Social Psychology

by Paul Seager

  Explicit measurement of self-esteem typically uses questionnaires, such as the one developed by Rosenberg (1965) which includes items such as:

  • I feel that I have a number of good qualities.

  • At times I feel that I am no good at all.

  • On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.

  In this case, an individual is asked to indicate whether each statement is true or false with regard to themselves, and the pattern of their answers gives an indication of their level of self-esteem. This level of measurement can be subject to a social desirability bias (see Chapter 1). Implicit measurements of self-esteem are used in an attempt to avoid such biases and can be based on tests involving measures of whether or not an individual values the letters in their name, or the speed with which they link themselves to positive adjectives.

  Some research has suggested that whilst there are differences in the behaviour of people showing high and low levels of self-esteem, the developmental course of an individual can show varying levels of self-esteem at different ages. It shows signs of instability in the very young (pre-teens), more stability in the early twenties onwards, but around the age of sixty, the stability once again decreases. Overall, low self-esteem is associated with negative consequences such as mood swings, susceptibility to influence, and there is a belief that individuals with lowered self-esteem are more likely to be violent and show criminal tendencies. Individuals with higher levels of self-esteem on the other hand are generally seen as more self-confident, optimistic, emotionally stable, and more resistant to stress and depression. Overall, the perception is that high self-esteem is good and low self-esteem is bad.

  However, the reality is not so simple. First, research suggests that people tend to have relative levels of self-esteem rather than absolute levels: people show higher or lower levels but rarely high or low. Secondly, research suggests there is very little truth in the belief that low self-esteem tends to lead to greater levels of violence or criminality. Finally, if anything, it is the highest levels of self-esteem that tend to be most problematic. For example, some research suggests that if levels of self-esteem are very high, whereby individuals believe that they are in some way special and superior to others (thus evidencing the trait of Narcissism), it can lead to individual instability. This, in turn, can lead to aggressive behaviour if such an individual perceives that others are threatening their identity in some way, for example through criticism: in these cases, violent outbursts are not uncommon.

  The effect of culture on identity

  Another factor that has been shown to have an effect on an individual’s self-perception is the culture in which they grow up. Typically people from more Western cultures (individualistic cultures) identify with a more independent self, whereas those from East Asia, Latin America and Southern Europe (collectivistic cultures) identify more with an interdependent self.

  The independent self is typified by individuals who think of themselves as being unique and individual in some way; they view themselves as possessing greater self-autonomy, and are perhaps defined more by their inner thoughts. On the other hand, the interdependent self is exemplified by individuals who tend to have greater links with, and more respect for, groups, such as the family or society. Overall, they tend to be more defined by their relationships with others.

  With respect to the question posed at the beginning of the chapter (‘Who am I?’), those evidencing an independent self typically tend to write a statement to characterize themselves as individuals (for example, I am cautious), whereas those with an interdependent self write statements that characterize themselves as part of a greater whole (for example, I am a Christian). Of course, in today’s multi-cultural society, an individual may be required to hold more than one self-identity (for example a Chinese migrant living in New York), and some studies suggest that such bicultural individuals who are able to balance their different cultural identities may show improved communication and problem-solving skills.

  Self-regulation

  Having established how an individual’s self-esteem can affect their psychological functioning, and how their culture can influence how they view themselves, research has also looked at how the self affects an individual’s behaviour. Theories of self-regulation attempt to explain a person’s behaviour in terms of their inner dynamic processes (e.g. self-awareness and self-focussing), and how their knowledge is translated into goal-setting and actual behaviour. For instance, if we feel that we are overweight and could do with shedding a few pounds, we all know how to go about losing the weight (we should eat less and exercise more), but transforming such knowledge into action is somewhat trickier.

  ‘Self-regulation, broadly, is defined by setting a standard to achieve a goal, investing the necessary effort to move toward reaching the goal, and monitoring one’s progress in order to shield the goal against temptation or obstacles …’

  (Cortes, Kammrath, Scholer & Peetz, 2014, p. 380)

  One proposed method of self-regulation suggests that an individual applies a TOTE (test-operate-test-exit) loop to their behaviour. For example, a student might reflect on their academic performance and consider whether they are working hard enough. Using the TOTE loop, they might measure how many hours a week they spend studying (test): if they conclude that the number of hours is not sufficient to produce a good academic performance, they might decide to change their daily routine (for example, by going out with their friends an hour later than usual) to incorporate an extra hour of study a day (operate). At some point in the future, they would again measure their behaviour to determine if they are now working hard enough (test); if they are, then they will maintain the new level of behaviour and pay no further attention to the issue (exit); if they are not, then further behaviour change may be planned. In essence, this idea suggests that an individual self-regulates their behaviour by monitoring it against a set of standards and modifying their behaviour to match the desired standards more closely. In order to monitor their behaviour, an individual initially relies on self-awareness.

  Self-awareness theory proposes that some of our behaviour is the result of one of our inner processes, namely the ability to self-focus. When we self-focus, we become the object of our own scrutiny; this can be made to occur consciously (e.g. looking at yourself in a mirror, or watching a video-recording of yourself) or may happen unconsciously as a product of the situation in which we find ourselves (for example, you are in the presence of a number of people who you perceive to be very different to yourself).

  By scrutinizing ourselves, we start to assess (and become self-aware of) how we are performing against an appropriate set of norms for a given behaviour (for example, our job, as a partner in a relationship, or as a parent). If the assessment is a negative one, which is to say that you realize that you are not measuring up to the expected behaviour, then unpleasant feelings are likely to arise. In order to alleviate these unpleasant feelings, you will be motivated to change your behaviour in some way. Of course, this behaviour change is contingent on an individual believing that they are capable of producing the required behaviour. Self-awareness and self-focus contribute to the test phases of the TOTE loop.

  Having decided to self-focus on a particular behaviour, the question arises as to which standards should be used to test the behaviour against. There are a number of sources that might set such a standard, for example:

  1 The individual – it may be a form of personal goal.

  2 Others – friends, loved ones or even a boss.

  3 An institution – e.g. university or company requirements.

  4 Society – rules to which an individual must adhere.

  These standards help an individual to determine the goal of the ‘operate’ phase of the TOTE loop.

  The question of how (and if) an individual attains their goal behaviour is a tricky one. It might typically be thought of as requiring ‘willpower’ or the like, and people are fond of referring to the amount of willpower they have (‘Oh, I can�
��t resist another biscuit – I have so little willpower). Some research does suggest that an individual has limited resources to use in order to effect behaviour change. Thus when an individual tries to regulate a given behaviour, they only have a limited ability to regulate any other behaviour. However, it is difficult to know whether failure to change one’s behaviour is due to limited resources, or whether it might be due to a lack of self-monitoring. There is evidence to suggest that increasing an individual’s self-monitoring (for example, monitoring one’s study hours each day) can facilitate reaching a goal.

  Overall, self-regulation accounts quite well for how an individual behaves, and therefore it appears that self-regulation is a good thing. Certainly research findings generally suggest that when an individual freely sets their own goals, they are more likely to be successfully achieved than when they feel pressured to set a goal, or when another person sets goals for them. However, in some situations, too much of a good thing can become a bad thing. Too much self-focussing can lead to an over-analysis of our behaviour, and if such behaviour is already well-learned, such as driving a car, it can lead to a disruption in our behaviour and a decline in performance (please don’t put this idea to the test on a busy road!).

  Summary

  The chapter identified the ways in which we use ourselves, other individuals and groups to create our notion of self and how we use this to understand who we are. It showed how we organize information about ourselves, how this information may determine the way we behave at any given moment, and how the culture in which we grow up can affect our self-identity. It also looked at how we evaluate ourselves subjectively and introduced the concept of self-esteem, discussing how this may affect our outlook on life. The chapter concluded by introducing the concept of self-regulation and showed how this might account for our behaviour.

  Food for thought

  The next time that you try to change your behaviour in some way, whether to go on a diet, or to become more punctual, it is worth considering, in light of the content of the chapter, exactly how your self will facilitate, and respond to, such a change. This may help you to be more successful, or it may prompt you to rethink your plans.

  Dig deeper

  Baumeister, R. F. (Ed.) (1999). The Self in Social Psychology. Key Readings in Social Psychology. Psychology Press.

  Carver, C. S. & Scheier, M. F. (2001). On the Self-regulation of Behaviour. Cambridge University Press.

  Swann, W. B., Chang-Schneider, C. & Larsen McClarty, K. (2007). ‘Do people’s self-views matter? Self-concept and self-esteem in everyday life’. American Psychologist, 62, 84–94.

  Vohs, K. D. & Baumeister, R. F. (Eds.) (2013). Handbook of Self-Regulation. Second Edition. Guilford Press.

  Zeigler-Hill, V. (Ed.) (2013). Self-Esteem. Current issues in Social Psychology. Psychology Press.

  Fact-check

  1 At approximately what age do we first become self-aware?

  a At birth

  b Between 0–6 months old

  c Between 6–12 months old

  d Between 12–18 months old

  2 Which of the following is not a valid source for gathering information about our self?

  a Our self

  b Other people

  c Other groups

  d They are all valid sources

  e None of them are valid sources

  3 Which of the following is not a problem with using introspection to understand our self?

  a We don’t process enough information

  b We underestimate the positive facets of our character

  c We strive to think about bad past experiences

  d They are all problems with introspection

  e None of them are problems with introspection

  4 Understanding oneself through the observation of one’s own behaviour is referred to as:

  a Introspection

  b Self-perception

  c Self-confirmation

  d Self-comparison

  5 Contrasting another person’s performance on a task with our own performance on the same task, in order to understand our own ability, is referred to as:

  a Social comparison

  b Self-comparison

  c Social perception

  d Social identity

  6 How we define ourselves in terms of our personality characteristics and traits is referred to as our:

  a Comparative identity

  b Social identity

  c Personal identity

  d None of the above

  7 An individual will process information more quickly when it is related to their self-concept than when it is not. This is referred to as the:

  a Self-schema effect

  b Self-discrepancy outcome

  c Self-reference effect

  d Working self-concept

  8 Higher levels of self-esteem tend to be shown by children who are subjected to which one of the following styles of parenting?

  a Laissez-faire

  b Permissive

  c Authoritarian

  d Authoritative

  9 With regards to self-esteem, which of the following statements is not true?

  a Self-esteem is most stable in the early teens

  b Low self-esteem is more likely to be linked with violent outbursts and aggressive behaviour

  c Implicit measures of self-esteem are more prone to a social desirability bias

  d Actually, they are all true

  e Actually, none of them are true

  10 Which of the following is not a valid source for producing a desired standard to use when self-regulating one’s behaviour?

  a Oneself

  b Trusted others

  c Societal norms

  d Actually they are all valid sources

  e Actually none of them are valid sources

  3

  Attributions

  This chapter tackles the problem of how we make sense of the actions of others. For example, imagine it is your first day at university (or in a new job) and as you are walking down the corridor, you see one of your lecturers (or a colleague) walking down the corridor towards you. As they pass you, they smile at you, say ‘Good morning’, and carry on their way. ‘Hmmm …’ you might think, ‘They seem to be a friendly person’. However, imagine that you are serving on a jury, and you are sitting in court. The defendant walks into the witness box, and before he starts to answer any question, he smiles at the jury. ‘Hmmm …’ you think, ‘That seems a little arrogant and over-confident’. Now, whether or not your judgements might be correct is the topic of another chapter (see Chapter 4 on social cognition). However, why and how you make these judgements about others – how you attribute meaning to their behaviour – is what we will deal with here.

  Heider’s (1958) naïve scientist theory

  As human beings, we have a need for understanding, a desire to make sense of things. If we can create a sense of order in our environment, then this gives us a greater confidence in our surroundings, and allows us to impose control on our environment. To do this, as we are social animals, we need to understand people, whether they are strangers, acquaintances, friends, or loved ones.

  For example, imagine that your old neighbours move out and new ones move in. You will seek to understand them, even if you don’t have the opportunity to talk to them immediately. You will start to attribute traits and motives to them immediately based on what you see and hear. Similarly, if you start a new job, or a new university course, you will come into contact with new people and will immediately start to try to understand them.

  Fritz Heider was a key figure in the area of attribution theory (some even claim he was the ‘founding father’). He believed that, as individuals, people formulate reasons for human behaviour, in much the same way that scientists formulate theories about how and why things work (whether it be the universe or a new chemical compound).

  Key idea: Attribution

  The way in which a person assigns a cause to the behaviour of ano
ther, or to themselves.

  To this end, Heider referred to people as ‘naïve scientists’. His theory was based on three main ideas:

  1 As an individual, we know that our own behaviour has a reason, therefore it likely follows that other people’s behaviour does too. Therefore it is not unreasonable to try to discover these reasons. Heider and a colleague demonstrated this notion with a simple experiment where they showed participants a film of three moving geometric shapes (a large and small triangle and a disc) and asked them to describe what was happening. Instead of talking in terms of geometry, speed and distance, the majority of participants attributed human characteristics and motive to each shape; they were given personality and reasons for their actions (movements), even though there was none.

  2 Individuals attempt to find stable traits in others that can account for the behaviour that they observe. This helps to bring predictability to a potentially unstable situation, and with this predictability comes control.

  3 In attempting to find reasons for the behaviour of others, we look for both ‘personal’ and ‘environmental’ causes – what social psychologists call internal attributions or ‘dispositions’, and external attributions or ‘situational’.

  Key idea: Internal attributions and external attributions

  An internal attribution is a judgement of another’s behaviours (or our own) based on a perceived internal cause, such as a motive or personality trait.

  An external attribution is a judgement of another’s behaviour (or our own) based on a perceived ‘environmental’ cause outside of the person’s control.

  According to Heider, it is difficult to see ‘internal’ causes for behaviour, and we should only look for these if there are no ‘overt’ explanations for the behaviour of another. However, humans tend to be biased towards internal attributions, even when external causes are present; we have a flawed tendency to attribute the behaviour of another to stable internal dispositions. So, if a person walks past us in a corridor without saying ‘hello’, we are more likely to consider that they have a rude ‘disposition’ rather than seeking alternative ‘situational’ explanations (e.g. they are having a bad day, or their eyesight is terrible and they need new glasses).