Social Psychology Week Three
Social Psychology Week Three 21198
Popular in Social Psychology
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Department
This 13 page Class Notes was uploaded by Caspar Snyder on Friday September 12, 2014. The Class Notes belongs to 21198 at University at Buffalo taught by Mark Seery in Fall2014. Since its upload, it has received 91 views.
Reviews for Social Psychology Week Three
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
Date Created: 09/12/14
Week Three Notes Unstable High SelfEsteem Idea possess underling self doubt 0 Visible after ego threat 0 Motivates behavior Test Seery et al 2004 0 Physiological responses 0 Spontaneous and covert Procedure Part 1 at home 0 Completed selfesteem measures 0 Both level and stability Part 2 in the lab 0 Test of reasoning ability 0 Manipulation success vs failure 0 Failure ego threat I What unstable high selfesteem is sensitive to 0 Second test 0 Task of interest I Failure should carry over 0 The initial test was either purposely difficult or of medium difficulty People With high selfesteem who fail at the initial test will experience an ego threat This idea of failure should carry over into the second test despite the difficulty level decreasing Results Unstable high selfesteem 0 Confident after success 0 Selfdoubt after failure Stable high selfesteem 0 Confident regardless Takeaway points High self esteem doesn t always mean con dent Unstable highself esteem 0 Underlying self doubt 0 May appear self confident but can be struggling with self doubt inside Reactions to Feedback Shrauger 1975 review Initial selfevaluations and reactions to feedback 0 Positive feedback vs negative feed back 0 Liked more 0 Regardless of initial views of self 0 Feedback consistent with initial views is o Seen as more believable o More accurately remembered Two Motives Selfenhancement We Want to feel good about ourselves 0 Affective Selfconsistency We Want consistent information 0 Want the World to make sense 0 How We fit into it I Cognitive feeling vs thinking Crossfire Motives for high self esteem 0 Positive feedback fits both self enhancement and self consistency 0 Negative feedback firsts neither 0 Think of Dennis Reynolds from It s Always Sunny in Philadelphia 0 There is no con ict in feedback Low self esteem truly low 0 Positive feedback it s enhancing but not consistent 0 While people with low self esteem feel pleasantly surprised they are likely to question their success 0 Negative consistent but not enhancing 0 Sure it sucks to fail but it fits into their expectations This has no effect on their selfesteem other than to support their opinion of themselves 0 Con ict Absolutely if one is satisfied and the other is not 0 This is called cognitiveaffective crossfire Study Swann et al 1987 Subject top and bottom 20 of the selfesteem scale Story accuracy of 1 impressions They are asked to give a speech 0 observed by hidden evaluator Positive or negative feedback is given 0 Whether they are socially skilled or not They are then asked to rate the accuracy of the feedback 0 Cognitive Then they are asked to measure their mood at that moment 0 Affective Results Cognitive 0 High selfesteem positive feedback is more accurate to them 0 Rater is seen as more competent 0 Assessment technique is more diagnostic 0 Low selfesteem negative feedback is more accurate 0 Rater is seen as more competent Affective 0 Main affect for feedback 0 Positive feedback is good to all Implications 0 Everyone likes positive feedback but those with high selfesteem are likely to believe it more 0 When given negative feedback those with low selfesteem believe it more than those with high selfesteem Those with high selfesteem are likely to call the rater incompetent The Basketbrawl A look into the interplay between the self and not the group A fight broke out during a basketball game 0 Began as a shoving match between players 0 Fans jumped in 0 As though personally threatened o Linked to players only because they identified with the Pistons group Extended Self Self extends beyond the individual Social Identity Theory Tajfel Turner 0 Our self is particularly determined by groups we identify with What group affects me personally Includes selfesteem Ex Hirt et al 1992 o o o 0 Sports team allegiance Idea team becomes part of us 0 We care without any rational connection 0 Team performance affects us like our own performance as if we are involved 0 This is the case even when we have no stakes 0 Very real Hirt et al procedure Subjects raving college basketball fans 0 Fans were collected from two colleges with high division basketball programs They are asked to watch their team win or lose Control condition other game 0 This game is of a lower division 0 Doesn t affect their team Selfreport mood self esteem performance expectations 0 Expectations are of themselves not their team 0 Mental motor social skills chance tasks ex Spinning a Wheel 0 Unrelated to basketball team Results After loss vs Win and control scenarios 0 Decrease in mood 0 Decrease in self esteem 0 Felt Worse about themselves 0 No objective connection 0 Decrease in expectations for own performance 0 Mediated by self esteem not mood Instead of Watching basketball some took IQ tests Told that they either did Well or poorly objective meaning Completed the same measures as the previous test group success vs failure It was found that there were equal or larger effects for the team vs the personal task BIRGing Basking in re ected glory 0 Sharing glory of another successful person based on association with them 0 Family vs team 0 Given an advantage for association 0 Ex my child s an honor student 0 Name dropping o Often exaggerations Cialdini et al 1976 Field study Watching clothing of students in class after a football game 0 Look for university apparel Compare numbers to Wins or loss Results 0 Wore more after Win than loss Implication 0 When others do Well We actively emphasize our connection 0 Ex Bills vs Sabres 0 Easy to show association 0 The more a team wins the more apparel is going to be seen Comparison How is Cialdini et al different from Hirt et al Both 0 Extended self Hirt passively affected 0 Hardcore fan 0 Sees the games no matter What Cialdini actively responded 0 Fair Weather fan 0 As long as they re winning they ll be a fan Self evaluation maintenance Processes by which We maintain gain self esteem 0 Strategies Tesser 1988 SEM model 0 Relationships with others and our relative performance 0 How We feel if our friend is better than us or viceversa 0 Individuals 2 competing processes re ection and comparison SEM Both 0 Potentially good or bad for us 0 Always active relative strength changes Re ection extending self to incorporate other s feedback Familiar 0 BIRGing Goodbad 0 Good When friend does Well Comparison use other as a standard for performance 0 Judge ourselves with them Goodbad 0 Good when the other person does Worse Which do We use 3 Factors Determine which process is stronger Adjust them to enhance or protect selfesteem 1 Performance 0 Own performance relative to others 2 Relevance 0 Importance of domain for selfesteem 3 Closeness 0 Relationship to other 2 Scenarios for an increase in selfesteem Re ection 0 Performance 0 When the other is better 0 Relevance o Unimportant domain to me o No personal aspirations 0 Closeness 0 Close to the other person I Proud of them I Affiliated with a Winner 0 Ex Tony good friends good sax player and I don t care about the sax so I have an increase in selfesteem Comparison 0 Performance 0 If self is better 0 Relevance 0 Importance Works better I Not that critical 0 Closeness 0 Either I Not so picky I Glad either Way 0 Ex Tony I m better at the exam he motivates me to do better just glad I did Well Maximize Gain Adjust three factors to maximize selfesteem gain 0 Active maintenance 0 How can I still feel good about something 0 Reliable Way to feel better Easiest 0 Closeness seek it claim it o BIRGing o Groupies 0 Don t have to work as hard or do anything 0 Cheap association 0 Pick and choose Minimize Less Research biggest selfesteem decrease occurs when outperformed by close other on important domain 0 Important comparison increase is likely 0 Harder to be happy for someone else 0 Ex Friend in class has better grades 0 Being outperformed hurts 0 Goal is to maintain selfesteem avoid decrease Performance do better 0 Practice more and surpass others 0 Have I been slacking 0 Motivation leads to readjustment 0 Not always possible 0 Depends on level of ability 0 Not easy but motivating Relevance make domain unimportant 0 Failing at a certain domain sucks 0 Leads to a reevaluation of future goals 0 Place focus elsewhere 0 Free to re ect than compare 0 BIRGing o No longer hurts me 0 Changes viewpoint 0 Devalue domain 0 Can negatively impact you I Ex Importance of school Closeness make other less close 0 Distance self 0 Comparison has less impact Why less impact 1 Easier to discount 0 Research most interested in and affected by comparisons with similar others 0 Most relevant 0 Discount 0 Less close less similar they seem to us I Apples and oranges o Easier to see as an upper level comparison 0 Tell yourself false assurances o Wouldn t want to live that way 0 The other s life is horrible 0 Put others down 2 Easier to forget 0 See close others more often get more reminders o How others are better than you 0 Less time spent together less reminders 0 Want self enhancement likely explain away only negative feedback 0 Closeness irrelevant when you do better 0 Only when it benefits you I Don t mind constant reminders Bottom line To enhancemaintain self esteem either Do something 0 To make it better 0 Increase performance 0 Inclusion 0 Or interpret things differently 0 Again lie to yourself 0 Engage in false interpretations to benefit yourself 0 Imposes additional costs 0 Don t care as long as you don t feel bad about you Selfregulation Ways in which people control own actions The I A good thing better life adjustment 0 Making goals 0 Tradeoffs 0 Good for living 0 Prioritization o Stressful meet goals Research example Baumeister et al 1993 Selfesteem and selfregulation failure Based on two ideas 0 High selfesteem has clearer selfconcepts 0 Know capabilities better 0 Should set more accurate goals 0 High self esteem is sensitive to ego threats 0 Didn t look at unstable high selfesteem I Just high selfesteem Vs low selfesteem 0 Confidence turns to overconfidence 0 Should set unrealistic goals Study procedures Creativity test 0 Ex Uses for a donut Manipulation feedback 0 Success no threat one of the highest scores 0 Bright future in creative endeavors 0 Failure ego threat one of the lowest scores 0 Deficiency in creative realms Video Games Obstacle course game 0 Complete as quickly as possible 0 Tradeoffs I Go quickly and hit obstacles I Go slow to avoid obstacles and have a worse time Procedures Practice game 10 trials Feedback 0 Reaches preset criteria on 3 of 10 trials 0 Based off the subject s own results Paid 300 One more trial Bet on own performance 0 025 minimum 0 Reaching the same criteria 0 Triple or nothing 0 Kept What they Won 0 Unlike most studies at this time Dependent Variable the money Results Final cash outcomes 0 Low self esteem creativity feedback didn t matter 0 Mean 3 0 High self esteem more money after success 0 Success mean 538 0 Failure mean 127 Altematively 0 Success high self esteem made more money than low self esteem 0 Failure low self esteem made more money than high self esteem o Ego threat Results and Implications More money better self regulation 0 Manage tradeoffs 0 Set appropriate goals and met them How 1 High self esteem subjects bet more after failure than success 0 No low self esteem differences 0 Response to ego threat 0 Restore dominance o Assert that they are good by expressing confidence 0 Bet more I Didn t follow through