Many measures correlated with a decrease in exposure to sexually objectifying media, suggesting that this is a self-defense mechanism.
* Thin-ideal media promotes a certain type of body ideal, which is more detrimental to the self-concept of women who don't match that ideal.
* Sexually objectifying media more broadly spotlights the body and appearance without necessarily promoting a thin ideal. Thus, women avoid this media content regardless of their BMI.
35
**self-discrepancy theory** or **Higgins (1987)** (10)
* We don’t just compare ourselves to others; sometimes we compare ourselves to other possible selves.
* Discrepancies from (or upward comparisons to) one’s **ideal self** (who we would like to be) → reward pursuit, or **promotion focus mindset**.
* Discrepancies from (or upward comparisons to) one’s **ought self** (who we think others/society want us to be) → punishment avoidance, or **prevention focus mindset**.
* Individual differences on how motivated people are to achieve ideal vs. ought selves:
* High extraversion → focus on achieving ideal self.
* High neuroticism → focus on achieving ought self.
* Familial/cultural variation:
* Some parents emphasize opinion of others, others becoming ideal self.
* Independent vs. interdependent cultures.
* Regardless, people experience greater well-being when they are moving closer to the standard that is important to them.
