Nov24slides - THE SELF 1. Contents (what is it?) 2....

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–7. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
THE SELF 1. Contents (what is it?) 2. Organization (how is it mentally represented?) 3. How do the answers to #1 and #2 influence behavior? Self-schemas: What self-related thoughts are most accessible? Markus (1977): If certain self-attributes are more accessible, then information about that attribute should be processed more readily and efficiently .
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Markus (1977): 1. Used q’aire to identify 3 types of subjects: a.Dependent b.Independent c.Aschematic 2. Flashed a list of adjectives on computer screen (15 related to independence – e.g., “individualistic”, 15 related to dependence, 15 unrelated.) 3. Subjects asked to judge as quickly as possible whether each word described themselves (pressed “me” button or “not me” button). ( BTW, similar to IAT .) Results: 1. Dependents said “me” to more of the dependent adj’s and independents said “me” to more of the independent adj’s. 2. But more interestingly… 3. Although independents said “me” to an equal number of dependent and independent traits, it took them longer to respond to dependent traits!
Background image of page 2
4. Independents’ shorter RT’s for independent adjectives suggests that these adjectives were more accessible (easier to process). Longer RT’s for their “me” responses to dependent adjectives suggests that they were thinking harder about these adjectives…e.g., “hoped-for me,” potentially me.” ORGANIZATION OF SELF-KNOWLEDGE Linville (1985, 1987): self-complexity Shelly Karen STUDENT student parents Parents Boyfriend hobbies boyfriend hobbies Who takes it harder after failing an exam?
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Linville (1987) : 1. Had subjects list the personality traits that they believed applied to them. 2. Had subjects sort this list into meaningful groups (as many or as few as they wanted. 3. Used a mathematical formula (that you don’t have to worry about) to calculate each subject’s self-complexity score. (Higher s-c if number of items high and amount of overlap low). 4. Had subjects list of life stresses they had experienced in the previous two weeks. 5. Completed questionnaire to measure depression and questionnaire to assess various physical ailments. 6. Subjects returned two weeks later and filled out same DV’s again.
Background image of page 4
Results: The flipside: low s-c may have an advantage when stress is low and they experience positive events. Their positive affect will go even higher and spill over into other areas of the self. For complex person, triumph in one area is compartmentalized…no generalized rise in perceived self-worth.
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Social comparison Anyone famous go to your high school? Anyone infamous? JP’s high school: BIRG-ing: sense of pride and satisfaction in someone else’s achievements CORF-ing: sense of shame and disassociation with someone else’s failures BUT: Doesn’t the success of people we identify with sometimes have the opposite effect…make us feel bad about ourselves and our own inadequacies? Tesser (1986):
Background image of page 6
Image of page 7
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 22

Nov24slides - THE SELF 1. Contents (what is it?) 2....

This preview shows document pages 1 - 7. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online