STUDYING THE SELF (AND OTHERS IN A SOCIAL WORLD) 1
HOW DO WE COME TO UNDERSTAND OTHERS & ONE-SELF
1. Understanding others: imitating them (an unconscious urge)
→ babies learn the world by reenacting others
Eg. synchronizing movement by yawning, couching, … = chameleon effect
Role of mirror neurons = a mechanism by which we imitate each other
(First found in monkeys: researcher grabbed smth, so did monkey, later also found in humans)
• They allow us to feel what others feel
o Power of horror movies (eg. see tarantula crawling over smn, you also feel it)
o Interpret where pain takes place by the kind of cry
→ embodied simulation: from mirror neuron systems to interpersonal relations
→ observing an action/emotion/sensation: evoked within us as if we experience it
• Implications:
o Learning about the world through imitation
(we’re separate beings: know where the personal stops and the other begins)
o Empathy – understanding of feelings of others
= activation of same regions in brain when seeing it as experiencing it
o Theory of mind – understanding of intentions of others
= what helps us to separate us from others
Eg. differing beliefs from yours (can be used to manipulate beliefs)
2. Understanding one-self: self-concept develops from learning in social context
→ feedback (testing how others react on our action) affects future perceptions, choices, behavior
→ development of who we are, who we think we are through interactions with others
Eg. you think you are funny:
ppl laugh with your joke = positive feedback, validation of self-concept, continue to be ‘funny’
ppl don’t laugh = negative feedback, update self-concept, no longer see yourself as funny
Importance of self-concept to us:
• Self-referencing effect we compare our performances w others (meaning of scores)
• Spotlight effect we overestimate the attention ppl are paying to us
• Illusion of transparency ppl don’t notice the mistakes we make (eg. bad haircut)
We are bad at predicting our own behavior → friends & family better at it than us (certain aspects)
• Ethics and virtues
• Professional competence (managers rate themselves more competent)
• College entrance examinations (ppl predict they stand higher than they actually do)
• Driving ability (everybody thinks they are above-average drivers)
We deceive ourselves when trying to explain our behavior → overestimate ourselves, put us in best position
• Self-serving bias
• Unrealistic optimism (consequences: gambling losses, stock market crashes)
• False consensus and uniqueness
o False consensus: overestimate number of ppl doing same bad things as us
o False uniqueness: underestimate the number of ppl that do same good things as us
,INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN SELF-CONCEPT 2
1. Self-esteem → high self-esteem = deemed positive: well-being, positive thinking
BUT boosting self-esteem not always desired effects (aggression)
Research: Baumeister
• Perceived/claimed advantages: more likeable, better relationships, better impressions on others, more loyal,
speak up in group, happy (<-> low self-esteem: depression, externalizing behavior, underperforming)
• Findings:
o Fosters some good initiatives but also bad (experimenting w drugs & sex, dangerous behaviors)
o Boosting it has no effect on academic performance, but good performance → high self-esteem
o Variable effects on job performances: occupational stress boosts self-esteem
(overcoming stress = accomplishment → proud of yourself)
o It does not make for good leadership, but good leaders have high self esteem
• Interaction between narcissism and self-esteem (threatening esteem of narcissists → aggression)
2. Self-efficacy = belief you can achieve, accomplish things → increases changes you succeed
• Contributing factors:
o Social persuasion, modeling (believing in & supporting you), experience (success motivates)
o Correlates with perceived control
• Research: relation between self-efficacy and performance success
3. Perceived control = taking some credit for the things that happen to you good or bad
→ Absence leads to learned helplessness (thinking you have no control over what happens to you)
→ High level positive outcomes
• workers in organizations, prisoners, homeless shelters
• citizens from countries w more perceived freedom (vs. restricted freedom) experience greater satisfaction
generalized perceived control = stable personality characteristic → locus of control:
• internal = I control my destiny it is a spectrum → most ppl in the middle
• external = others control my destiny
locus of control predictive value with respect to:
o career and academic performance (ppl with internal locus of control are achievers
o management practices but not necessarily happier: illusion of control)
o sports, health, delinquency
moderate locus of control more advantageous in social situations, not bound to performance, when there is
adequate social support (eg. recovering from cancer) + more open to social relations, so more support
!!! positive self-concept maintained by self-efficacy, being in control, and social support → why self-concept so important?
Hypothesis: it guarantees group membership and avoids social exclusion
→ experienced or perceived social exclusion:
• causes pain like physical pain (activates same brain regions)
• increases impulsive spending
• causes reduction in intelligent reasoning
• interferes with self-regulation (impaired attention, giving up on tasks, eating a lot of cookies, …)
• increased lethargy (no time perception)
• causes less prosocial behavior like helping
• weakens affiliative responses to new interaction partners
→ group-belonging as fundamental human drive: ppl don’t want to be excluded so they behave in line with group
→ we try to maintain a self-image to fulfill the need to belong
→ may be blind to self-deception and ways in which we are affected by environment to safeguard group belonging
, JUDGING ONE-SELF AND OTHERS → inaccuracy and prone to biases:
1. Contrast effect (eg. you don’t want to give your presentation after someone who did excellent)
2. Self-fulfilling prophecy = starting to behave in line with expectations made of you by others
3. Fundamental attribution error (how we explain the behavior of others)
Attribution = assigning a cause to behavior
Dimension = internal/external cause of behavior
• Internal: because of who you are (personal reasons)
• External: because of your environment/situation/context (eg. late bus)
“We discount the situation” – Lee Ross
= tendency to hold a person accountable rather than checking environment when explaining someone’s behavior
→ underestimating situational influences and overestimating personal factors
Real life implications: blaming people for failures instead of acknowledging situational difficulties
→ more in individualistic countries (eg. student-teacher/boss-employee relationship)
Why? Actor-observer asymmetry and visual salience (perceptual error) vs. perspective-taking (motivational bias)
4. Self-serving bias (how we explain our own behavior: portray ourselves in good light)
= tendency to attribute bad outcomes to situation and good outcomes to self
Eg. group’s individual estimations of how much they each contributed sumps up to more than 100%
Why? Result of self-serving motives: self-esteem motivation drives self-serving bias
• Exaggerate other’s failures to reduce impact of own failure
• Exaggerate own accomplishments while reducing that of others to show superiority
→ motivation to maintain self-esteem = gauge to alert us to threat of social rejection:
“as long as I have good self-esteem and am above average, the group will not want to get rid of me”
(can backlash: importance of balance)
RESEARCH PAPER: BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE LEADS TO LOWER JUDGMENTS OF INTENT THAN DASH CAMERA FOOTAGE
