Social Psychology

by Paul Seager

  Key idea: Introspection

  The way an individual watches and monitors their internal states to understand themselves; to comprehend who they are and why they do what they do.

  It seems like a truism that the best person to understand oneself is indeed oneself, and the best way to do so is to monitor one’s own thoughts and feelings, referred to as introspection. However, whilst it can be useful at times, this is a potentially problematic method for understanding the self fully as research has shown that individuals are not very accurate when it comes to understanding what they are thinking or why they are thinking it (see Case study below).

  Case study: Inaccuracies with understanding the self

  When we look inwards to try to understand why we are thinking something or behaving in a certain way, we assume that this will give us accurate knowledge about our self. However, a study by Wilson and Nisbett (1978) cleverly illustrated that this is not always the case. Female shoppers were given a number of samples of nylon stockings and asked to rate their quality. The key to this study was that all of the stockings were identical (though the shoppers did not know this). When asked why they rated some stockings more highly than others, the participants claimed that their decisions were made based on attributes such as ‘softness’ or ‘workmanship’. However, the results of the study showed that generally the highest ratings were given to the stockings that were simply seen last. This highlights quite clearly that the reasons we think we do something may be very different from the actual reasons we do something.

  Ultimately, there are a number of key problems with introspection:

  1 We are processing so much information at the same time, some consciously and some unconsciously, that we don’t really know which of this information is causing our thoughts or behaviours.

  2 We overestimate the positive facets of our character. For example, if asked to rate yourself for the quality of physical attractiveness, you are more likely to say that you are ‘above average’; in fact, research has shown that most people say this, and this is simply not possible. This can also be problematic when we need a more accurate view of ourselves, such as when we are choosing which job would be best for us to apply for, or when deciding who would be an ideal partner based on our character and traits.

  3 For self-protective reasons, we are sometimes driven both to keep unwanted thoughts out of our heads, and not to dwell on bad past experiences. This can be an issue if we are attempting to learn from past mistakes.

  This is not to say that introspection cannot be used to understand who we are as individuals, as some research suggests that writing about ourselves does tend to give us good insight into ourselves; rather it is important to understand its limitations in providing us with self-knowledge. Such forewarning can itself be of some use in self-understanding.

  Another way to understand oneself is to observe one’s own behaviour (self-perception), and from this behaviour we can perhaps observe how we are feeling and what we are thinking. For example, if a student comes out of an exam smiling (and that does happen more often than you might believe!), they might reasonably conclude that this behaviour is evidence that they think they have done well in the exam. This ‘self-perception’ theory was put forward by Bem (1972). However, these self-observations need to be tempered by the ‘context’ of the behaviours; that is, the circumstances under which the behaviour occurs. If the situation seems to account for our behaviour (e.g. smiling after an exam), then we are unlikely to draw any definite conclusions about our self; however, if the situation doesn’t account for our actions (e.g. we smile all the time), then we are more likely to infer that our behaviour was due to who we are (e.g. we smile because we are a naturally happy person). For example, if you went to the theatre because your partner wanted you to, then you wouldn’t draw conclusions about yourself as being a theatre-goer; but if you went of your own volition, and perhaps even on your own, then you would be more confident in drawing conclusions about yourself (e.g. you are a lover of the theatre).

  Similarly, our self-perception may have important implications for motivation. If we perceive our behaviour in a given instance as being ‘internally’ driven (e.g. playing a sport for the love of the game) then our motivation will likely be stronger than if it is ‘externally’ driven (e.g. playing a sport just to win a prize, or to please someone else). This can have important implications for how we motivate ourselves and others (especially children) to perform well. It may be that offering prizes for performing well (e.g. at school) is not the best way forward. Instead fostering an internal motivation will often lead to better and more sustained performances. For example, one study showed that independent judges rated an artist’s work to be of a higher quality when it was a non-commissioned piece (internally driven – they did it because they wanted to do it) than when it was commissioned (externally driven – they did it because they were paid to do it).

  However, self-perception theory is still a little limited as many things may lead to our behaviour (as with introspection) and we are not always able to pinpoint exactly the most important of them in terms of accounting for our behaviour.

  Key idea: Self-perception

  The way in which an individual understands their inner states by observing and interpreting their own behaviour.

  OTHER-UNDERSTANDING

  Understanding of ourselves can also come through observing how others react to us and by processing what they tell us. For example, if a person acts in a more friendly way towards us after we have donated to charity, or if they tell us that it was a kind thing that we did, then we are more likely to think of ourselves as a kind person.

  One of the first people we look to in order to understand ourselves is likely to be our primary caregiver; this relationship will certainly have an effect on whether or not we develop high or low self-esteem (see below). Our levels of self-esteem will have a significant effect on how our model of self begins to develop. If our caregivers (e.g. parents, teachers) provide us with consistent and responsive feedback, then our self-concept is more likely to be a positive one; conversely, a lack of responsiveness, and negligence, on behalf of the caregiver will more likely lead to an individual developing a negative self-concept. Thus, the attachments we form with our caregivers at an early age can significantly affect how we view ourselves.

  The reactions of others (who are not caregivers) towards us will also help us to understand ourselves, and it has been suggested that we use an amalgamation of the views of others to do so. However, there seems to be limited support for this idea as research suggests that this generalized view is not a good match with how people actually see us. Generally, we’re not very good at figuring out how other people see us, as others have a tendency to hide any undesirable views of us which they hold. And even if we were to ask them, they may not be forthcoming with any unpalatable opinions.

  Additionally, a confirmation bias might also influence how we use the views of others to understand our self. That is, we may have a tendency only to seek out, or remember, the views of others that coincide with our own views of ourselves; we conveniently ignore the times when they contradict our own views. Overall, any feedback that we get from others about our self tends to be filtered to some level, with greater filtering applied when we receive adverse feedback (to which we are not always receptive).

  A further way in which we can use others to help us define our self is to compare ourselves with them (referred to as social comparison). This helps us define our abilities and our opinions. We do, however, tend to do this with ‘similar’ others. For example, if an individual wanted to understand how good they were at football or chess, they wouldn’t necessarily compare themselves to Wayne Rooney or Gary Kasparov; they are much more likely to use a member of their own football or chess team for comparison.

  As individuals, we tend to make these comparisons automatically, and much of the time we don’t actually realize that we’re doing it. Often, when trying to improve a skill, an indiv
idual might make upward comparisons to see how far they have to go before attaining their next goal; downward comparisons tend to be made when they are lacking in confidence, and perhaps feeling low, in order to make them feel better about themselves.

  Finally, we also look to significant others in our life to help us understand ourselves. This can occur both when they are, and are not, present, and it can happen consciously or unconsciously. One study exposed Catholic women to subliminal pictures (of either the Pope or a psychologist) and then asked them to rate themselves on levels of morality and anxiety (i.e. their self-conception). The findings showed that the devout (i.e. practising) Catholic women were more likely to conceive of themselves as less moral when exposed to a picture of the Pope (i.e. a significant person in their life) than a psychologist (i.e. not a significant person in their life). This suggests that people important to an individual do impact strongly on how they see themselves.

  Key idea: Social comparison

  The way in which we compare ourselves to others in order to understand our own beliefs, opinions, abilities and behaviours.

  GROUP UNDERSTANDING

  A final way in which we understand ourselves is through the groups to which we belong and with which we identify. This is the basis for social identity theory. This idea was formulated by Tajfel and Turner and suggests that part of our self-understanding is derived from our group memberships (referred to as ingroups). These groups can be chosen (e.g. belonging to a sports team, being a supporter of a sports team, belonging to a recreational group such as a chess club, being a member of a formalized group such as a trade union, or an informal group of friends) or thrust upon us (e.g. our gender, nationality, ethnicity and perhaps even our religion). The assumption of social identity theory is that people need to feel good about themselves (possess a positive self-identity), and that they will therefore draw favourable comparisons between their ingroups and the groups to which they do not belong (referred to as outgroups). Social identity theory is an important concept when we look at aggression (see Chapter 9), prejudice (see Chapter 13), and intergroup relations (see Chapter 14).

  In terms of how we feel about ourselves, social identity can help to explain how an individual will feel about themselves, and how they might act. If, for example, we view ourselves as English and our football or cricket team are performing well and have just won a World Cup (forgive me for being overly optimistic – but I feel the need to bolster my social identity!), then we will feel good about ourselves because we see our ingroup as being better than outgroups; however, if our team is performing poorly (no comment) then we might not feel so good about ourselves. However, even in this latter case, it is possible to improve the way we feel about ourselves by choosing which outgroups to use as a comparison (hence we might compare ourselves with the French – assuming they were knocked out of the World Cup before us – as opposed to the Germans – who won it).

  It is important, however, to draw a distinction between our social identity (gained through the groups to which we belong or don’t belong) and our personal identity, which refers to our individual characteristics and personality traits. Our personal identity views us as a unique individual distinct from others; our social identity views us as sharing many similarities with other people who belong to the same group(s) that we do. Sometimes our personal identity will be most important to us, and at other times our social identity will be the most important. A key point of social identity theory is how the groups to which we belong can affect how we view ourselves.

  Overall, it is possible to see how all three sources (self, others, groups) can play pivotal roles in how we construct our self-identity. Some of the sources we use are more reliable than others, and sometimes our construction is more explicit and conscious than at others. However, having gained this knowledge about ourselves, the question then becomes how we store it and how we use it to understand ourselves.

  Self-knowledge

  One way in which we can organize knowledge about ourselves in our minds is through the use of self-schemas. This has been shown in a number of studies. For example, in one piece of research, individuals were asked to rate themselves on certain attributes related to the dimension of independence-dependence, and then asked to rate how important these attributes were to their self-concept. Those who considered the related attributes as important in describing themselves were classified as being schematic; those who didn’t were rated as being aschematic (i.e. they didn’t have a self-schema for being either dependent or independent). Later, the same set of individuals was asked to judged schema-congruent traits as being true or not true of themselves. The findings suggested that schematic individuals were much quicker at making the judgements than the aschematic individuals, and more easily remembered past behaviour related to the trait. This suggests that we are more sensitive to information relevant to our self-concept in that we process it more quickly and thoroughly than information not related to our self-concept: this is referred to as the self-reference effect.

  Key idea: Self-reference effect

  This refers to the idea that an individual processes information more quickly and thoroughly when it relates to their self-concept than when it doesn’t.

  Our self-schemas have also been shown to be important in the way that we use them to process information about other people: because they are of great importance to ourselves, we are more likely to judge other people by them (personally I always get very frustrated if people arrive late for meetings as time-keeping is very important to me). Of course, not all of the vast number of our self-schemas will be active at any one time; the situation in which we find ourselves will tend to dictate which ones are active, and this is referred to as our working self-concept. This of course begs the question of how easy it is to turn on our different self-schemas, and this is still a matter of some debate. It has however been noted that there are large individual differences with respect to which self-schemas are activated by which situations.

  Key idea: Self-schemas

  Mental representations in the mind used to store and organize information about the self, and which in turn aid an individual to understand how they should feel, think, and behave in a given situation.

  As well as holding beliefs about ourselves in the present (our ‘actual’ self), we also project about how we might like to be (our ‘ideal’ self) and how we think we should be (our ‘ought’ self). Self-discrepancy theory argues that people compare themselves using these different forms of selves, and strive to maintain a match between their ‘actual’ self and both their ‘ideal’ and ‘ought’ selves. Any difference between them will lead to some form of psychological distress, with greater perceived distance leading to greater distress. In terms of emotions, discrepancy between an individual’s actual and ideal self (a lack of positive outcome) is predicted to lead to feelings such as disappointment and sadness, whereas discrepancy between actual and ought selves (the presence of negative outcomes) is more likely to lead to feelings of fear, anger or nervousness, dependent on the exact context.

  Having looked at the different ways in which we try to determine who we are, psychologists have also investigated ways in which people determine how they feel about themselves; that is, whether we regard our self-concept positively or negatively.

  Self-esteem

  Self-esteem refers to an individual’s subjective evaluation of themselves in terms of positivity or negativity. How an individual feels about themselves can have a profound effect on how they function psychologically. Self-esteem can also be used as a measure of how an individual feels they are doing in the eyes of others. As with other aspects of the self, it can vary across time and context.

  Key idea: Self-esteem

  Self-esteem refers to an individual’s subjective assessment of themselves in terms of their own qualities. It is seen as a vital component in the psychological well-being of a person.

  The development of self-esteem is thought to originate to some extent from the pare
nting style to which an individual is subjected as a child. An authoritative parenting style, which is characterized by showing strict control over the child whilst being warm and supportive, is more likely to lead to higher levels of self-esteem than children subjected to either an authoritarian (strict control but lacking in support) or permissive (lacking in control but more supportive) parenting style.

  ‘Arguably, the most important thing in one’s life is the self. Given the importance of evaluative responding, it is no wonder then that the evaluation of self, or self-esteem, is a topic that has occupied social psychologists almost from the beginning of the discipline in its present form …’

  (Abraham Tesser, 2001, p. 479)

  Self-esteem can be measured either explicitly through the use of questionnaires, or implicitly, through response time measures (see Spotlight below). Additionally it has been proposed that while measures, such as that of Rosenberg, assess general levels of self-esteem of an individual (trait self-esteem), it may also vary according to the situation in which an individual finds themselves (state self-esteem). However, there are individual differences in the stability of self-esteem, with instability tending to indicate greater levels of anger and hostility in response to criticism, and an increased likelihood of depression in response to the general vagaries of life.

  Spotlight: Measuring self-esteem