Lecture Outline
Moderators of Schema Usage-Continued
The Self
Functions of the Self
Self-Guides
Self-Guides and Memory
Self-Guides and Others
Role Models
Self-Regulation
Midterm
No Class March 6th (study instead)
Midterm: 75 multiple choice questions
 1/3
from book
 2/3 from lecture
1 short answer (from book and lecture)
Midterm: Example Questions
Kelley’s covariation model states that
perceivers use information form three
dimensions when making attributions for
another’s behavior. These dimensions are:
e
a. instinctiveness, consensus, consistency
b. stability, distinctiveness, consensus
c. inconsistency, consensus, distinctiveness
d. uniqueness, inconsistency, consensus
e. consensus, distinctiveness, consistency
f. none of the above
Which of the following explains why the probabilistic view of schemas allows for the possibility
that schema members may vary in typicality.
a) there are necessary, but not sufficient features needed
for an instance to be categorized as a schema member
b) schema members share a family resemblance
c) an instance must have a minimum number of features in
common with schema members to be categorized as a
schema member
d) there are necessary and sufficient features needed for
an instance to be categorized as a schema member
e) a and c
f) none of the above
b
Moderators of Schema Usage
Circadian Cycles of Arousal
Morning Types:
 Reach functional peak early in day
Evening Types:
 Reach
function peak late in day
Bodenhausen (1990)
Predictions
Morning Types
 high
attention early in day Stereotyping low
Stereotyping high
 low attention late in day
Evening Types:
 low
attention early in day Stereotyping high
 high attention late in day Stereotyping low
Bodenhausen (1990)
Procedures:
Read about misconduct on campus
Misconduct = assaulted roommate
Read mixed evidence
Rated suspect’s guilt
Manipulations:
Suspect = Hispanic or White
Ratings made early or late in day
Who should stereotype more late in the day?
Morning Types
7.00
6.50
1.06
6.00
.57
Hispanic
White
5.50
5.00
4.50
Morning Type
Evening Type
Who should stereotype more early in the day?
Evening Types
1.74
7.00
6.50
6.00
Hispanic
White
.47
5.50
5.00
4.50
Morning Type
Evening Type
Kruglanski & Freund (1983)
Prediction:
Time pressure increases stereotyping
?
According to Continuum Model
Why should Time Pressure have this effect
Because time pressure
reduces perceivers’ attention to target
Kruglanski & Freund (1983)
Procedures:
Participants read essay by 8th grader
Grade the essay
In reality, essay written by a teacher
Kruglanski & Freund (1983)
Manipulations
1. 8th grader’s ethnicity
 Ashkenasi
Jew (stereotyped as smarter)
 Sepharadi Jew (stereotyped as dumber)
2. Time Pressure
 unlimited
time to read essay
 limited time to read essay
Results
85.00
80.00
75.00
16.35 %
8.85 %
70.00
65.00
60.00
Time Pressure
Ashkenazi Jew
No Time Pressure
Sepharadi Jew
The Self
We know what it is….
People use the term all the time….
But how is it defined?….
Three Components of the Self
Physical self: one’s body
Social identity: one’s self-schema
—social roles (I am a mother)
—traits (I am a hard worker)
—future hopes/goals (I want to move away)
—past memories (I went to the beach in 1987)
Active agent: one’s thoughts and actions
—decisions
—behavior
Functions of the Self
Interpersonal tool
Decision Maker
Self-Regulation
Self-Guides
The actual self
What you are
The ideal self
What you want to be
The ought self
What you should be
Ideal vs.. Ought
Your ideal self can be similar to your ought
self
e.g., you want to be a good student (ideal)
and believe that you should be a good
student (ought)
Ideal vs. Ought
Your ideal self can be discrepant from your
ought self
e.g., you want to be in a rock band (ideal),
but believe that you should be a doctor
(ought)
Self-Discrepancy Theory
Higgins (1987)
Premise: People evaluate themselves by
comparing…..
actual self to ideal self
actual self to ought self
A discrepancy causes people to experience
negative emotions
Self-Discrepancy Theory
The kind of negative emotions elicited by a
discrepancy depends on one’s goals
Promotional goals:
striving for positive outcomes
I want to have a happy marriage
I want to have a successful career
Self-Discrepancy Theory
Preventative goals:
striving to avoid negative outcomes
I don’t want to get divorced
I don’t want to get a bad grade on the test
Self-Discrepancy Theory
Failure to attain promotional goals :
 mismatch
between actual and ideal
 experience sadness and dejection
Failure to attain preventative goals :
 mismatch
between actual and ought
 experience anxiety and agitation
Higgins et al. (1986)
Predictions:
1. Actual--Ideal discrepancy = sadness
2. Actual--Ought discrepancy = agitation
Higgins et al. (1986)
Step 1
Purpose: Identify participants with
 Large Actual--Ideal
discrepancies
 Large Actual--Ought
discrepancies
Higgins et al. (1986)
Step 1
Procedure:
1. Participants listed attributes associated
with their actual, ideal, and ought selves
2. Judges compared the lists and identified
the kind of discrepancies each had
Higgins et al. (1986)
Step 2
Purpose: Test prediction
 A-I
discrepancy = sadness
 A-O discrepancy = agitation
Procedure:
imagined an event
rated self in terms of sadness and
agitation
Higgins et al. (1986)
Manipulation: Valence of imagined event
Negative event (e.g., rejected)
Positive event (e.g., spent time with
admired other)
Results
Negative Event
Positive Event
Sadness
Agitation
Sadness
Agitation
A-Ideal
.24
.00
.03
.03
A-Ought
.04
.11
.06
.09
Positive Event: Type of discrepancy did not matter
Negative Event: Type of discrepancy mattered:
A-I discrepancy = more sadness
A-O discrepancy = more agitation
Unanswered Questions
Does the size of the discrepancy
influence how bad someone feels?
Does the discrepancy have to be
accessible (i.e., activated) to influence
negative emotions?
Higgins et al. (1997)
Hypothesis:
Larger discrepancy = more negative emotion….
BUT…
only when discrepancy is accessible
Higgins et al. (1997)
Step 1: Assessed SIZE of discrepancy
Participants generated 3-5 attributes for:
—ideal self
—ought self
Rated extent to which they:
—actually had each attribute
—wanted to have each attribute
—ought to have each attribute
Higgins et al. (1997)
Step 2: Assessed ACCESSIBILITY of
discrepancy
Time it took participants to respond to
previous questions
Faster = discrepancy more accessible
Higgins et al. (1997)
Step 3:
Participants rated how sad and agitated
they felt
Higgins et al. (1997)
Step 4:
Researchers divided participants into two
groups based on reaction time task:
1) Discrepancy highly accessible
participants who made fast ratings
2) Discrepancy not highly accessible
participants who made slow ratings
Higgins et al. (1997)
Analysis
Correlated size of discrepancy with:
—reported level of sadness
—reported level of agitation
Higgins et al. (1997)
Recap of Hypothesis
Larger discrepancy = more negative emotion….
BUT…
only when discrepancy is accessible
So, who should feel the worst?
Higgins et al. (1997)
Answer
Participants who have large
discrepancies that are also highly
accessible
Results
Correlations between size of
discrepancy and negative emotion
size of A-I
discrepancy-sadness
size of A-O
discrepancy-agitation
High
Low
High
Low
Accessibility Accessibility Accessibility Accessibility
r = .28
r = -.13
r = .44
r = -.07
Previous studies:
Accessibility of discrepancy assessed,
not manipulated.
Question:
Would same result occur if accessibility
of discrepancy was manipulated?
Yes. Manipulating accessibility via a
reminder also produces…….
More sadness for Actual-Ideal discrepancies
More agitation for Actual-Ought discrepancies
Self-Guides and Memory
Previous studies:
The kind of discrepancy one feels affects
the negative emotions one experiences
Question:
Does the discrepancy one feels also
affect one’s memory for events?
Higgins & Tykocinski (1992)
Hypothesis: Memory depends on the kind
of discrepancy one experiences
 Actual--Ideal
discrepancy = Better memory
for attainment of desired outcomes
(i.e., promotional goals)
 Actual--Ought
discrepancy = Better memory
for attainment of avoided misfortune
(i.e., preventative goals)
Higgins & Tykocinski (1992)
Step 1: Identified participants with A-I and A-O
discrepancies
Step 2: Participants read essay about another in
which 20 events occurred.
8 events = positive outcome present or absent
8 events = negative outcome present or absent
4 events = neutral fillers
Example Events
Positive Outcome
Present: found $20
Absent: movie wanted to see no longer
showing
Negative Outcome
Present: stuck in subway
Absent: skipped unpleasant day at school
Step 3: Surprise memory test for essay’s content
A-I remembered more positive events than A-O
A-O remembered more negative events than A-I
6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
4.50
4.00
Positive Outcome
Actual-Ideal
Negative Outcome
Actual-Ought
Self-Guides and Others
Sometimes others outperform us
Example:
 Your
friend does better on the midterm than
you
 Your
co-worker gets promoted, but you don’t
Self-Guides and Others
When this happens, do you feel….
GOOD
BAD
Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model
According to the SEM, the answer
depends on the domain’s self-relevance
Premise of SEM: Being outperformed by
a “close other” will make you feel:
 GOOD,
 BAD,
if you don’t care about the domain
if you do care about the domain
Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model
Close other = person similar to yourself
Examples:
same status
similar personality
family members
shared place of origin
Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model
Summary of SEM Premise:
Being outperformed by close other on
self-irrelevant domain makes one feel
good
Being outperformed by close other on
self-relevant domain makes one feel
bad
Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model
Assumptions of SEM Premise:
People want to maintain a positive selfview
Being outperformed by a close other
threatens one’s positive self-view
People try to reduce threats to their
self-worth
Ways to reduce the threat others
pose to your self-worth
Reduce your closeness to the other
The more distant you are to those
who outperform you, the less threat
their accomplishments pose
to your self-worth
Ways to reduce the threat others
pose to your self-worth
Reduce self-relevance of the domain
The less you care about the domains
on which you are outperformed, the
less threatening your poor performance
is to your self-worth
Ways to reduce the threat others
pose to your self-worth
Minimize others’ accomplishment
Explaining away other people’s
accomplishments makes their
good performance less threatening
to your self-worth
Ways to reduce the threat others
pose to your self-worth
Undermine others’ future
performance
Reducing the likelihood that others
will perform highly in the future
protects your own self-worth
Tesser & Cornell (1991)
Purpose:
Show that others will undermine the
performance of a friend to protect
own self-worth
Tesser & Cornell (1991)
Procedure:
Step 1: Two sets male friends at session
Step 2: Each participant sat alone in room
Step 3: Each completed verbal task
 IQ
test (high self-relevance)
 Game (low self-relevance)
Tesser & Cornell (1991)
Procedure:
Step 4: Each told they had come out 3rd
—friend and one stranger did better
Step 5: Perform 2nd task for which
they will give clues to others
Tesser & Cornell (1991)
Some clues more helpful than others
Important Question
Will participants give more helpful clues to
their friend, or to the strangers?
Results
Low self-relevant group (Game)
 gave more helpful clues to friend
Why?
Domain not self-relevant
High self-relevant group (IQ test)
 gave more helpful clues to strangers
Why?
Domain is self-relevant,
and friend is close other
Limitation of SEM
Being outperformed by close other
does not always make people feel
bad
 Role
models are close others, and
their good performance can inspire
people
Role Models
Attainability may be key
Role models achieve success in domains
that are still attainable for oneself
Lockwood & Kunda (1989)
Purpose:
Test if “attainability” influences one’s
emotional reaction to being outperformed
Lockwood & Kunda (1989)
Prediction: A close other’s accomplishment
will make one feel:
 good
when accomplishment is still
attainable by self
 bad
when accomplishment is no longer
attainable by self
Lockwood & Kunda (1989)
Experimental Groups:
Step 1: 1st year and 4th year students read
story about star student described as:
4th year accounting student
award for academic excellence
active in sports and community service
Step 2: rated self on adjectives related to
career success (bright, skillful)
Lockwood & Kunda (1989)
Control Group:
Step 1: 1st year and 4th year students rated
self on adjectives related to career
success
DID NOT READ STORY
Perceived career success
Results
9.00
8.70
8.90
8.40
8.10
8.29
8.19
7.80
7.88
7.50
1st Years
Read Story
4th Years
Did Not Read Story
Free Responses
of those who read story
1st years
 82% were inspired
4th years
 only 6% were inspired
 50% reduced
closeness to star
student
Conclusion: Whether a close other’s performance
makes you feel good or bad about yourself may
depend on how attainable the accomplishment
seems for you
Self-Regulation
Definition: The managing of oneself
 personal
care
 behaviors
 choices
 interpersonal relationships
 work activities
The way that people manage themselves
depends on their motives
Self-enhancement theory
Premise: People are motivated to think well
of themselves
Function: Raise one’s self-worth
People engage in self-regulatory behaviors
that cause them and others to view them
favorably
Ways to Self-Enhance
Make others view you favorably
 conform
to situational norms
 flatter other people
Make yourself view you favorably
 self-serving
attributions
 reduce cognitive dissonance
 downward social comparison
Self-consistency theory
Premise: People are motivated to confirm
their pre-existing self-views (to self-verify)
Function:
ward off failure
consistency is comforting
People engage in self-regulatory behaviors
that cause others to view them as they
view themselves
Self-enhancement v.s. Self-consistency
Imagine that you want to test whether
people typically self-enhance or self-verify
Would you examine people’s self-regulation
for positive or negative attributes?
Why?
Self-enhancement v.s. Self-consistency
Answer: examine people’s self-regulation
for negative attributes
Why? Because the theories generate the
same prediction for positive attributes, but
different predictions for negative attributes
Specifically………………...
Self-enhancement theory
Seek positive information about
positive attributes to maintain positive selfview
Self-consistency theory
Seek positive information about positive
attributes to maintain consistency
Cannot distinguish between the
two theories on positive attributes
Self-enhancement theory
Seek positive information about
negative attributes to raise one’s self-view
Self-consistency theory
Seek negative information about
negative attributes to maintain consistency
Can distinguish between the
two theories on negative attributes
Swann & Read (1981)
Purpose: pitted self-enhancement theory
against self-consistency theory
Swann & Read (1981)
Procedure
Step 1: Personality inventory: (dis)agreeableness
Step 2: Beliefs on controversial topics
Step 3: “True” purpose of study divulged
Step 4: Beliefs on controversial topics given
to partner
Swann & Read (1981)
Procedure
Step 5: Participant given four forms
1 from partner
3 from previous participants
Each form had one attribute circled:
Agreeable or Disagreeable
Swann & Read (1981)
Procedure:
Instructed to:
pick one evaluation
determine whether it was partner’s
evaluation of self
Made determination by examining additional
statements
Swann & Read (1981)
Dependent Variable:
Time spent viewing additional statements
Swann & Read (1981)
Predictions
Self-consistency: Spend more time
viewing form that matched own self-view
Self-enhancement: Spend more time
viewing form where “agreeable” was
circled, regardless of own self-view
Results
18
16
14
12
10
Agreeable Rating Form
Self Agreeable
Disagreeable Rating Form
Self Disagreeable
Conclusion:
Participants acted in manner
consistent with self-consistency
theory.
Spent more time reading statements
that matched own self-view
When do people self-enhance?
Few objective standards for evaluation
When do people self-verify?
Clear self-view
And, sometimes people don’t do either.
Accuracy motives: when people have
unclear self-views