© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. Chapter 5 Self-Understanding: How We Come to Understand Ourselves

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

Chapter 5Chapter 5Chapter 5Chapter 5Self-Understanding: Self-Understanding:

How We Come to Understand How We Come to Understand OurselvesOurselves


Chapter OutlineChapter Outline

I. The Nature of the Self


The Nature of the SelfThe Nature of the Self

How do we gain self-knowledge?

It’s not easy.

We can look inward. But it is not always helpful to do this since often our thoughts and feelings are confused.

So, we tend to look outward to the social environment for clues. We learn a great deal about ourselves by observing how people treat us, and how we treat others.

Introduction



Who are we? How did we become the person that we are?There are two aspects of the self, 1) the known (me), and the 2) knower (I).

The known consists of thoughts and beliefs about ourselves (ie, the self-concept; who we are);The knower is the processor of information (ie, what we are becoming).

This is referred to as the duality of the self (William James).

Duality of the Self-Concept



Today we refer to the “known” aspect of the self as the self-concept, which is the contents of the self, i.e., our knowledge of who we are.

We refer to the “knower” aspect as self-awareness, which is the act of thinking about ourselves.

Definition of the Self-Concept



Human infants have a rudimentary self-concept, developing at about age 2 years.

As they grow older the self-concept becomes more complex.

Studies show that the concept of self evolves from being concrete and focused on observable characteristics,

to being more abstract and focused on psychological characteristics during the course of childhood and adolescence.

The Self-Concept Evolves



Humans are not the only species that has a sense of the self.

Chimps and orangutans also have a rudimentary self-concept (see studies by Gallup and colleagues).

Other Species have Self-Concepts



Some people have a clearer self-concept than others.

Self-concept clarity is defined as the extent to which knowledge about the self is clearly, or consistently defined.

People who are low in self-concept clarity are more likely to be neurotic, have low self-esteem, and less likely to be aware of their internal state (see Campbell and colleagues, 1996).

Self-Concept Clarity



Why do we have multifaceted, complex definition of self?

Because it serves a number of adaptive functions.•It has a managerial function •It has an organizational function•It has an emotional function

Functions of the Self



Managerial function: Informing us of our relationship to the physical and social world, organizing our behaviour, and helping us to plan for the future.

Organizational function: Acting as a schema that helps us interpret and recall information about ourselves and the social world.

Emotional function: helping to determine our emotional responses.

Functions of the Self


The Nature of the SelfThe Nature of the SelfCultural Differences in the Definition of Self

In many Western cultures, people have an independent view of the self-concept,

while in many Asian and other non-Western cultures, people have an interdependent view of the self-concept (see Masako Owada example).



Independent view of the Self: defining oneself in terms of one’s own internal thoughts, feelings, and actions, and not in terms of the thoughts, feelings, and actions of other people.

Interdependent view of the Self: defining oneself in terms of one’s relationships to other people; recognizing that one’s behaviour is often determined by the thoughts, feelings, and actions of others.



Studies show that Japanese students have a lower self-concept clarity than do Canadian students, and

That their self-concept clarity is not as strongly related to self-esteem as it is for Canadians (Campbell et al, 1996).

Self-concept clarity is likely a Western phenomenon, given that it is based on the premise that the self is a stable configuration of internal traits that govern behaviour across situations.


The Nature of the SelfThe Nature of the SelfGender Differences in the Definition of Self

Research on gender differences is controversial.

Still, there are differences in the way women and men define themselves.

Men tend to define themselves in terms of dominance-related traits and women define themselves in terms of nurturance-related traits.

North American men are more likely to have an independent view of self, whereas women define themselves more in relation to other people (Brewer & Gardner, 1996)



Research on gender differences (cont’d)

Gender differences in self-concept are typically found only among individualistic cultures (eg, Canada, white South Africa, New Zealand).

In collectivist cultures that emphasize interdependence (eg, China, Ethiopia, black South Africa) men and women are equally likely to hold a relational/collectivist view of the self.



Research on gender differences (cont’d)

Men in individualistic cultures are not completely lacking in interdependence. Men too, report interdependence as part of their self-concept.

But, it is a different kind of interdependence than women describe. It is collective interdependence. It is interdependence in relation to social groups such as sports teams (see Figure 5.1)



In summary,

Men desire intimate relations as much as women do, but it’s a different kind of relationship,

-ie, women focus more on intimacy and cooperation with a small number of close others,

-ie whereas men focus more on power and status with a larger number of others.



In summary,

Men describe themselves in terms of high dominance/low nurturance traits (eg, assured-dominant), and

Women define themselves in terms of low-dominance/high nurturance traits (eg, warm-agreeable).



II. Knowing Ourselves through Introspection


Knowing Ourselves through Knowing Ourselves through IntrospectionIntrospection

Intuitively, we recognize that introspection is one basis of self-knowledge, although people do not spend as much time as one would think introspecting,

And when they do, they may not always understand the reasons for their thoughts and behaviour.

Introspection is the process whereby people look inward and examine their own thoughts, feelings, and motives.



Focusing on the Self: Self-Awareness Theory

What happens when we suddenly focus on ourselves, our attitudes, traits, etc.?

We think we are more transparent to others, not just to ourselves.

-eg, When we identify our traits, we assume that others also can easily identify these traits. This is especially the case for those high in collectivism.

However, research shows that this assumed transparency does not hold (Vorauer & Ross, 1999).



Focusing on the Self: Self-Awareness Theory

Self-Focus (cont’d)

Also, when we focus on ourselves, we compare our current behaviour against internal standards and values, according to self-awareness theory. (Fig. 5.1.)

This can lead to positive or negative thoughts, feelings and behaviour.



Focusing on the Self: Self-Awareness Theory: Negative Thoughts

Introspection can lead to negative thoughts because it is painful, and makes us feel anxious and angry when we don’t live up to our internal standards.

-eg, a discrepancy between our behaviour (eg, lying) and our moral standards (eg, lying is unacceptable).

When this happens people are often motivated to avoid thinking negative thoughts about themselves by engaging in distracting activities (e.g., watching TV, reading a book), or escaping (e.g., getting drunk, or in the extreme case committing suicide).



Focusing on the Self: Self-Awareness Theory: Positive Thoughts

Introspection may lead to positive thoughts, feelings and behaviour,

as in the case of satisfaction at achieving a life goal (receiving a university degree), or experiencing a major success (eg, winning an Olympic gold medal).



Focusing on the Self: Self-Awareness Theory: Rumination & Reflection

Whether self-awareness has positive or negative effects also depends on the kind of self-awareness one is experiencing: rumination or reflection.

Rumination is an involuntary, neurotic form of self-focus associated with threat or uncertainty.

Reflection is an emotionally positive form of self-focus that involves an openness to self-exploration and an intellectual curiosity about the self.




Whether we engage in reflection or rumination has important implications for how we handle negative life events .

When self-awareness takes the form of reflection people are open to exploring their negative feelings and often develop strategies for alleviating these feelings (eg, cheer themselves up by remembering positive events in their life);




When people engage in rumination they are not able to cheer themselves up;

instead they dredge up memories that match their bad mood (eg, failures, unhappy times, unpleasant interactions with family and friends)



Judging Why We Feel the Way We Do: Causal Theories

Another kind of self-knowledge which is difficult to obtain, even when we are self-aware, is knowing why we feel the way we do.

When asked why we feel a certain way, we do come up with an explanation (causal theories ), but the reasons offered are not always correct (see Nisbett and colleagues, 1980, 1994; McFarlane et al, 1988).




Causal theories are theories about the causes of one’s own feelings and behaviours; often we learn such theories from our culture (eg, absence makes the heart grow fonder)




Sumarizing, introspecting about our past actions and current thoughts does not always yield the right answer about why we feel the way we do,

partly because of our reliance on causal theories when explaining our behaviour.



III. Knowing Ourselves through Observation of Our Own Behaviour


Knowing Ourselves through Knowing Ourselves through Observations of Our Own BehaviourObservations of Our Own Behaviour

Inferring Who We Are from How We Behave: Self-Perception Theory

Another source of self-knowledge is observations of our own behaviour described by self-perception theory.

According to Bem’s self-perception theory, we find out how we feel by observing what we do.




Bem’s (1972) self-perception theory argues that when our attitudes and feelings are uncertain or ambiguous, we infer these states by observing our behaviour and the situation in which it occurs.

-ie, It should be noted that we infer our inner feelings from behaviour only when we are not sure how we feel (see Chaiken & Baldwin, 1981 study).




Bem’s (1972) self-perception theory (cont’d)

Secondly, people judge whether their behaviour truly reflects how they feel, or whether it was the situation that made them act that way, when determining what their attitude and feelings are (see country music example).



Intrinsic & Extrinsic Motivation

Whether are behaviour is motivated by intrinsic or extrinsic factors has far-reaching implications.

Intrinsic motivation is the desire to engage in an activity because we enjoy it, or find it interesting.

Extrinsic motivation is the desire to engage in an activity because of external rewards or pressures.



Intrinsic & Extrinsic Motivation

Studies show that when people are intrinsically motivated to do something—sports, academics, politics, or remain in a relationship—

they are more likely to enjoy the activity and are more likely to persist in it (see Vallerand et al, 1997; Pelletier et al, 1996, 1997; Losier & Koestner, 1999; Koestner & Losier,2002; Blais et al, 1990).



Being Rewarded Too Much: The Overjustification Effect

What happens when people receive extrinsic rewards for performing activities that they are intrinsically motivated to perform?

Research shows that replacing intrinsic motivation with extrinsic motivation makes people lose interest in the activity they initially enjoyed. This is called the overjustification effect.




The overjustification effect occurs when people view their behaviour as caused by compelling extrinsic reasons, making them underestimate the extent to which their behaviour was caused by intrinsic reasons.




The overjustification effect has been found in numerous laboratory and field studies, with several kinds of rewards, activities, and age groups (see Greene et al 1976 grade school study; Fig. 5.3).




But the overjustification effect isn’t inevitable. Recent research reveals that there are conditions under which the overjustification effect does not occur.

i) Rewards will undermine interest only if initial interest in the task is high.

Ii) Only task-contingent rewards lead to the over-justification effect; performance-contingent rewards do not.




Task-contingent rewards are rewards that are given for doing the task regardless of how well it’s done.

Performance-contingent rewards are rewards that are dependent upon how well the task is done.




Conditions under which the overjustification effect does not occur (cont’d).

iii) Children can be taught to avoid the damaging effects of rewards by focusing on the intrinsic value of the behaviour (see Hennessey & Zbikowski, 1991 intrinsic motivation study; Fig. 5.4).



IV. Understanding Our Emotions:

The Two-Factor Theory of Emotion


Understanding Our EmotionsUnderstanding Our Emotions

We have learned that people often use observations of their behaviour to determine what they think and what kind of a person they are.

Does the same process operate for determining the kind of emotion we are experiencing?

Yes, according to Schachter (1964).

Two-Factor Theory



Schachter (1964) proposed a theory of emotion that states that we infer what our emotions are by observing and then trying to figure out what is causing this arousal.

It is called a two-factor theory of emotion because first we must experience physiological arousal, and second we must seek an appropriate explanation or label for it.

Two-Factor Theory



Studies support the 2-factor theory (see Schachter & Singer, 1962 epinephrine study; Fig. 5.5).

This study showed that how people identify their emotions is somewhat arbitrary in that they depend on what the most plausible explanation for their arousal happens to be, e.g., anger, euphoria.

Two-Factor Theory




Identifying emotions (cont’d)Sometimes the most plausible explanation is not the right explanation, and people end up experiencing a mistaken emotion.The people who became angry, or euphoric in the Schachter and Singer (192) study did so because they felt aroused and thought this arousal was due to the obnoxious questionnaire, or the happy-go-lucky behaviour of the accomplice. The real cause was the epinephrine.

Two-Factor Theory



To what extent do Schachter and Singer’s results generalize to real life?

Studies have demonstrated that misattribution of arousal does occur (see Dutton & Aron, 1974 Vancouver Capilano bridge study; Fig. 5.5a).

Misattribution of arousal is the process whereby people make mistaken inferences about what is causing them to feel the way they do.

Misattribution of Arousal



V. Knowing Ourselves Through Self-Schemas


Knowing Ourselves throughKnowing Ourselves throughSelf-SchemasSelf-Schemas

We organize our self-knowledge in much the same way that we organize our knowledge about the external world—into schemas.

Self-schemas are organized knowledge structures about ourselves, based on past experience, which help us understand, explain, and predict our own behaviour.

Self-schemas influence how we interpret new things that happen to us (see tennis example).



Autobiographical Memory

Self-schemas help us organize our pasts, by influencing what we remember about ourselves—our autobiographical memories.

There is evidence that our memories can be reconstructive; we view the past not as it really was but in ways consistent with our current theories and schemas (see Ross et al, 1988, 1989 Waterloo studies).



Autobiographical Memory: Influencing Factors

Motivational factors such as the desire to see ourselves in a positive light affect the kinds of memories about the self we are likely to access and recall (see Kunda & Fong, 1990 trait study).

We are more likely to recall that we possess desirable traits than undesirable ones.




The way in which we are asked questions about ourselves can influence which memories we access, and our present view of ourselves (see Kunda et al, 1993 social life study).

-eg, People asked if they were happy rather than unhappy viewed themselves as more happy.




Schemas about how stable our feelings and attitudes are also impact on the ways in which we remember our past.

-ie, we expect some feelings (eg, moods) will fluctuate over time, but others (eg, attitudes about social issues __abortion), we expect will be relatively stable.




But research has shown that these schemas are not always correct, leading to distortions in memory.

-ie, attitudes toward social issues sometimes do change, but because our schema says they do not, this leads to an underestimate of the amount of change that occurs.



VI. Knowing Ourselves through Social Interaction


Knowing Ourselves through Social Knowing Ourselves through Social InteractionInteraction

Another way we come to know ourselves is through social interaction.

We shape our self-concept according to how others view us. This is referred to as the looking-glass self.

The looking-glass self is the idea that we see ourselves through the eyes of other people and incorporate their perceptions of us into our self-concept.



The Looking-Glass Self

The idea that our sense of self derives from our interactions with other people—either present or imagined—has been supported in a number of experiments (Baldwin and colleagues, 1987, 1990, 1992, 1996, 1999; see sexually permissive study; see Pope study).



The Looking-Glass Self

In summary, who we are is determined, at least partly, by the internal audience we have in mind.

-ie, if we are reminded of a significant person (eg, the Pope) in our lives who seems critical or disapproving, we will see ourselves as possessing negative traits (eg, immoral, incompetent);

-ie, if we have a supportive, approving internal audience (eg, mother) in mind, we will view ourselves in more positive terms.



Social Comparison Theory

We also come to know ourselves through comparison with other people, known as social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954).

Social comparison theory holds that we learn about our own abilities and attitudes by comparing ourselves to other people.




The theory revolves around two important questions:

i. When do we engage in social comparison?

ii. With whom do we choose to compare ourselves?




The answer to the first question: we compare ourselves to others when there is no objective standard for us to use as a measure, or when we experience uncertainty about ourselves in a particular area.

The answer to the second question: we compare ourselves to similar others when we wish an accurate image of ourselves.



Social Comparison Theory: Downward comparison

But, constructing an accurate image of ourselves is only one reason we engage in social comparison.

Sometimes we use downward social comparison to protect, or enhance our self-image, make us feel good.

Downward social comparison is the process whereby we compare ourselves to people who are worse than we are in a particular trait or ability (see Wood et al, 1985 cancer study; Wood et al, 2000).


Knowing Ourselves through Social Knowing Ourselves through Social InteractionInteractionSocial Comparison Theory: Downward

comparison

Studies show that people do engage in downward social comparison when they want to feel better about themselves (see Wood et al, 2000).

And, we can get a self-esteem boost by comparing our current performance (eg, superior university grades) with out own inferior past performance (eg, average high school grades) (see Ross & Wilson, 2002).

This is still downward social comparison, but the comparison standard is our past self instead of another person.



Social Comparison Theory: Upward comparison

We also sometimes engage in upward social comparison as a potential source of inspiration.

Upward social comparison is the process whereby we compare ourselves to people who are better than we are in a particular trait or ability.



Social Comparison Theory: Upward comparison

Whether or not upward social comparison acts as an inspiration depends upon the sense of self that is being activated (see Lockwood & Kunda, 1999 superstar study; Fig. 5.6).

When we focus on our actual, or usual self, exposure to outstanding others (superstar) inspires us to generate higher hopes and aspirations for ourselves.

When we focus on our best, or ideal self, it can be depressing that someone else has already surpassed our highest hopes and dreams.



VII. Impression Management:

All the World’s A Stage


Impression ManagementImpression Management

Once we know ourselves, we often attempt to manage the self we present to others through the processes of self-presentation and impression management.

Self-presentation is the attempt to present who we are, or who we want people to believe we are, through our words, nonverbal behaviours, and actions.

Impression management is our conscious or unconscious orchestration of a carefully designed presentation of self so as to create a certain impression that fits our goals or needs in a social interaction.



It is easier for some people than others to create a desired impression.

-e.g., shy people have difficulty with impression management.

They believe that they are not good at inter-personal interactions and therefore expect to be (and are) rejected by others.

As they become more comfortable with the setting, and less shy, they are more accepted by others (see Paulhus & Morgan, 1997 discussion group study at UBC).



There are cultural differences in the way impression management is conducted.

• In Eastern cultures this takes the form of ‘saving face’ and ‘avoiding public embarrassment’ (e.g., renting guests for a wedding or funeral in Japan).

• In Western cultures outward appearance is manipulated to create a good impression, e.g., Preston Manning underwent a cosmetic overhaul in hope of creating a more prime-ministerial image.

• The End

Documents

© 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc. Chapter 5 Self-Understanding: How We Come to Understand Ourselves