Social Cognition I: The Interpersonal Nature of the Self

1
Social Cognition I The Interpersonal Nature of
the Self
Lecture 3 July 2, 2007
2

I love you not only for what you are, but for
what I am when I am with youfor what you are
making of me. I love you for the part of me that
you bring out. Elizabeth Barrett Browning
3
Let me Go by 3 Doors Down
One more kiss could be the best thingOr one more
lie could be the worstAnd all these thoughts are
never restingAnd youre not something I
deserveAnd you love me but you don't know who I
amSo let me go, let me go
4
The Interpersonal Self

• How do significant others affect the self?
• Understanding the self in relation to others
• How does the self affect how we relate to
  significant others?
• Well save this discussion for later

5
The Relational Self

• How do significant others affect the self?
• The self is inherently relational
• The self is multi-dimensional
• Who am I? It depends on who Im with
• Different relational selves linked to different
  relational partners

6
The Relational Self

• What is a relational self?
• Self-knowledge, affect, motivation, behavioral
  tendencies in relation to significant others
  (Chen et al., 2006)
• Traits
• Affect and emotions
• Goals
• Self-regulatory strategies
• Typical behavioral strategies

7
The Relational Self

• Example Self in relation to critical mother
• Traits self as insecure, inferior, weak
• Affect anxiety, anger
• Goals avoid conflict, try to please
• Behavior limit self-disclosure

8
The Relational Self

• Different relational selves will be activated in
  different contexts
• Can be activated by actual, imagined, or
  symbolic presence of significant other
• Much operates automatically by contextual cues
• Shapes thoughts, feelings, motivation, behavior
• Often outside conscious awareness
• Can be difficult (although not impossible) to
  monitor and control without effort

9
Relational Schemas

• How do significant others affect our
  self-evaluations?
• Baldwin colleagues fascinating research program
  (1987, 1990, 1996)
• Temporarily prime significant others (accepting,
  rejecting, judgmental, and so on)
• Make judgments about the self
• Self-evaluations are shaped by significant
  others, even when primed below conscious
  awareness

10
Relational Schemas

• Baldwin, Carrell, Lopez (1990) My advisor and
  thePope are watching me from the back of my
  mind
• Study 1 Graduate students exposed to a
  subliminal picture of scowling department chair
  (vs. unknown other) rated their research ideas
  more critically
• Study 2 Catholic women who read sexual passage,
  and were exposed to subliminal picture of
  disapproving Pope (vs. unknown other) evaluated
  themselves more negatively and reported more
  negative affect (anxiety, tension)

11
The Relational Self

• How do significant others affect our goals?
• John Bargh (Fitzsimons Bargh 2003)James Shah
  (2003a, 2003b)
• Temporarily prime significant others (mom, dad,
  friend)
• Rate personal goals, or actually pursue goals
• Goals and behaviors are concordant with
  significant other, even when primed below
  conscious awareness (subliminal)

12
The Relational Self

• Fitzsimons Bargh (2003) Study 4a
• Participants pre-selected because they either did
  or did not have the goal to make their mom
  proud
• In lab, participants subliminally primed with
  their mom (vs. other)
• Completed verbal skills task
• Results Mom prime make mom proud goal
  better performance

13
The Relational Self

• What are the broader implications of research in
  this tradition?
• Do these effects tell us something
  fundamentalabout human psychology?
• Do these effects generalize outside the lab?Do
  they generalize to romantic relationships?
• What is the significance (if any) of subliminal
  priming?

14

Does falling in love change the self?
15
Falling in Love

• Self-Expansion Theory (Aron Aron, 1986)
• Falling in love transforms the self
• What are the consequences of falling in love?
• Self expansion
• Increased self-efficacy and self-esteem

16
Self-expansion Theory

• Self-Expansion Theory (Aron Aron, 1986)
• Self-expansion is a central human motive
• Increase physical and social resources,
  perspectives, identities that facilitate goal
  achievement
• Close relationships are one way to expand the
  self
• Inclusion-of-other-in-Self (IOS)

17
Self-expansion Theory

• Basic principles of IOS model
• People in close relationships act as if some or
  all aspects of the partner are partially ones
  own
• Self and partner become cognitively fused to
  some degree
• Beloved is incorporated into the self
• Resources benefits to other also benefit the
  self
• Perspectives partners perspectives become
  ones own
• Characteristics partners characteristics
  become shared

18
Love as Self-expansion

• Love leads to self-expansion through
• Inclusion of other in the self (IOS)
• Self-discovery (learn new things about self)
• Love leads to increased self-efficacy and esteem
• Love is a desired goal meeting the goal
  increases esteem and perceived control
• Reflected appraisals discovering that someone
  loves and even idealizes us increases esteem
• IOS increases efficacy

19
Self-expansion theory

• Aron, Paris, Aron (1995)
• Two studies
• Followed students over a semester, assessed them
  every 2.5 weeks
• Who are you today?
• Content coded
• Measured self-efficacy and self-esteem
• Did you fall in love?

20
Self-expansion theory

• Results
• Men and women equally likely to have fallen in
  love
• Those who fell in love (compared to those who did
  not) experienced
• greater increases in self-concept change
• these changes were more positive and more diverse
• greater increases in self-esteem
• greater increases in self-efficacy

21
Self-expansion theory

• Does falling in love move you (expand you) toward
  your ideal self, your ideal life?
• Romantic love may largely depend on the
  perception that this partner will complete you,
  will fulfill your hopes and wishes in ways that
  other partners cannot
• Im the bread, youre the crust MCP
• Can the self-expand in negative ways?

22

Is it better to be knownor to be adored?
23
Illusion or Reality?

• Is it better to
• be known or to be adored?
• have a realistic view of our partner or to see
  him/her through rose colored glasses?
• have partners who have a realistic image of us or
  to have partners who see more virtue in us than
  we see in ourselves?

24
Two perspectives on the self

• To be known or to be adored?
• Do we want our partners to see us the way we see
  ourselves, even if our self-perceptions are
  negative?
• Do we want our partners to see us in the most
  favorable light, regardless of own perceptions?
• Self-verification vs. Self-enhancement

25
Self-Verification

• Self-Verification (Bill Swann)
• People seek feedback that confirms their
  self-conceptions
• Many laboratory studies reveal that people prefer
  to interact with others who confirm their
  self-image, even when this image is negative
• Why the need for verification?
• Feel validated, understood
• Perceive that interaction will go smoothly
• Anticipate acceptance (avoid rejection)

26
Self-Verification

• Does this extend to close relationships?
• Swann et al. (1994)
• Questionnaire studies of dating and married
  couples
• How do you see yourself?
• Intelligence, social competence, artistic ability
• How does your partner see you?

27
Self-Verification

• Summary of findings
• Satisfaction and intimacy highest when partners
  were verified, even when verification was
  negative
• However, only for married couples
• Dating couples showed evidence of enhancement
• Why the marriage shift?

28
Positive Illusions

• Positive Illusions (Murray Holmes)
• Idealization necessary for continuing commitment
  and satisfaction
• Tension between desire for commitment and
  realization of partners faults
• Tension between hopes and doubts
• Assumes that perceptions of a partner are
  malleable, largely a process of construal

29
Positive Illusions
How you see yourself
How your partner sees you

• How much overlap? Do partners agree?
• Do partners tend to see us realistically or more
  favorably than we see ourselves?
• Do idealized imagines or realistic images predict
  greater satisfaction?

30
Positive Illusions

• Murray et al. (1996a)
• Married and dating couples
• Interpersonal qualities measure
• Kind, intelligent, critical moody, lazy
• Describe self, partner, ideal partner, typical
  partner
• Current satisfaction and one-year later

31
Positive Illusions

• How much did partners agree?
• r .30
• Modest level of agreement/overlap
• No gender differences

32
Positive Illusions

• Did partners tend to hold positive illusions?
• Clear evidence for positive illusion effects
• Partner was viewed more favorably than
  thetypical partner
• Partner was viewed more favorably than the
  partners own self view

33
Positive Illusions

• But are these illusions beneficial or harmful?
• Are we happier when we idealize our partner?
• Are we happier when our partners idealize us?
• Clear evidence Positive illusions were
  associated with positive outcomes
• Individuals who idealized their partner were
  happiernow and one year later
• Individuals who were idealized by their partner
  were happier now and one year later

34
Positive Illusions

• Murray et al. (2000)
• Difficult to know where reality or accuracy
  lies
• Ratings made by self, spouse, and friends
• High satis spouses saw their partner more
  positively than did their friends or their
  partner Positive illusion
• Low satis spouses saw their partners more
  negatively than did their friends or their
  partner Tainted image

35
Positive Illusions

• Satisfied spouses also had partners who saw them
  in a positive light
• Better than they see themselves
• Better than their friends see them
• Thus, it appears that satisfied spouses have
  partners who bolster their sense of self-worth
• No evidence of Swanns marriage shift

36
Positive Illusions

• Is love blind?
• No, love is not blind
• Illusion constrained by reality
• Not unconditional regard, but seeing the best in
  our partner, despite imperfections
• Seeing reality in the best possible light
• Highlight virtues, minimize faults

37
Positive Illusions

• What is the causal process?
• Does satisfaction motivate benevolent/tainted
  construal?
• Does benevolent (vs. tainted) construal enhance
  (vs. reduce) satisfaction?

38
Positive Illusions

• How does illusion promote satisfaction?
• Treat our partners more kindly
• More accommodative behavior
• More generous attributions
• Bolster partners self-worth and trust/felt
  security

39
Positive Illusions

• Do we want our partners to love an illusion?
• Will this lead to ultimate disappointment?
• Extreme misunderstanding may indeed be unhealthy
• We want to be both understood and to be lovedand
  adored for who we really are

40
Positive Illusions

• Longitudinal evidence that being loved, adored,
  idealized makes us feel better about ourselves
• The self changes in response to the expectations,
  beliefs, standards of close others
• Murray et al. (1996b 2000) has shown that
  insecure individuals become more secure over time
  when their partners hold idealized images of them
• Being idealized also associated with increases in
  satisfaction and decreases in conflict and doubts