self-concept and self-bias Flashcards
What is the self-awareness test
· Mirror test
· Some animals, including some monkeys do not recognise themselves in the mirrors
· Apes recognise themselves in the mirror
Children only start recognising themselves around 18 months
Bem’s (1972) self-perception theory
· I care about the environments -> I recycle
· I recycle -> I guess I care about the environment
· Attitude follows behaviour rather than determines it
We do not access our own feelings and attitudes but infer them from our action
What did Chaiken and Baldwin (1981) find about recycling questions?
· Have you ever recycled? -> Likely to report environment-friendly behaviour
· Do you always recycle? -> Unlikely to report environment-friendly behaviour
· Participants with less consistent attitudes towards the environment (as measured at a pre-test a week earlier) were influenced by the type of questions. If received the ones easier to respond to positively, described themselves as more pro-environment
Bem’s theory and children
· Drew for fun
· Drew in order to receive a reward (certificate w/ seal and ribbon)
· Drew for fun but received a surprise reward afterwards (certificate w/ seal and ribbon)
· Observation ~ a week later how long children chose to draw during free time period
Having extrinsic motivation leads people to infer that they don’t do something out of intrinsic motivation (Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett (1973)
Bem and virtual reality
· Attractive/unattractive avatar Avatar tracked participant’s motion · Measures: How close to the research assistant participants moved · How much they said when asked · to introduce themselves · Participants with a more attractive avatar walked closer and talked more Yee & Bailenson (2007)
Self-awareness and self-observation
· Anagram test
Allocated 5 minutes but experimenter not back until 10 minutes after
· Self-aware: sit next to a mirror and hear own self introduction in loop
· Non-self-aware: no mirror, another person’s self-introduction in loop
· Self-aware less likely to cheat than non-self-aware
Diener and Wallbom (1976)
How do we conceptualise ourselves?
· One way we conceptualise ourselves is by observing our own behaviour (Bem, 1972)
Looking glass self (Cooley, 1902) - We imagine how others would see us and judge ourselves accordingly Also relates to statements others make about self (I’m always told I’m funny…)
Self-categorisation theory (Turner)
· Social Identity Theory: we always conceptualize ourselves as part of a group, and so in-line
· with that ingroup and in contrast to outgroups
· Is there a self that we activate or conceptualise?
· How would you introduce yourself to a friend of your parents? How would you introduce yourself to a classmate? How would you introduce yourself at a party?
· People have multiple self-conceptions
· These self-conceptions are at different groups levels
Different self-conceptions would be activated in different situations
Self-categorisation theory - gender differences?
· Female participants
Male/female primes (words flash, indicate flash location on screen)
· How pleasant do you find the following activities?
- Math activities (e.g., doing an algebra problem set)
- Arts activities (e.g., writing an essay)
· How pleasant do most students like yourself find the following activities?
· Women prefer arts and men prefer maths, same results shown when asked about other people
· Steele and Ambady (2006)
Self-categorisation theory - stereotypes
Stereotype salient · Rate: · Men are gifted in Mathematics · Women are gifted in Mathematics .... ... · I am gifted in Mathematics · I am gifted in Arts .... · Recall marks in Arts and Maths – was found that marks were higher in art for women and higher in maths for men Stereotype not salient · Rate: · I am gifted in Mathematics · I am gifted in Arts … · Men are gifted in Mathematics · Women are gifted in Mathematics .... · Recall marks in Arts and Maths · When gender identity salient – memory shifts in the direction of stereotype Chatard, Guimond and Selimbegovic (2007)
Stereotype threat?
· We have multiple self-concepts that are differentially activated in each context + looking glass self
· Asian female participants in the US answered a questionnaire that highlights their gender (e.g., whether their residence halls were co-ed or single sex), their ethnicity (e.g., how many languages they spoke), or neither (e.g., whether they lived on or off campus)
· Math task
· Performance was best after the ethnicity prime and worst after the gender prime
Shih, Pittinsky and Ambady (1999)
The better-than-average effect
· College board exam in the US 1976-77
· Rated own performance on percentile
· Leadership: 70% above median, 2% below median
· Athletic ability: 60% above median, 6% below
· Ability to get along with others: 100% median or above, 25% in the top 1%
College professors - 94% say they do above average work (Cross, 1977)
The better-than-average effect: Rated abilities vs. peers on:
· Ambiguous positive: sophisticated, sensitive, quick…
· Less ambiguous positive: mathematical, well read, punctual…
· Ambiguous negative: neurotic, inconsistent, naïve…
· Less ambiguous negative: sarcastic, gossipy, bragging…
Mechanism:
· Focus on facets one is good in (ambiguity matters)
· Flattering comparison target
Dunning, Meyerowitz and Holzberg (1999)
What does self-evaluation show?
· Positive self-evaluation predicts higher success even if a bit inflated
· Sense of control
Optimism
· It is those low in self-esteem or mildly depressed tend to have more accurate self-perceptions
Taylor and Brown (1988)
Cultural differences in self-concept
· British and Australian participants gave more individualistic (idiocentric) and fewer groups descriptions than Malaysian participants
Bochner (1994)
Correspondence bias/fundamental attribution error?
· Cold War era
· Read an essay pro/anti-Castro
· Political science class: forced to defend a position / any position Rate how pro/anti-Castro the writer is (scale: 10-70)
· People don’t fully account for the constraints of the circumstances when judging others’ behaviour
Jones and Harris (1967)
Cultural differences in attribution – explanations
· Cultural differences in explaining behaviour
· Dispositional explanations: Western > Eastern (Miller, 1984)
· Contextual explanations: Eastern > Western (Miller, 1984)
Greater Fundamental Attribution Error in Western than Eastern cultures (Choi & Nisbett, 1998; Krull et al., 1999
Self-bias – attention
· People are unable to report any of what they hear in the ignored ear
· Dichotic listening task – listening to two different conversations in each ear but need to concentrate on one
· More likely to know what went on in the other conversation if their name was mentioned
Moray (1959)
· Search task: where is the O?
· Saw 3 Qs and 1 O, had to locate where the O was
· Cue: correct/incorrect location x own name/other name
· Own name facilitated response more than another’s name
· Own name in the correct location also increased accuracy
Alexopoulos, Muller, Ric & Marendaz (2012)
· Search task: where is the O? (name shown for shorter amount of time)
· Is it due to explicit attention?
· Follow up task
· Same task BUT name only appears for 33ms and masked before and after (not consciously visible)
Bigger cuing effect for own name (difficulty of ignoring own name?)
· Search task: where is the O? : CONCLUSION
Despite being warned to ignore name because its location is always the opposite of correct one, participants are more distracted by their name than another’s name. No facilitation over another’s name when location is correct, and they’re told that explicitly.
Attention: recognising faces
- Search for your own face vs. a stranger’s face
- Faster for own face
- Same result found when pictures were upside-down and angle was changed
Tong and Nakayama (1999)
Self-bias – reference point
· Participants were asked:
· Do most students (>50%) exercise at least weekly?
· Do most students (>50%) watch TV/Netflix/… at least 2 hours a day? Do many students (>20%) cheat in their coursework?
· There’s a high correlation between people’s predictions about others and their own behaviour
· Katz and Allport, 1931
Supported by Ross, Greene and House (1976) – asked about different traits and asked how much they thought they were like them. More likely to say other people hold the same traits as you
Self-bias – reference point: sandwich board
· Participants told it’s an experiment about the efficacy of different communication methods.
· Asked to walk around campus for 30min wearing a sign “Eat at Joe’s” / ”Repent”.
· Their task is to count how many people approach, their gender, and whether their comments are positive/negative/neutral.
· Told they’re allow to withdraw from study.
· Those who agreed to wear the sign believed that other people would also wear the sign, same found for those who refused
· Would you agree to do that?
· What % of student do you think would agree to walk around with the sign?
Ross, Greene and House, 1976
