Chapter 5: The self

1. Chapter 5: The self

2. Some “great debates” in the history of research on the self Stable/fixed Unstable/malleable multidimensional unidimensional Unconscious relatively unimportant Large role of unconscious

3. Some important aspects of the self that one might want to capture in a theory • The self as library (memory storehouse) • Long term memory • Computer metaphor: hard disk memory • The “on-line” self • Awareness • Working memory • Computer metaphor (again): RAM • Goal-setting/planning • Malleability • Context-sensitivity • The self (potentially) “at war” with itself • E.g., Balancing short desires with long-term goals

4. Contrasting conceptualizations of the self

5. Three “multidimensional” views of the self • William James (1842-1910) • The known—”Me” • Repository of beliefs about self • The active knower—”I” • Active processor of information • Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) • ID • EGO • SUPEREGO • Tory Higgins (contemporary) • Actual self • Ought self • Ideal self • Empirical support • Actual vs. ideal discrepancies—depressed • Actual vs. ought discrepancies—agitation

6. Recent “executive control” theories(e.g. Baumeister & Voss, 2003) • Emphasis on self-regulation, impulse control • Localization in brain? • Pre-frontal cortex • Appears to be involved in: • goal-setting • self-regulation • Phineas Gage

7. Self and control • People have a strong drive for control over their environment • Reactance theory (Brehm, 1966) • Illusions of control • Lottery ticket valuation (Langer, 1975) • Detecting contingencies in behavior (Alloy & Abrahamson (1979) • Self efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977) • When control actually taken away…(long term) • Learned helplessness (Seligman, 1975)

8. Self control as a finite (limited) resource • Baumeister et al. (2000) • Metaphor: self-control as a “muscle” • Suppressing urges in one domain uses energy, leads to depleted resources in totally different domain. • Example: First task Second task Resist cookies Try not to laugh during movie Don’t think about white bear Control (no suppression)

9. Baumeister et al. (2000), continued • Research could explain • Relapses among former smokers when stressed • Self-regulatory failures more likely in evening • Vohs et al. (2001) • Ss asked either to decide between two products vs. merely indicate how often they used them • Self-regulation failures more likely in decision condition

10. Cultural and Gender Differences in the Definition of “Self” • Gabriel and Gardner (1999) • “Describe either a positive or negative event in your life”

11. In the Spotlight: On the Consequences of Self-Awareness • The “adherence to standards” effect (Duval & Wicklund, 1972) • But self awareness can have adverse/negative consequences too. • Legend of Narcissus by Ovid (Roman poet) • “Escape from the Self” (Baumeister, 1991) • Adaptive vs. maladaptive approaches • “The Curse of the Self” (Leary, 2004) • On the potential costs of “self obsession” • Depression, anxiety

12. “Telling More than We Can Know:Verbal Reports on Mental Processes”(Nisbett & Wilson, 1977) • General claim: People are remarkably poor at introspection • accuracy of inferring/assessing internal states • knowing the actual reasons for our behavior.

13. Introspection and causal theories • The more sleep I get, the better I feel • Sunny days put me in a good mood • Using a cell phone won’t affect my reaction time while driving a car • The gender of another person won’t affect my evaluation of them (i.e. I am not sexist) • The race of another person is irrelevant to whether I like them or not. • “I love her/him because _______”

14. The Nisbett and Wilson (1977) thesis pre-existing causaltheories often easy to access Queries about mental states actual mental states often difficult to access

15. Evidence? • What factors determine whether you are in a relatively good or bad mood? • Wilson, Laser, & Stone (1982)

16. Nisbett & Wilson (1977)—the “distraction” study • Participants watch film under two conditions: No distraction vs. Distraction • Two questions: • How did the noise actually influence ratings (objective influence) • How do people think the noise influence ratings (subjective influence)

17. Results: + Objective influence—actual rated enjoyment of film by participants in distraction condition distraction No distraction - But when these participants were asked how the distraction might have influenced ratings these participants subjectively believed that it decreased their enjoyment. But they were wrong!

18. Rebuttal to the Nisbett and Wilson thesis—are people really that clueless? vs. • Smith & Miller, 1978 • Studies have often focused on mundane influences • People have no basis for comparison • Analyses often based on averaging across participants • Theory hard to falsify

19. Additional research on difficulty of accurate introspection 1. Affective forecasting 2. Self-perception theory (Bem, 1972) 3. Perceptions of our own emotions

20. 1. Affective forecasting Exactly how would you feel—and how long would you feel that way--if you…… Valence Intensity Duration • found a ten dollar bill lying on the sidewalk? • won two million dollars in the Missouri lottery? • got an A+ on the social psychology exam? • fell in love? • won the Nobel prize? • suddenly went blind? • found out your significant other was dating someone else? • got a divorce from someone you once loved? • discovered you were genetically at risk for cancer? • found out that you tested positive for HIV? • were sent to a concentration camp?

21. General findings from this literature People often think that their emotion reactions will be more extreme, and last longer, than is really the case. • Assistant professors and tenure decisions • Relationship outcomes • Loss/death of close others • Election outcomes • Student’s feelings after exams

22. Buheler & MacFarland (2001) • Predicted vs. actual emotional experiences • General methodology

23. Buheler & MacFarland (2001) predicted 7.46 experienced 6.85 5.54 5.19 3.06 2.47 above expected below Nature of Actual Performance Relative to Expectations

24. Why do you get these effects? • Misconstrual • Inaccurate theories • Motivated distortions. • Underestimation of emotional defense (survival) skills • “Focalism” + - + Other mundane events of everyday-life Focal event (+) - - + + -

25. 2. Self Perception Theory

26. Self-perception theory (Bem, 1972) “Individuals come to “know” their own attitudes, emotions and other internal states partially by inferring them from observations of their own overt behavior and/or the circumstances in which this behavior occurs. Thus, to the extent that internal cues are weak, ambiguous, or uninterpretable, the individual is functionally in the same position as an outside observer, an observer who must necessarily rely upon those same external cues to infer the individual’s internal states. “

27. Valins (1966): The bogus feedback study

28. Overjustification effects • Ubiquitous “reward systems” in the educational system, and elsewhere • E.g. read a book, “earn” a pizza • Unfortunately, there is a downside- • Receiving rewards  changes in self-perception • E.g. person thinks: I’m doing X for the reward, not out of my own intrinsic interest • Problem arise when rewards cease (e.g., Greene, Sternberg, & Lepper, 1976)

29. Understanding (perception of) emotions

30. Perceptions of emotions:Schacter’s two-factor model • Emphasizes the malleability of subjective, emotional experiences • “A + C = E” • Arousal  cognitive interpretation  subjective experience of emotion

31. Design of Schacter & Singer (1962) study Behavior of confederate Epinephrine—no explanation Epinephrine--explanation Placebo (H2O) angry angry No effect No effect euphoric No effect euphoric No effect

32. Misattribution of emotion/affect • Dutton and Aron (1974)—the scary bridge, attractive confederate study • Schwarz and Clore (1983)—the weather study No reference Indirect reference Direct reference + + + sunny -- + + cloudy

33. Introspection about abilities • Construal of abilities, like emotions/attitudes, are often “constructed” on the spot, depending on external cues in our environment • How does this occur? • Social comparison

34. Social comparison (Festinger, 1954) • When do you engage in S.C.? • High uncertainty, no objective standard • With whom to you engage in S.C.? • Depends on your motive/goal you have in mind • There are TWO motives • To gain knowledge (skill—based needs) • To feel better (evaluative-based needs)

35. The need for valuable knowledge- • Generally speaking, upward comparison better here • The need to feel good about yourself • Often, downward comparison serves this need • A different type of social comparsion • Present vs. past

36. Impression management • Basic principles • Conceptual and methodological challenges • Is there such thing as a “real self” How would you know what is real, and what isn’t? Who decides?

37. David Duke “White people don't need a law against rape, but if you fill this room up with your normal black bucks, you would, because n____ are basically primitive animals.” —The Sun (Wichita, Kan.), April 23, 1975 “I don’t call myself a white supremacist,” “I’m a civil rights activist concerned about European-American rights.” Early 1970s 1980s

38. 1982: After a four-year political hiatus, Wallace returns to the Governor's Mansion, defeating his opponent easily, largely with the help of the majority black vote. During what would be Wallace's final term as governor, he appoints a record number of black Alabamians to government positions and establishes the so-called Wallace Coalition, which included the Alabama Education Association, organized labor, black political organizations, and trial lawyers. Wallace addresses the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and pronounces his past stand on segregation in the schools "wrong." 1963: I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever! --Georgia Governor George Wallace