New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Exam 1 and Exam 2 Notes

by: miaterrifica

Exam 1 and Exam 2 Notes Psyc 353

GPA 3.4

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

Covers almost every class for Exam 1 and Exam 2
Social Cognition
Professor Srull
Psychology, Social Cognition, Srull, UIUC
75 ?




Popular in Social Cognition

Popular in Department

This 39 page Bundle was uploaded by miaterrifica on Thursday April 7, 2016. The Bundle belongs to Psyc 353 at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign taught by Professor Srull in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 16 views.


Reviews for Exam 1 and Exam 2 Notes


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 04/07/16
PSYC353 o “Go into the room and talk to each other about…”  Thoughts/feelings 1/27/2016  Behavior  Sources of Self-Knowledge  Combination o DV: self-other correspondence o Physical World  Measures of weight, height, strength, etc.  After talking to that other person, rate each other on various dimensions (Sociable, nice, etc.) o Social World  Social Comparison  See how other person rated me, see if other person had a  Reflected Appraisal good understanding of me or not  Thoughts/feelings: .52  Observing how others respond to them  Looking glass self cooley  Behavior: .37  Combination: .42 o Look into mirror, mirror reflects physical appearance. Look into social world, social world reflects information about  Another study run by Susan Anderson our psychological attributes o Go into room, talk for an hour, go home and come back later o If you see that other people are consistently sending back information that you have attribute X, then you believe youo Microphones record interactions o Types up transcript of conversation have attribute X o Goes through transcript with them o Actual appraisals become perceived appraisals become self-appraisals o How important do you think it is that the other person know that if they’re going to know you well? o Studies in sororities, fraternities, dorms  “How much do you like her?” o When people said something about their own private thoughts or emotional life, they said it was important that  1-10 other people know that if they’re going to know them well  Everybody rates everybody else on how much they like each other o Regarding behaviors, not as important to know to understand who they are  “Now, how do you think other people rated you?”  1-10  Tim Wilson o Why do we do things  Make estimate on how much people like them o What do you think the probability is that the two of you  People are not oblivious to reality  People in dorm who are the most popular people, know will go out for coffee and get to know each other sometime this semester? they’re popular o Study for an exam?  People who are average, know they’re average o Go home for weekend and invite her with you?  People are unpopular, know they’re not very popular o Asked to estimate these probabilities that they will engage  Holds true with intelligence, athleticism, etc. in these behaviors  People are good at knowing how they are perceived in the o Second session: go to one sorority member or whatever, aggregate but not so much in the specific estimate probability but before you answer, think for a  We get information through specific interactions from minute on why you might do that. specific individuals. Not good at knowing how specific o Compared to control condition, when asked to introspect, people respond to us. o Inner (Psychological) world participants raised the subject of probability estimates, but does not change actual probabilities  Introspection o Subjective probability estimates become less accurate  Sometimes we have direct access to our own mental states  Self-perception processes  “Would another person know you better if they had  Self-perception theory complete direct access to all of your thoughts and emotions  How do I make a judgment on how much a person likes for one 24 hour period, or would they know you better if something? they were able to watch your behavior for 24 hours a day Look at behavior and situation in which it occurred, and for multiple days?” based on how she acted, make an inference o College students picked thoughts  Do exactly the same thing for one’s self  Susan Anderson o PSYC 100 students  With introspection, the idea is that we directly examine our own attitudes, feelings, motives, etc. o Participants who don’t know each other taken into a room o How strangers get to know each other  With self-perception, indirectly infer our own attitudes o Positivity bias based on behaviors and situation in which it occurred o Assessing the accuracy of people’s self-views  Causal attributions  Correspondence between self-views  Example: trip on sidewalk at corner of sixth and daniel o First thing: would not just keep walking to class. 1/29/2016 Physically, maybe, but psychologically, going to ask  Positivity Bias ourselves what happened there o I have a lot of positive attributes, not many negative  Inherently curious, naïve scientists attributes  Not only observe what happened, but want to know why it happened o Evaluations of self and others  How loyal am I? o In order to figure out what happened, generally rely on three different times of information  How loyal are most people?  How loyal are most University of Washington students?  Types of information considered  Randomly asked these questions (interspersed) o Consensus information  Degree to which what happens to me, happens to everyone  Also negative attributes  Inconsiderate, phony, unpopular, unwise else  High: happens to many people  Are you?  Are most people?  Low: does not happen to many people o Consistency information  Are UWash students?  Degree to which the same thing happens over and over  Results:  Most people in the study rate themselves above the again over time in the same situation  High: do I do this every time I cross this corner? midpoint when deciding whether positive attributes apply o Distinctiveness information to them  Degree to which that immediate situation is different from  Most people in the study rate themselves below the or distinct from other situations midpoint when evaluating whether negative attributes apply to them  High: never trip over other sidewalks  Low: I tripped over many other sidewalks  Mean of the means for UW students is above three, so most  I do this a lot, other people don’t, but I do this a lot UW students think most UW have the positive attributes, everywhere else. Maybe I’m just clumsy. more than most people but not as much as themselves  Naïve scientists, inherently curious  Mean of the means for UW students is 2.2, less than most others and more than themselves. More neg attributes than  When we do something we want to know why, when we see someone else do things, we want to know why themselves, but not as much as others  If you’re doing this kind of research, you have to be careful  We seem to go about answering these questions in a rational way. Systematically look at these patterns of about the following possibility: information  Small minority of students (5,7, 10%) who think they’re God   60:30:10 dilemma o 5’s for positive, 1’s for negative  All others think they’re just like everyone else  Upward/downward comparison o Many things hinge on who you’re comparing yourself to  Might end up with a similar pattern of means o Some people spend their entire lives unhappy  In group favoritism?  The extended self? o Not happy now, but if I do so and so, I will be!  Spend life focusing on what they don’t have rather than  View members as more like us than most people o The tendency to regard oneself as better than others is what they do have  Always going to be someone who has more than you or pervasive better than you  Most people think they are more fair than others o 70% of students rated themselves above the median in o Research shows that people tend to focus on what they don’t have, which may be good for motivation, but not leadership ability (7/10 think I have leadership qualities)  60% rated themselves above the median in terms of athletic much focus on what they do have  Constant focus on upward-comparison ability  Entire life unhappy  85% rated themselves above median on their ability to get along well with others  What do people think of themselves? o More healthy than other people with liver cancer, more  they aren’t. healthy than other HIV positive people  People overestimate their ability to predict their own  Narrowing comparison group, and think of themselves as behavior. superior to others in their comparison group  ex. How likely is it that you will vote in November, how o People in collectivistic cultures seem to have a more likely is it you will go to a football game etc.9 inclusive extended self  Less than ⅔ of the prediction came true. This was much  Assessing the accuracy of people’s self views less than confidence interval suggested. o Correspondence between self-views and objective criteria  People mistakenly believe their self knowledge is accurate  Intelligence: standardized intelligence tests, SAT or ACT enough to allow them to predict their own behavior. as a proxy  Especially likely for positively valued outcomes.  People who give themselves the highest scores have the  Most students predict their grade in class will be better than highest scores, people who have the lowest have the lowest it actually is. scores, but barely significant  They also overestimate that they will engage is socially  Problem of restriction arrage desirable behaviors.  Not enough objective criteria o Correspondence between self-views and the judgments of  People tend to accurately describe qualities that are less others evaluative.  University of Georgia football players: players rate o Ex. I will be late to class, most likely true. o People’s view in more evaluative domains tend to be more themselves, coaches rate the players  Level of interrater agreement between coaches was .65 positive than accurate.   Finegold study of attractiveness  Interrater agreement: .6  Study 415 children grades 6-8 2/3/2016  How well liked each child was by his or her classmates  Self Concept  How well liked they thought they were o The representation of self knowledge  Self-complexity  Self-other agreement: .32  Correspondence between perception of self compared to  Exactly how elaborate is the self-concept? Does a person think of him or herself in many different ways or in only a perception of others, substantial self-other agreement in traits that are unambiguous and clearly manifested in few ways? behavior  People who think of themselves in many different ways: high self-complexity  People who are social and outgoing and talkative and loud think of themselves as extroverted and perceived as others  People who think of themselves in few ways: low self- complexity the same  People who are quiet and shy and socially withdrawn,  Many distinctions within the self: high in self-complexity perceived the same  Not categorical  Introversion and extroversion are unambiguous and clearly  High: relatively high in self-complexity, relatively high manifested in behavior amount of distinction  Linville o Correspondence between self-views and behavior  Correlation tells you nothing about overall accuracy o Card sorting task to measure self-complexity o To what degree the rank order of responses on one variable o Deck of index cards matches the rank order of responses on the other variable  Trait terms or characteristics  Lazy, outgoing, intelligent, etc. o Asked to sort the cards into different groups/piles that 2/1/2016 describe themselves in various settings or relationships  Does a person who says he is kind act compassionately? o Very general instructions, no limits/required amount in This is the study of personality, measures of individual differences each pile o All else being equal, the more piles, the higher the self-  Students who describe themselves as extremely honest complexity score cheat a little less than students who describe themselves as o All else being equal, the less overlap between the cards in people who describe themselves as sort of honest. Those one pile and another pile, the higher the self-complexity students that describe themselves as environmentally score conscious litter only A LITTLE less than those who claim  The more unique the words are in each pile o Some of our self-views are held with great certainty, but o Hints that higher levels of self-complexity are better others are more ill-defined  Bad things happen to all of us, having more complex self- o Self-views held with great certainty are less likely to concept will help buffer against the emotional change than self-views we are more uncertain about consequences these negative events have on us o The more certain people are about their self views, the  These individual differences in complexity affect people’s better they feel about themselves emotional responses to positive/negative events in their life Even if the things they learn are negative! o Identity revolves around certain things, might take negative We’d rather feel not good than not know events harder than if your self-concept involves more o Motivated to reduce uncertainty distinct attributes  Centrality of self-views: how self-defining do I consider o Less complex, all else being equal, the more extreme the this self-view to be? person’s emotional responses will be to pos/neg events o The meaning people attach to each identity is also  Single-minded lawyer example important o All time spent being the best lawyer, only want to be the  STUDENT athlete vs student ATHLETE best lawyer, whole self-concept revolves around being a  Self-schemata lawyer  2 ideas o Win a big case? Emotionally on top of the world. o Extremity: how extreme does this person see themselves on o Lose a big case? Devastation. a particular attribute?  Probably a point of trouble with high self-complexity? o Importance: how important is it to the self?  Response conflict: feeling conflicted by dividing your time o Example: intelligence. How intelligent are you? How between two things in your life; simultaneous conflict important is it that you be intelligent? between two aspects in life o Study with college students: independence  Self-schema for independence or are schematic for o Graduate, marry someone with a degree, good career as a lawyer independence are people who find themselves very  Putting in lots of hours, trying to impress colleagues and dependent on others or very independent from others AND boss, main partner wants to see you and they say “we want view independence as a defining element of the self you, you’re really good! This is your chance, we have  In the middle and/or independence viewed as unimportant: confidence in you.” Really, really want to win this case! aschematic for independence Even more motivated to do well, put in even more hours.  Had people sit a computer screen, asked questions  Spouse gets unhappy. Hardly ever talk to your kids, hardly  “how friendly/inconsiderate/etc. are you?” ever talk to the spouse.  Some questions relate to independence  Now, you go to work and feel guilt for not being with your o Conforming, assertive kids  Found that for words related to independence, the  Stay home with kids, and feel guilt for not going to work schematics consistently had faster response times than and putting in the effort to win the case aschematics  While going through all of this, spouse is going through  Had college students recall specific instances in their life in this as well. response to neutral retrieval cue  Also motivated to do best in their career. o Come in, give you a piece of paper  No good way out of it. Each person/couple will have to o I want you to recall something specific while you were navigate through it the best they can there  Lots of guilt, lots of anxiety, start making compromises, but  when you were in sixth grade it’s tough  That somehow relates to the word piano o Related to Role Conflict  Etc.  Each additional identity element can be blessing or a curse o Then the recall protocols are given to trained research  Depends on whether the various identities “fit” with each assistants who are blind to purpose of study other  Rate memories on variety of dimensions o Whether more complexity is better depends on how o Rated the memories of schematics as having more compatible the different identities fit each other and allow independent related themes in them than the aschematics for each other to exist and grow o People with a self-schema for independence were more  Self-concept certainty and importance likely to respond to a neutral retrieval cue related to  Certainty independence  Scenarios where asked to make predictions about behavior  Self-identifications: how you identify yourself in the in different situations moment o Moving up in the company, become main underling for  The working self-concept: analogous to working memory, CEO mental updating of who you are and where you are and what’s going on in the world. Continual mental updating of  “Prepare the annual report, make 25 copies by 8 am”  Start typing it in who you are and the kind of person you are and what  Sales increased by 17% last quarter, but you know they you’re doing. didn’t. They only increased by 7%. o Personal Factors  What do you do?  Self-concept/self-esteem o People with self-schema for independence were more likely  Most important factor affecting self-representations to predict they’d act in an independent matter and were  How we normally think about ourselves more confident on how they’d behave  A person who usually thinks of themselves as intelligent, o Aschematics were less confident about how they’d behave, and is more likely to think of themselves as intelligent at more likely to just type it up and produce the copies any given moment than someone who does not usually think of themselves as intelligent 2/5/2016  Especially true for attributes that are important and self- defining  Named things we can find in a grocery store  Self-schemata  Self-schemata are thought to be chronically accessible. o Important and self-defining attributes are thought to be in o If you don’t view yourself as extreme or find it important, consciousness or just on the verge of coming into then you will not have self-schema for an attribute  Aschematic consciousness o Require very little environmental input to put them into o When people are schematic for something, they know how independent/assertive/etc. they are consciousness o When people are aschematic, they have a longer response  High self-esteem people are more apt to be thinking of themselves in positive terms at any given time as compared time o When you ask people things that are neutral, their to people with low self-esteem  Mood states responses are the same o If you are schematic for a trait, you will reject evidence  Influence the accessibility of positive/negative self-views going against the way you see yourself. You are more  When we are in a good mood, tend to think of positive likely to accept what agrees with how you see yourself qualities/attributes o People who are schematic with respect to their own weight  When in negative mood, we are more likely to think of negative attributes/disappointments/frustrations are very quick to notice the weight of others, and categorize people along that dimension  Some evidence that the link between mood and self-views  Reflects a general inclination to use the self as a reference is particularly strong for low self-esteem people point in judging others o Ex: in return for $300, between 8 pm and midnight, must o The more important an attribute is in our own self- get on computer and answer questions every night for two perception, the more inclined we are to use that attribute months when it comes to others o Ask about personal attributes, different ones each night o People who are schematic in a specific domain tend to act (intelligence one night, understanding another night, etc.) o Two main effects and an interaction more consistently over time than aschematics, and across situations o For self-esteem: one effect  People schematic for independence are more apt to act in  High self-esteem people give themselves higher self- an independent manner across situations evaluations  The Activation of Self-Knowledge  The mean of the three means for high self-esteem is higher than mean of the means for low self-esteem o Current self-representation: the phenomenal self  The self as it’s being experienced in the moment o People in positive mood on that particular night think rated  The spontaneous self-concept themselves more positively than people in a negative mood  You walk into a room and spontaneously begin thinking of  High self esteem people think of themselves less highly yourself in a certain way when in a negative mood  For low self-esteem people, when people are in a good  Walk into a different room, and you’re thinking of yourself in a different way mood they rate themselves in a positive way, close but not quite high self-esteem level. When in a negative mood, o 30 hours, start to feel like you can’t think or solve much much less than high self-esteem people. problems, what’s wrong with me?  Hormonal changes  Goals  Drugs  People can deliberately activate self-views o Research suggests that some of the effects of drugs are  Survey a situation, try to figure out what role we want to mediated through mood play, and then activate the appropriate image of ourselves o Some Self evaluations are responsive to alterations in brain  Ex: going on a job interview, really want the job so you chemistry want to do well. o Situational Factors  Social roles o Person who gets this job is probably going to be the person perceived as motivated, competent and takes the initiative  Thinking of yourself as son, daughter, brother, father, o Before you go in, just think about those times you did those mother, etc. things  A college student may think of themselves as studious o There is evidence that the interviewer will perceive you in when in the library, but not so much when on a date those ways even if you never tell them about the things you  Social context and self-descriptions were thinking about beforehand!  Social context and self-evaluations  A desire to feel good about ourselves also affects self-  Significant others and self-evaluations views  Recent events  Students that read about successful extrovert, rated themselves as more extrovert. Students that read about 2/8/2016 unsuccessful extrovert tended to view themselves as  At any given moment, we are only conscious of one or two introverted. of the thousand things we know about ourselves o People want to believe that they possess qualities that are  Social context and self-descriptions associated with success o Same types of situations when students were reading about o Bill Mcguire  Distinctiveness theory successful and unsuccessful introverts  The spontaneous self-concept: we walk into a social o All of this occurred because participants selectively environment and spontaneously begin thinking of ourselves searched their memories for times they had acted in certain in particular ways ways  If you ask someone if they are introverted/extroverted  There are many factors that go into our self-concept, but the most important are those attributes which are most o Search for times in their life that fit that descriptions salient are those attributes that distinguish us from other o You find some, always people in the immediate social environment o So you say yes  Walk into a room full of male psychologists: o People will answer yes to introvert and yes to extrovert in the same study for this reason  First salient attribute is probably being a woman in a group of men o Search memory for confirming instances only rather than  Same woman goes to a PTA meeting evidence against  Physical factors  Probably won’t think of herself as a woman, nor a parent  Probably will start thinking about being a psychologist,  Also affect the way people think about themselves  Neurological basis of depression because it distinguishes her o Psychological research with a black woman, a white o Particular chemical imbalances can trigger woman, and three white men positive/negative thoughts about oneself  100 groups (people in community)  Hunger  Go around and introduce yourselves, and talk about o Haven’t eaten in 8 hours  Kinda hungry whatever you’d like  Cell entries are a measure of how distinctive a person is o 12 hours from others  Very hungry o 18 hours  Has formula that measures whether a person will spontaneously mention an attribute based solely on how  Groggy, sluggish, pessimistic about the world distinct a person is from others for that specific attribute  Lack of sleep  Predicts o Been up for 20 hours, really tired o Over 100 groups, you’ll have 100 Black women, 100 White o Context effects Women, and 300 White Men  Refer to the way in which the perception of a stimulus is o People will spontaneously mention their sex 50% more affected by other stimuli in an environment likely than their ethnicity  When it is affected, there is a context effect o Black women 33% more likely to mention their ethnicity o Difference in how you feel when you’re in a room full of than to mention their sex Nobel prize winners, and going to target with random o The White women are 300% more likely to mention their people sex than ethnicity o Social comparison is used in immediate social o The only thing that matters is how distinct a person is for a environment, and contrast ourselves with others certain attribute. o o Boys that grow up in a woman dominated household are more likely to spontaneously mention they’re a boy than a 5-year-old boy who grows up in a male-dominated 2/10/2016  Context effects household. Reverse for females.  Replicated the experiment at school o Refer to the degree to which the perception of a stimulus is influenced by other stimuli in the environment/context  Effect went away o Two basic types  Roughly 50:50, female:male  Contrast o Another study “tell me about yourself”  The perception of a stimulus is contrasted away from other  27% of very tall children (more than one standard deviation above the mean) or very short children (less than one stimuli in the environment.  The same 10 oz weight will seem much heavier when there standard deviation below the mean) spontaneously mention are other weights that are 1 oz, as compared to when the their height  Basically never done among kids with average height other weights are 50 oz.  How attractive are you? Lower ratings if the 10 finalists for o In general, the more distinctive the attribute, the more likely adults and children were to mention it Miss World beauty pageant are around, as compared to being alone in a room. o Distinctiveness also influences the salience of group  Feel a little less smart/successful when in a room full of identities  Self-categorization theory: intelligent/successful people  With actual ability held constant, students going to high  People think of themselves in terms of various group identities achieving schools less favorably than students going to low achieving schools o American, Psychology student, etc. o Not that they think they’re less intelligent  Also think of themselves in various personal categories o Dependable, outgoing, etc. o At every ability level, a given student is less likely to think that he or she is smart when attending a school with very  Whether people are thinking in terms of their various group identities or personal identities will depend, in part, on the able classmates than with less able classmates  Assimilation social context  You assimilate the perception of a stimulus towards other  In general, group identities are going to be more salient in intergroup context stimuli in the environment  find this in crowd behavior and contagion o The degree to which a person sees themselves as similar to their group  Psychological connectedness o The degree to which you feel a psychological bond with  In minority condition, people think of themselves as very someone else or a group of people similar to their group only when their group is also of high status  Impression formation guise study o “I’m going to give you information about a person, form an  In the majority group, doesn’t really matter if you’re high or low status impression, ask some questions about how you think about  When group status was low, people distanced themselves them” o Participants all female college students from the group by denying they were similar to the group members o Generic name, undecided major, area and date of birth o Participants will see their own birthday (high psychological  Social context and self-evaluations connectedness) or a random birthday o Social environment also influences the way people evaluate themselves o See attractive young woman or unattractive young woman o Control condition:  Random birthday  Same accent or mannerisms or such  Show contrast effect  Go home and tell roommate “I don’t know why, but there’s  When she’s unattractive, they feel attractive something about him that I don’t like.”  When she’s attractive, they feel less attractive  Don’t like or trust this boss, but don’t know why o Shared birthday condition  When similarities are great, you’re able to make a  No contrast effect, but actually reverses (assimilation) conscious distinction between the two. When similarities  When attractive and born on the same day, feel more are small, you’re unable to make a distinction between the attractive two, and emotions about one will bleed into the other.  When unattractive and born on the same day, feel less  Recent events attractive o A person who falls while running may momentarily regard o Contrast effects when individual identities are salient, him/herself as clumsy assimilation effects when group identities are salient o These effects may occur as a direct result of failure OR  Significant others and self-evaluations may occur via mood o In the social environment, we may not only compare  Fall while running, may you’re more clumsy than you ourselves to people that are physically present, but also to thought you were people we imagine are present or could be present  Fall while running, get into a bad mood, feel like you’re not  Internal audience a good runner anymore o Graduate students in psychology department at University  The different factors that go into current self- of Michigan representations are not necessarily separated. Feedback  March/April (April 1 ) loops.  Psychology grad students get email from cognitive psych  Russ Fazio grad students o Similar experiment  Trying to do these experiments, really important we finish  Had half the people recall 5 episodes in life where you them acted extroverted  We have to write a renewal for project this summer  Had the other half recall 5 specific episodes in life where  Want to put this data in grant renewal proposal you acted introverted  We’re asking, can you sign up for one of our experimental  Rate how extroverted they are sessions?  People who recall extraverted episodes feel more  Picture pops up for very very small amount of time (1 ms) extroverted  What’d you see?  People who recall introverted episodes feel more  People don’t exactly know introverted  Experimenter asks them how much they like bananas o His experiment  Another picture pops up, they don’t know  Same start. Had people go out into hallway, and he  Experimenter asks them how much they enjoy reading rearranged room science fiction  In hallway, in semi-circle, there’s a row of 15 chairs  Key trial: for half students, a picture of Bob Zajonc smiling  One student is sitting in the half circle face. For other half, Bob Scion’s scowling face.  Experiment looks are where the participants sits  Rate the quality of your own research ideas  People who recalled extroverted episodes from their life,  Found that the students exposed to Bob’s smiling face rated sat significantly closer to the stranger than those who the quality higher than those students who were exposed to recalled introverted episodes subliminal scowling face o Selective memory for certain events can temporarily o Uncle Fred activate self-representations  Didn’t like Uncle Fred, get a boss who looks like Uncle o Once activated, these representations guide our behavior Fred  Marty Seligman  Tell roommate that new boss looks like Uncle Fred, and o So often people think of disappointments, failures, explain that he was not very nice to you mistakes, how people have to improve  This is all conscious, you know he looks like Uncle Fred, o Therapists do the same, “Let’s find your weaknesses and know you didn’t like Uncle Fred, but know that he’s not improve those” Uncle Fred o Maybe all this time we’ve had it backwards, maybe we  New boss has some small similarities to Uncle Fred, one or should be focusing on what you’re good at and try to two features in common develop a lifestyle that can capitalize on strengths o Get by as best as you can when you’re bad at something o Choose to enter some social environments, and these are o Therapists should maybe try to help people find their good influenced by how they think of themselves stuff instead of focusing on their bad stuff o A competitive person will enter competitive situations, o Maximize your strengths instead of obsessing over while a passive person may withdraw from competitive weakness activities  Bob Evans o Enlist the aid of others to maintain their self-views o Subjective well-being, non-clinical depression  “I think I’m X” o Found that the single biggest influence on getting people to Yeah, I think you’re X too! feel better about themselves  Gives little journal and every night before bed, write five  friends  I don’t think you’re X. things for which they are grateful.  Doesn’t have to be different things  Disregard  Processing self-relevant information  But must be 5 specific things o Gets people to think of themselves more positively o Something called the “cocktail party phenomenon” o Natural tendency to think of failure and setbacks  Hear someone talking about you o When you get people to think of good things, you feel  You hear your name in another part of the room, and much better about yourself. focus on that  Can’t focus as much on the people you’re talking to, can’t 2/12/2016 hear what they’re saying, so you fake it.  Direct relevance carries our attention more  Stability vs Malleability in the Self-Concept o People’s ideas about themselves are subject to change, o Memory for self-relevant material  James Mill, 1829: the phenomenon of self and that of and seem somewhat easy to change o Most evidence suggests that there is a “core-self” that is memory are merely two sides of the same fact. We may as psychologists set out from either of them and refer the highly resistant to change  After age 30, our views of ourselves are stable other to it.  Who we are is what we remember about ourselves  Change rapidly as we grow, at a lower rate in our 20’s, and then slow at around 30  William James, 1890: our identity depends on our ability to remember what it feels like to be us.  Therapists often struggle to change the self-views of their clients, with limited success  My identity is that I am the kind of person that laughs or cries in these situations, and optimistic or pessimistic in o Difference in self-concept activation and self-concept change these situations. Our identity depends on our ability to remember how we are in different situations  Self-concept change  Whether people’s ideas about themselves can be easily  These assumptions are supported by clinical evidence.  Memory loss and identity disturbances go hand-in-hand modified  Can people who think as themselves as attractive be made  Self-generation effect  When you do it, it’s special. to see themselves as unattractive?  People who see themselves as shy do not suddenly  Don’t remember what they said, but remember what I said  10/12 people in a circle consider themselves outgoing o Ratings shift a little to the left or a little to the right o Researcher says we’ll go around the table, name o A little more shy, or a little more extraverted, but not something we can find in a grocery store o Researcher says what’s your favorite movie of all time? large, dramatic changes  People in studies are college students, sometimes young o When you were in high school, what was your favorite class college students  People typically choose their targets of comparison, while o 10 rounds, everyone answered.  120 responses in a lab, the researchers decide it for them  Take people out of normal environment, look at one factor o Blank piece of paper, try to remember everything that everybody said at a time, but they are artificial environments  People structure their environments in certain ways o Results  Probability that a person will remember what they said is  Added a condition: Does the following word describe you? 0.9999…. Basically, they’ll almost always remember what  Called the “self-reference task” they said  300 trials later, gave them piece of paper to remember as  The smallest probability of what will be recalled is what many words as possible was said by the person immediately before and the person  Results immediately after them  The original trials reproduced Craik and Tulving  Not paying attention to person beforehand because you’re experiment preparing for your turn, not paying attention to person  Self-referential task was even HIGHER than the semantic afterwards because you’re evaluating your performance task  Self-reference effect  By similar logic, the self-referential task requires an even  Experiments that led to founding of cognitive psychology deeper level of processing o Craik and Tulving o HOWEVER: the words are recalled at very low levels  Tasks and trial random  In Rogers’ study  Is the following word printed in all caps?  Only 3% of structural words remembered  Random selection of 100 trials  Phonemic task only 7% remembered  Does this word rhyme with banana?  For Semantic only 13% remembered  Random selection  Only 30% of self-referential words remembered  Does the following word mean the same as intelligent?  The people didn’t know it was a memory task  300 trials o Didn’t focus on memorization  Here’s a blank piece of paper, try and remember as many  These, however, are HUGE effects as you can  The difference between the structural task and phonemic  Give you 25 cents for each word you remember task is over 100%!  Dependent variable: recall o Is the self special?  Words that are least likely to be recalled are words  The mental representation for self is unique in that it has associated with structural task so many elements, and the interconnection between the  In the middle, associated with phonemic task elements are also great  Best recalled, words associated with semantic task  All these effects occur primarily occur for evaluative words  Introduced the concept of “Depth of processing” or o If you change to something like “Has a liver”, these effects “Levels of processing” would go away  The deeper the level of processing, the more likely the  Is the self special? information is to be recalled o In a sense yes. Very elaborate cognitive structure.  Structural task requires very shallow level of processing, o But no, the dynamics of processing are the same with this don’t even have to read the word cognitive structure as with any other  Phonemic task requires some processing, at least you have o So elaborate and highly organized that it produces these to read the word effects  Semantic task requires you to read the word, understand the word, and then read the compared word and 2/15/2016 understand the word, and then try to decide whether the  We remember what we say, what people tell us, things that understandings match up. DEEP level of processing happen to us better than what happens to other people o S-R model vs S-O-R model  Accuracy of personal memory  S-O-R model: “stimulus organism model” o Exception to the rule: with regards to people’s memory for  Not the word that’s important, but how it’s used, the what they used to be like processing of the information o Memory for what people used to be like  Not the stimulus that determines the response, it’s the o “He who controls the present controls the past.” cognitive processing and operation of the stimulus that  Meant it in political terms  BUT also is true at individual level determines response o Toby Rogers o Our memory is not a video tape, but rather a schema- driven, constructive or reconstructive process  Structural, phonemic, and semantic trials  We use very fast, unconscious inferences about what must  High self-esteem, more likely to say what you really have happened to us in the past believe  Remember bits and pieces (the important gist) but not  Interpersonal attraction, persuasion, cognitive dissonance, individual details, so we make inferences about the details social comparison, subjective well-being o When people ask us what we liked a long time ago, we o Concept has wide-spread appeal begin by using our present understanding of ourselves.  Concept is currently spread so thin that it’s difficult to  Is there any reason to think I’ve changed in the recent past? know what it is  If not, then I was probably how I am today. o Sometimes used as a predictor variable, sometimes used as  If there is, then I make inferences about what I must have an outcome variable, sometimes a mediating variable been like given events that must have changed what I was  Predicts drug use, depression, etc. like.  Occurs as a result of repeated failures, and so on o Conway and Russ  Work at a business, business goes bankrupt. If low self-  People remember they were a lot worse off, so they believe esteem, will be devastated. If high self-esteem, will be the program worked temporarily upset but will recover and continue on.  Put an ad in the student newspaper o Disagreement about the idea of self-esteem  Study skills course to make students more successful,  General affective approach revised and perfected over 20 years, really good course!  Emotion based Will offer it free to show appreciation for students.  Self-esteem represents feelings of affection for oneself  People come to initial meeting, evaluated study habits  Similar to how we feel about other people  One group chosen to do the course, tell other group they’re o Kind of like them, really like them, really hate them, kind going to be on the waiting list of dislike them, etc.  After one month course, both groups of students evaluate o Don’t really know why, we just do their current study skills, and fill out the evaluation as they  Feelings of affection for oneself would have a month ago.  Judgment  Students who attended the “course” believed they were  Based on rational assessment of our abilities and attributes better, but their grades, attendance, and so on, were the  Just like we do with other people same as it was before the course o What is this person’s strengths? Weaknesses? Unique  People in the control group were accurate in remembering abilities? how they answered the questions a month ago, but people o Does this person match what I need? in the experimental group incorrectly estimated that they  Assess own traits, abilities, attributes were doing poorer a month ago than they were now. o If we conclude we have abilities/attributes that are  Convince themselves that it worked to eliminate/reduce important in life, we conclude we are a good person cognitive dissonance o If now, we conclude we are not a good person  Don’t want to have wasted time and effort and so on  A decision about one’s worth and val


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

75 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Amaris Trozzo George Washington University

"I made $350 in just two days after posting my first study guide."

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.