The Role of the Social Situation – Principles of Social Psychology – 1st International Edition H5P (2023)

Chapter 3. The Me

learning goals

  1. Describe the mirror-self concept and how it affects our concept of self.
  2. Investigate the impact of labeling bias, self-labeling, and internalized bias on people's self-concept, particularly those from marginalized social groups.
  3. Define social comparisons and summarize how people use them to define their self-concepts and self-esteem.
  4. Give examples of the use of bottom-up and bottom-up social comparison and their influence on social cognition and affect.
  5. Explain the concept of social identity and why it is important for human behavior.
  6. Describe how self-evaluation theory helps explain how we respond when other people's behavior threatens our sense of self.
  7. Describe the concept of self-expression and the different strategies we use to present ourselves to others.
  8. Describe the concept of reputation management and how it relates to self-expression.
  9. Discuss the self-control individual difference variable and how it relates to the ability and desire to present.

So far we have seen, among other things, that people have complex and well-developed self-concepts and that they generally try to see themselves in a positive light. Of course, these more cognitive and affective aspects of ourselves do not occur in a vacuum. They are heavily influenced by the social forces that surround us. We have already alluded to some of these forces; For example, in our review of self-check theory, we looked at how feedback from others can affect our self-concept and esteem. We also examine how our sociocultural background can affect the content of our self-image.

In this section, we'll take a closer look at these and other social aspects of self as we look at the various ways in which our social situation affects our self-concept and self-esteem. The self is not created in isolation; For example, we are not born with the perception of ourselves as shy, interested in jazz, or charitable to others. Rather, these beliefs are determined by our observations and interactions with others. Are you rich or poor Pretty or ugly? Smart or not? Good or bad for playing video games? And how do you know that? These questions can only be answered by looking at the people around us. The self has meaning only in the social context, and it is not wrong to say that the social situation determines our self-image and self-esteem. We depend on others to provide us with a "social reality" that helps us determine what to think, feel, and do (Hardin & Higgins, 1996). But what forms do these social influences take? Now we turn to this question.

that's what the term meansPart of how we see ourselves comes from our perception of how others see us.(Cooley, 1902). For example, we feel that we have a great sense of humor because others have told us so, and we often (apparently sincerely) laugh at our jokes. Many studies have supported a fundamental prediction derived from the notion of the mirror self, namely that our self-concepts are often very similar to others' opinions of us (Beer, Watson, & McDade-Montez, 2013). This can be especially the case for people from our own family and culture. For example, Perkins, Wiley, and Deaux (2014) found that in the United States, how members of ethnic minorities believed they were viewed by others in the same culture correlated significantly with their self-esteem. In contrast, European Americans' perceived worth was only weakly related to their self-esteem.

However, this evidence is purely correlative, so we cannot be sure how influence works. We can develop our self-image quite independently of others, and then they align their image of us with how we see ourselves. The work of Mark Baldwin and his colleagues was particularly important in showing that how we think others actually perceive us can affect how we see ourselves.

For example, Baldwin and Holmes (1987) conducted two experiments to test the hypothesis that our self-concepts derive in part from how we imagine significant others would perceive us. In the first study, 40 women were asked to visualize the faces of two acquaintances or two older members of their own family. Subsequently, they were asked to rate their perception of pleasure in a work of fiction with sexual content and, in general, responded according to the reactions they thought the people they saw would have. This effect was most pronounced when they sat in front of a mirror (recall the earlier discussion of self-awareness theory). In the second study, 60 men were exposed to a failure situation and then the self-evaluation of that failure was measured. As in the women's study, the men's self-ratings were consistent with what they believed would have been done by the visualized subjects, especially if they had been more self-aware. So at least sometimes we judge ourselves as we imagine others to be. Of course, it can also work both ways. Over time, those around us can accept the self-concept we present to others (Yeung & Martin, 2003).

Sometimes the impact of others' assessments of ourselves on our self-image can be so strong that we internalize them. For example, we are often labeled by others in certain ways, perhaps informally in terms of our ethnicity, or more formally in terms of a physical or psychological diagnosis. it happenswhen we are labeled and others' opinions and expectations of us are influenced by that label(Fox and Stinnett, 1996). For example, if a teacher knows that a child has been diagnosed with a certain mental disorder, that teacher may have different expectations and explanations for the child's behavior than if they were not aware of that label. It becomes really interesting for our current discussion when these expectations become self-fulfilling prophecies and our self-image and even our behavior start to align with them. For example, when children are labeled in special education settings, these labels can affect their self-esteem (Taylor, Hume, & Welsh, 2010).

If we are repeatedly labeled and evaluated by others, then what happens can happen.if weExplicitly adopt the labels of others in our self-image.🇧🇷 The impact of this self-labeling on our self-esteem seems to depend heavily on the type of labels. Labels used in relation to diagnosing mental disorders can be harmful to people who later internalize them. For example, Moses (2009) found that adolescents who labeled themselves for the diagnoses they received exhibited higher levels of self-stigmatization in their self-concept than those who described their challenges in non-pathological terms. In such a situation, those who label themselves can experience what is happeningwhen individuals transform into themselves the prejudices directed against them by others.Internalized biases have been found to predict a more negative self-concept and poorer psychological adjustment in members of different groups, including sexual minorities (Carter, 2012) and racial minorities (Szymanski & Obiri, 2011).

In other cases, the labels used by society as a whole to describe people negatively can be claimed positively by those who are labelled. Galinsky and colleagues (2013) exploited this use of self-labels by members of oppressed groups to reclaim derogatory terms such as "queer" and "whore" used by dominant groups. After the self-assessment, minority members rated these terms less negatively, stated that they felt more powerful, and were also perceived as more powerful by observers. Taken together, these results indicate that people who incorporate a previously negative label into their self-concept in order to regain it can sometimes erode the stigma associated with the label.

Social Comparison Theory: Our sense of self is influenced by comparisons with others

Self-concept and self-esteem are also strongly influenced by the learning process (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007; Van Lange, 2008). A social comparison takes placewhen we learn about our skills and abilities, about the adequacy and validity of our opinions and about our relative social status by comparing our own attitudes, beliefs and behaviors with those of others🇧🇷 These comparisons can be made with people we know and interact with, people we read about or see on TV, or other people we consider important. However, the most meaningful comparisons we make tend to be those we see as similar to ourselves (Festinger, 1954).

Social comparisons mostly occur on dimensions where there are no right answers or objective benchmarks, and therefore we can only rely on the beliefs of others for information. Answers to questions like "What should I wear to an interview?" or "What kind of music should I have at my wedding?" are often determined, at least in part, by using other people's behavior as a basis for comparison. We also use social comparisons to determine our skills or abilities, such as how well we do a task or job. When students ask the teacher about the class average on a test, they also try to use social comparisons to gauge their performance.

research focus

Belonging and social comparison

The extent to which individuals use social comparisons to inform their evaluations of events has been demonstrated in a series of classic surveys conducted by Stanley Schachter (1959). Schachter's experiments tested the hypothesis that people who felt anxious would rather associate with other people than be alone because the presence of other people would reduce their anxiety. College students at the University of Minnesota volunteered to participate in one of his experiments to earn extra credit in their introductory psychology course. When they arrived at the experimental room, they found a scientist in a white coat standing in front of a row of electrical machines. The scientist introduced himself as Dr. Zilstein of the Department of Neurology and Psychiatry and told the women that they were to participate in an experiment on the effects of electric shock. Dr Zilstein emphasized the importance of educating yourself about the effects of shock as electroshock therapy becomes more widespread and the number of accidents involving electricity also increases.

At this point, experimental manipulation was performed. Half of the participants (those from thehigh anxiety) were told that the shocks would be "painful" and "intense", although they were sure that they would not cause lasting damage. The other half of the participants (those from thelow anxiety) were also told that they would receive shocks, but they would not be painful at all; Rather, the discharges are considered mild and resemble a "pins and needles" or "pins and needles" sensation. Of course, respondents were randomly assigned to conditions to ensure that women in the two conditions were, on average, equivalent, with the exception of experimental manipulation.

Each of the women was then told that the experimenter must set up the equipment before the experiment could proceed and that they would have to wait until it was finished. She asked them if they preferred to wait alone or with others. The result of Schachter's research was clear: while only 33% of women who expected mild shocks preferred to wait with others, 63% of women who expected painful shocks preferred to wait with others. This was a statistically significant difference, and Schachter concluded that women chose to band together to reduce their fear of impending crises.

In follow-up studies, Schachter found that stressed research participants didn't want to wait with someone else. They preferred to wait with other people who were expecting the same severe shocks as they were, rather than people who were supposedly just waiting to see their teacher. Schachter concluded that this is not just because being around other people can reduce our anxiety, but also because we use other people in the same situation as ours to help us determine how we should think about things. As Schachter (1959) put it, "Misery does not love just any kind of society, it loves only miserable society" (p. 24). In this case, the participants expected to learn from the other participants how they should be afraid of impending accidents.

Ultimately, and just as the idea of ​​social comparison predicted, the women in Schachter's studies relied on each other to understand what was happening to them and how they should feel and respond to their social situation. Once again, the power of the social situation in determining our beliefs and attitudes is evident in this case.

Although Schachter's studies were conducted in relatively artificial laboratory environments, similar effects were found in field studies in more natural environments. For example, Kulik, Mahler, and Moore (1996) found that hospital patients awaiting surgery prefer to talk with others awaiting similar procedures, rather than patients undergoing different procedures, so that they can share information about what they may be experiencing. What's more, Kulik and his colleagues found that sharing information was helpful: People who could share more information had shorter hospital stays.

Upward and negative comparisons affect our self-esteem

Although we use social comparison in part to develop our self-concept—that is, to make accurate inferences about our attitudes, abilities, and opinions—social comparison perhaps has an even greater impact on our self-esteem. When we can positively compare ourselves to others, we feel good, but when the result of the comparison suggests that others are better or better than us, our self-esteem is likely to suffer. This is one of the reasons why good students who attend high schools where other students are average suddenly find their self-esteem threatened when they transfer to colleges and universities where they are no longer better than other students (Marsh, Kong , & Skin, 2000). Maybe you've seen how your self-esteem changes when you start a new school year, get a new job, or change your circle of friends. In these cases, you may have felt much better or much worse, depending on the nature of the change. You see that in these cases the actual characteristics of the individual have not changed at all; only the social situation and comparison with others have changed.

Because many people naturally want to have positive self-esteem, they often try to compare themselves positively to others. occurswhen we try to create a positive image of ourselves through favorable comparisons with others who are worse off than we are.In one study, Morse and Gergen (1970) asked students to apply for a job and also introduced students to another person who would be applying for the same job. When the other candidate was presented as less qualified for the position, the downward comparison with the less qualified candidate made students feel better about their own qualifications. As a result, students reported higher self-esteem than when the other candidate was seen as a highly competent candidate. Research has also found that people with serious illnesses prefer to compare their condition with others whose current condition and likely prognosis are worse than their own (Buunk, Gibbons, & Visser, 2002). These comparisons make them more optimistic about their own possible outcomes. Using social comparison downwards more often than upwards with other similar individuals has been shown to be a commonly used coping strategy to maintain self-esteem in the face of a variety of life-challenging situations, including experiences of physical disability. , rheumatoid arthritis , AIDS, stress at work. burnout, eating disorders, unemployment, educational difficulties, and intellectual disability (Buunk, Gibbons & Buunk, 1997).

While downward comparison gives us positive feelings about what is happeningwhen we compare ourselves to others who are better than us, is also common (Blanton, Buunk, Gibbons & Kuyper, 1999; Vrugt & Koenis, 2002). Upward comparisons can lower our self-esteem by reminding us that we are not doing as well as others. The power of upward social comparison to lower self-esteem has been documented in many areas (Buunk, Gibbons & Buunk, 1997). Going back to our case study at the beginning of this chapter, this power can sometimes be felt strongly when we look at social media. Imagine someone who is having a bad day or is generally not happy with how life is going and then logs onto Facebook to see that most of their friends have posted very positive status updates about how happy they are, how they are doing. going or how wonderful a vacation they are having. How would you predict how this person would feel? Would this person like to know that their friends are happy, or would their friends' happiness make them feel worse? Research on upward social comparisons with peers would suggest the latter, and this has been empirically demonstrated. Feinstein and colleagues (2013) investigated whether the tendency to make bottom-up social comparisons on Facebook led to increased symptoms of depression over a three-week period. In fact, more upward comparisons predicted more rumination, which in turn was associated with increased depressive symptoms.

Despite these negative effects of upward comparisons, they can sometimes be useful because they provide information that can help us improve, help us imagine ourselves as part of the group of successful people, who we want to be (Collins, 2000) and give hope (Snyder, Cheavens and Sympson, 1997). The power of bottom-up social comparison can also be harnessed for social good. When people notice that others are already exhibiting certain prosocial behaviors, they often do the same, in part because upward social comparison is triggered. This has been demonstrated, for example, in relation to sustainable environmental practices, with bottom-up social comparisons helping to identify energy-saving behaviors among factory workers (Siero, Bakker, Dekker & van den Berg, 1996) and hotel guests (Goldstein, Cialdini & Griskevicius, 2008). As with downward comparisons, the effects of looking up on our self-esteem tend to be more pronounced when comparing ourselves with other similar people. For example, if you've ever performed poorly in a sport, you're probably more at risk from your teammates than you are from the best professional athletes in that sport.

The results of upward and downward social comparisons can have a significant impact on how we feel, our efforts to improve, and even whether or not we want to continue an activity. When we compare ourselves positively with others and feel that we are achieving our goals and meeting the expectations set by ourselves and others, we feel good, enjoy the activity and try harder. However, when we negatively compare ourselves to others, we are more likely to feel bad and enjoy the activity less or even stop it altogether. When social comparisons go wrong for us, we may experience depression or anxiety, and these discrepancies are important determinants of our self-esteem (Higgins, Loeb, & Moretti, 1995; Strauman & Higgins, 1988).

While everyone makes social comparisons, both up and down, there are some sources of variation in how often we do this and what kind we tend to prefer. Since social comparisons generally increase downwards and self-esteem decreases upwards, and the pursuit of high self-esteem, as we have seen, is more pronounced in Western cultures than in Eastern cultures, it should come as no surprise that there are cultural differences here. 🇧🇷 For example, White and Lehman (2005) found that Asian Canadians made more upward social comparisons than European Canadians, particularly after failure and when the opportunity for self-improvement was emphasized. These results, the authors suggest, suggest that Asian Canadians used social comparison as a means of self-improvement rather than self-improvement.

There are also some age-related trends in social comparison. In general, older adults tend to make more negative comparisons than younger adults, which is one of the reasons why their self-esteem tends to be higher (Helgeson & Mickelson, 2000). Older adults also use more downward social comparisons to deal with feelings of regret than younger adults, and these comparisons are often more effective for them (Bauer, Wrosch, & Jobin, 2008). In addition to these cultural and age-related differences in social comparison processes, there are also individual differences. People who score higher on a measure of social comparison orientation have been found to experience more positive affect after top-down comparisons and more negative affect after bottom-up comparisons (Buunk, Zurriaga, Peiró, Nauta, & Gosalvez, 2005).

(Video) Intro to Psychology: Crash Course Psychology #1

Social Identity Theory: Our sense of identity is influenced by the groups we belong to

In our discussion of social comparisons, we saw that who we compare ourselves to can affect how we think about ourselves, for better or worse. Another social influence on our self-esteem is group membership. For example, we can gain self-esteem by perceiving ourselves as members of important and valued groups that make us feel good. saysWe design part of ourSense of identity and self-esteem of the social groups to which we belong(Hogg, 2003; Oakes, Haslam e Turner, 1994; Tajfel, 1981).

Normally, belonging to a group generates positive feelings, which arise from our positive perception of our own group and, therefore, of ourselves. If you are an Arsenal F.C. Fan, or if you are Australian or Muslim, your membership in the group becomes part of who you are and membership generally makes you feel good. The following list shows a measure of the strength of social identity with a group of college students. If you were taking the measurement for your own school, university or college, the survey would indicate that you would broadly agree with statements that show that you identify with the group.

Figure 3.10 A measure of social identity

This 10-point scale is used to measure identification with University of Maryland students, but it can be modified to assess identification with any group. Items marked with an R are inverted (so low numbers become high numbers and vice versa) before averaging the scale. The scale was originally described by Luhtanen and Crocker (1992).

For each of the following points, please indicate your response on a scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree) by writing a number in the blank space next to the question.

  1. ___ I identify with the student body at the University of Maryland.
  2. ___ I am proud to be part of the alumni group at the University of Maryland.
  3. ___ My apologies for being a student at the University of Maryland.
  4. ___ I think the student body at the University of Maryland is important.
  5. ___ I feel supported by the student body at the University of Maryland. (r)
  6. ___ I am critical of the University of Maryland student group. (r)
  7. ___ I consider myself a member of the student body at the University of Maryland.
  8. ___ I am trying to hide my membership in the University of Maryland student group. (r)
  9. ___ I feel a strong connection with the student body at the University of Maryland.
  10. ___ It bothers me to say that I am a student body at the University of Maryland. (r)

Kay Deaux and colleagues (Deaux, Reid, Mizrahi, and Ethier, 1995) asked US college students to list groups with which they identified. as you can see in itTable 3.1, “Variations of Social Identities”,Students reported belonging to a variety of groups and indicated that many of these groups gave them social identities. Categories listed included ethnic and religious groups (e.g., Asians, Jews), political affiliations (e.g., conservatives, Democrats), occupations and hobbies (e.g., gardener, tennis player), personal relationships (e.g., husband, girlfriend) and marginalized groups (eg gay, homeless). You can see that these identities probably give people a lot of positive feelings.

Table 3.1 Variants of social identities
Relationshipsvocation/hobbypolitical affiliationStigmaEthnicity/Religion
  • widow
  • divorced person
  • Madam
  • men
  • Lover
  • amigo
  • Amiga
  • freund
  • house donut
  • householder
  • adolescent
  • Nino
  • Wife
  • Husband
  • Sohn
  • she is
  • sister
  • brothers
  • Ter
  • Enter
  • Tio
  • Many
  • mother father
  • Intellectual
  • library hangout
  • military veteran
  • students
  • Collector
  • Musician
  • gardener
  • Maestro
  • Supervisor
  • secretary
  • Scientific
  • psychologist
  • seller
  • business person
  • athlete
  • Feminist
  • politically independent
  • democrats
  • republican
  • Another person
  • custom slices
  • person from taube
  • person with tools
  • lesbian
  • homosexual
  • smoker
  • Alcoholic
  • welfare recipients
  • Unemployed
  • homeless
  • Retired
  • New Yorker
  • americano
  • hispano
  • asian american
  • afro-americano
  • Jewish
  • Cristiano
  • Catholic
  • Leite
This table represents some of the many social identities reported by a sample of college students. Data are from Deaux and colleagues (1995).

Which of our many identities is most accessible to us varies from day to day based on the particular situation we find ourselves in (Yakushko, Davidson, & Williams, 2009). Seeing our national flag in front of a government building can remind us of our national identity, while passing by the local football stadium can remind us of our identification with our team. Identity can also be strengthened when conflict with another group is imminent, for example during a big sports game with an opposing team. Each of us has multiple social identities, and which of our identities we derive our self-esteem from at any given time depends on the situation in which we find ourselves and our social goals.

The Role of the Social Situation – Principles of Social Psychology – 1st International Edition H5P (1)

In particular, we use the opportunities in which our social groups achieve their goals to strengthen our self-esteem. Robert Cialdini and his colleagues (Cialdini et al., 1976) explored the idea that we can sometimes improve our self-esteem thanks to our inner groups, which happenswhen we use and publicize the positive accomplishments of our groups to boost our self-esteem🇧🇷 To test this idea, they studied the clothing and accessories that students at various US universities wore to class on Mondays. They found that if the university's football team won the game on Saturday, students were likely to emphasize their affiliation with the university by wearing clothing such as sweatshirts and hats with university symbols. On the Monday after a football loss, however, they wore college clothes much less often. Furthermore, in a study where college students were asked to describe a victory for their varsity team, they frequently used the term "we", while they used the term "we" when asked to describe a game in which their school had lost. . “ much rarer. The emphasis on "we are a good school" and "we beat them" apparently gave these students a social identity that allowed them to feel good about themselves.

When people perform well in our groups, social identity theory suggests that we tend to make social comparisons across groups, and when we see our group performing better than other groups, we feel better about ourselves. make in-group comparisons between ourselves and other in-group members. In this case, it is often not beneficial to bask in the glory of others in our inner group, as in some cases, each other's achievements can lead to upward comparisons and therefore more negative emotions. (Tesser, 1988) states thatOur self-esteem can be threatened when someone outdoes us, especially when that person is close to us and the realm of achievement is central to our sense of self.This theory leads to the interesting conclusion that these threats often arise in the context of our family relationships and have been shown to be an integral part of both family functioning in general (Tesser, 1980) and marital relationships in particular (Beach et al., 1996). .

When threats arise, the theory goes that we typically try to rebuild our self-esteem using one of three main strategies. The first is detachment, where we redefine ourselves as being less close to the person in question. For example, if a close friend keeps beating you at tennis, you might eventually find another partner to play with to protect your bruised ego. Interestingly, more narcissistic people are more likely to use this tactic than less characteristic people (Nicholls & Stukas, 2011). The second way is to redefine how important the trait or skill is to your self-concept. For example, you might decide that your tennis skills aren't as important to you and choose another hobby instead. The third strategy is to try to improve the skill in question. In the current example, that would mean practicing more often or hiring a coach to improve your tennis game. Note the clear parallels between these strategies, which arise in response to threats to our self-esteem caused by the behavior of others, and those triggered by feelings of disagreement with ourselves, discussed earlier in this chapter. In both cases, we try to rebuild our self-esteem by redefining the aspect of ourselves that has been diminished.

Self-Expression: Our sense of self is influenced by our audience

It is interesting to note that each of the social influences discussed on our sense of self can be used to protect our self-esteem. The last influence we'll look at can also be used strategically to increase not only our own esteem, but also our esteem in the eyes of others. Positive self-esteem arises not only when we feel good about ourselves, but also when we feel positively perceived by other people who are important to us.

The Role of the Social Situation – Principles of Social Psychology – 1st International Edition H5P (2)

Because it is so important to be perceived as a competent and productive member of society, people naturally try to present themselves positively to others. We try to convince others that we are good and worthy people by appearing attractive, strong, intelligent, and personable and by saying positive things to others (Jones & Pittman, 1982; Schlenker, 2003).The tendency to present a positive self-image to others in order to increase our social status., known as , is a fundamental and natural part of everyday life.

A big question about self-expression is how much of an honest company it is compared to a more strategic and potentially dishonest company. Sociologist Erving Goffman (1959) developed an influential theory of self-expression, describing it as a primarily honest process in which people must present the parts of themselves required by the social role they play in a given situation. If everyone plays their part according to accepted social scripts and conventions, the social situation will run smoothly and participants will avoid embarrassment. In this sense, self-expression is a transparent process in which we try to play the role that is asked of us and trust that others will do the same. Other theorists, however, have viewed self-presentation as a more strategic endeavor, possibly involving not always presenting ourselves honestly (eg, Jones & Pittman, 1982). As is often the case with two seemingly opposing perspectives, both are likely to hold true in certain situations, depending on the social goals of the actors.

Different self-presentation strategies can be used to evoke different emotions in other people, and the use of these strategies can be chosen evolutionarily because they are successful (Toma, Hancock, & Ellison, 2008). Edward Jones and Thane Pittman (1982) described five self-expression strategies, each of which should evoke a resultant emotion in the other person:

  1. The objective ofSchmeicheleiis about to be createdTastewith flattery or charm.
  2. The objective ofbullyingis about to be createdtemershow that you can be aggressive.
  3. The objective ofillustrationis about to be createdDebtshow that you are a better person than the other.
  4. The objective ofappealis about to be createdSympathyshow others that you are helpless and needy.
  5. The objective ofself-promotionis about to be createdRespectconvince others that you are competent.
The Role of the Social Situation – Principles of Social Psychology – 1st International Edition H5P (3)

No matter who is using it, self-presentation can easily be overdone, and when it is, it backfires. People who abuse flattery techniques and are seen as obviously and strategically trying to please others are generally disliked for this reason. Have you ever had a shrewd salesperson who was obviously trying to woo you just to get you to buy a certain item and ended up not liking the person and rushing out of the store? People who abuse modeling or self-promotion strategies through bragging or bragging, especially when such boasting does not seem to reflect their true characteristics, may end up being perceived as arrogant and even self-deceptive (Wosinska, Dabul, Whetstone-Dion, & Cialdini, 1996). The use of intimidation can also backfire; Acting more humbly can be more effective. Again, the point is clear: we may want to promote ourselves to please others, but we must also be careful to consider the other person's point of view. Being aware of these strategies is not only helpful in better understanding how to use them responsibly, it can also help us understand that other people's behavior can often reflect their concerns about self-expression. This, in turn, may allow greater empathy for others, particularly when they exhibit challenging behavior (Friedlander & Schwartz, 1985). For example, verbally aggressive behavior towards you may be more because this person is scared than because they want to hurt you.

Now that we've looked at some of the most commonly used self-presentation tactics, let's look at how they play out in specific social behaviors. A concrete form of self-promotion is the presentation of our positive physical characteristics. One of the reasons many of us spend money on improving our appearance is because we want to look good so others will like us. We can also gain status by collecting expensive possessions, such as luxury cars and big houses, and trying to connect with other high-status people. In addition, we may try to dominate or intimidate others in social interactions. People who speak louder and initiate more social interactions gain higher status. A businessman who greets others with a firm handshake and a smile, and people who vigorously express their opinions in group discussions, might also try to do the same. In some cases, people even resort to aggressive behavior such as bullying to improve their status (Baumeister, Smart & Boden, 1996).

Self-promotion can also be found in our online social behavior. For example, a study conducted in Taiwan by Wang and Stefanone (2013) used a research methodology to examine the relationship between personality traits, self-expression, and Facebook log usage. Interestingly, narcissism was found to predict outcomes on a measure of exhibitionistic and self-promoting use of Facebook check-ins, including items such as "I'm checking to let people know I'm with friends" and "I hope friends like me." or how. leave comments on my Facebook registration status.”

Other studies have also found links between narcissistic traits and self-promotion on Facebook. For example, Mehdizadeh (2010) found that narcissistic personality scores were positively correlated with the number of daily Facebook logins and the duration of each login. Additionally, narcissistic traits were associated with greater use of self-promotional material in the main photo, preview photo, status update, and notes sections of people's Facebook pages.

Analysis of the content and language used in Facebook posts also revealed that people sometimes use them for self-promotion. Bazarova, Taft, Choi, and Cosley (2013) examined self-expression through language styles used in status updates, wall posts, and private messages from 79 participants. The use of positive emotion words correlated with self-reported self-presentation in status updates. This aligns with the idea that people share positive experiences with Facebook friends, in part as a self-improvement strategy.

Online self-expression does not appear to be limited to Facebook use. There is also evidence that self-promotion concerns are also often part of blogging behavior. For example, Mazur and Kozarian (2010) analyzed the content of teenagers' blog posts and concluded that thoughtful self-expression was more central to blogging behavior than direct interaction with others. This generally seems to be the case on microblogging sites like Twitter. Marwick and Boyd (2011) found that self-expression strategies are an integral part of celebrity tweets, often employed by celebrities to maintain their popularity and image.

It might not surprise you that men and women take different approaches to introducing themselves. Men are more likely to introduce themselves confidently, talk to and interrupt others, visually focus on the other person when speaking, and lean forward during conversation. Women, on the other hand, tend to be modest; they tend to establish status by laughing and smiling and by responding more positively to what others say (Dovidio, Brown, Heltman, Ellyson, & Keation, 1988).

These gender differences are likely to be largely social, as men and women receive different reinforcements for employing certain self-expression strategies. For example, self-expression through assertive speech and acting may be more effective for men than for women, in part because consistent cross-cultural stereotypes tend to portray assertiveness as more desirable in men than in women. These stereotypes can have very important consequences in the real world. For example, one of the reasons for the "glass ceiling" that exists in some professions (where women face discrimination in accessing the highest positions in organizations) can be attributed to the more negative reactions received through their assertive behavior, which is needed is to advance their careers than their male counterparts (Eagly & Carli, 2007).

There are also some cultural differences in the extent to which people use self-expression strategies in social contexts. For example, when looking at job interviews, Konig, Haftseinsson, Jansen, and Stadelmann (2011) found that people from Iceland and Switzerland exhibited less self-introduction behavior than people from the United States. Differences in self-presentation during job interviews were also found among people from Ghana, Turkey, Norway and Germany, where the first two groups have higher impression management scores than the last two (Bye et al., 2011).

So far we've talked about self-expression as it works in certain short-term situations. However, we also engage in long-term self-expression projects in which we try to build a specific reputation with a specific audience. Emler and Reicher (1995) describe people's unique ability to know each other through reputation and argue that, consequently, we are often involved in a process thata long-term form of self-expression in which people try to establish and maintain a particular reputation with a significant audience🇧🇷 According to this perspective, our behavior in current social situations may not only serve our respective self-portrait purposes, but also be based on consideration of their long-term effects on our reputation. For example, as many politicians are well aware, when assessing their reputation during an election campaign, a bad decision from the past can backfire on them.

The concept of reputation management can be used to explain a variety of social and antisocial behaviors, including corporate branding (Smith, Smith, and Wang, 2010), sociomoral debate (Emler, Tarry, and St. James, 2007) and adolescents. criminal activity (López-Romero & Romero, 2011). In the last example, it is argued that much adolescent antisocial behavior is the result of a desire to build a reputation for rudeness and rebellion among like-minded bystanders (Emler & Reicher, 1995). Similarly, antisocial and self-destructive actions online might make more sense, such as people posting on Facebook about their involvement in illegal acts during riots or people engaging in life-threatening activities on internet fads like Neknominate when in Are considered in part out of a desire to convey a particular reputation to a particular audience. 🇧🇷 Perhaps the perceived social prestige of these things outweighed the obvious personal risks in people's minds at the time.

People often project different reputations on different social audiences. For example, teenagers who engage in antisocial activities to build a reputation as a rebel among their peers often try to build a very different reputation when their parents are in the audience (Emler & Reicher, 1995). The desire to compartmentalize our reputation and audience can even affect our behavior online. Wiederd (2012) found that some teens who have hundreds or thousands of friends on Facebook are increasingly turning to Twitter to reach a more selective audience. One of the main triggers for this was that their parents are now often friends with them on Facebook, leading young people to find a new space to build a reputation that is not always parent-friendly (Wiederhold, 2012).

While the desire to present ourselves positively is a natural part of everyday life, both personal and situational factors influence the extent to which we do so. For one thing, we're more likely to come forward in some situations than others. When we apply for a job or meet other people we need to impress, we naturally become more aligned with the social aspects of self and our self-expression increases.

There are also individual differences. Some people are naturally better at presenting themselves, enjoy doing it and are good at it, while others find self-introduction less desirable or difficult. Many studies have shown that an important individual difference variable, known as, has a large impact on self-presentation. self-control refers tothe tendency to be motivated and able to regulate our behavior to meet the demands of social situations(Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). High self-control is particularly good at reading the emotions of others and therefore at better adapting to social situations: they agree with statements like “In different situations and with different people, I often behave like very different people.” and “I guess doing a show to impress or entertain people.” Low self-control usually acts based on their own attitudes, even when the social situation suggests they behave differently “At parties and social gatherings, I don't try to do things or say things that others like” and “I can only defend ideas I already believe in.” desirable, while low self-control tends to overwhelm your conventions to follow inner fictions rather than the demands of the social situation.

In an experiment that demonstrates the importance of self-monitoring, Cheng and Chartrand (2003) had college students interact one-on-one with another student (actually an experimental confederate) with whom they thought they were working on an upcoming assignment. During the interaction, the confederate subtly touched her face several times, and the researchers recorded the degree to which the student mimicked the confederate by also touching her face.

(Video) What Is Sociology?: Crash Course Sociology #1

The situation variable was Confederate status. Before the start of the meeting, according to the random assignment of conditions, the students were informed that they would be the leader and the other person would be the executor of the next task, or vice versa. The person variable was self-control, and each participant was rated high or low on self-control based on their responses to the self-control scale.

As you can see in Figure 3.14, “Self-Control and Behavioral Mimicry,” Cheng and Chartrand found an interaction effect: students classified as having high self-control were more likely to mimic Confederate behavior when described as Confederate leaders than they were when described as Confederate leaders. workers, suggesting that they were "attuned" to the social situation and altered their behavior to appear more positive. Although low self-control imitated the other person, they stopped imitating the other person when they were of high or low status. This finding is consistent with the notion that individuals with high levels of self-control were particularly aware of the other person's condition and tried to present themselves in a more positive light to the high-level leader. Low self-control, on the other hand, did not pay as much attention to the other person's condition because they generally felt less of a need to impress.

The Role of the Social Situation – Principles of Social Psychology – 1st International Edition H5P (4)

High self-control mimicked more when the person they were interacting with was of higher status (compared to lower status). The low self-control was not sensitive to the condition of the other. Data are from Cheng and Chartrand (2003).

This differential sensitivity to social dynamics between high and low self-control suggests that your self-esteem is influenced by different factors. For people with high levels of self-control, their self-esteem can be positively affected when they perceive that their behavior is adequate to the social demands of the situation, and negatively when they feel that this is not the case. On the other hand, individuals with low self-control may experience an increase in self-esteem when they perceive that they are behaving according to their internal standards, and low self-esteem when they feel that they are not living up to them (Ickes, Holloway, Stinson, and Hoodenpyle, 2006).


Social psychologists often use self-discovery concepts to understand important social problems. For example, many are interested in understanding sustainable behaviors in relation to climate change. To test your understanding of some key concepts in this chapter, read each of the following sustainability-related scenarios. Choose the most relevant concept from Chapter 3 and combine it with the right scenarios.

Concepts:Self-assertion, disindividuation, self-mastery, basking in reflected glory, cognitive dissonance, social comparison, self-complexity, social identity theory, self-awareness, self-expression.


  1. Some politicians can change how much they publicly support sustainability initiatives that may clash with economic concerns, depending on the group of people they meet with.
  2. Many people have a sense of inconsistency because they think tackling climate change is an important issue, but they don't always practice sustainable behaviors.
  3. Some climate change activists consider their activist identity a big part of who they are and may have relatively few other important identities.
  4. People may feel more judged when practicing sustainability in public than in more private settings.
  5. People can feel their own commitment to sustainable behavior falls short when they see their peers doing more.
  6. Some people involved in climate change find that their self-esteem derives from the positive achievements of relevant groups to which they belong.
  7. Some people may claim that they engage in more sustainable behavior than is right in order to appear positive to certain audiences.
  8. A student at a school that receives an institutional award for its sustainable practices may feel good about it and talk more often about their school membership afterwards.
  9. If someone is criticized for not engaging in sustainable behavior, such as not regularly recycling, you can respond with a counterclaim in a related area, for example, B. indicate that you drive a hybrid vehicle.
  10. When people are in a large crowd, they sometimes feel less personally responsible and therefore engage in less sustainable behavior. For example, when visitors to a music festival leave behind large amounts of rubbish.

the central theses

  • Our self-concepts are influenced by the evaluations of others, as evidenced by concepts such as the mirror self and self-designation.
  • Self-concept and self-esteem are also often strongly influenced by social comparisons. For example, we use social comparisons to determine the accuracy and appropriateness of our thoughts, feelings and behaviors.
  • When we are able to positively compare ourselves to others through downward social comparison, we feel good. Upward social comparison with others who are better off leads to negative emotions.
  • Social identity refers to the positive emotions we experience as members of a large social group.
  • Normally, our belonging to a group leads to positive feelings that arise from a positive perception of our own group and therefore of ourselves.
  • Which of our many category identities is most accessible to us varies from day to day based on the particular situation we find ourselves in.
  • In the face of the behavior of others, we can improve our self-esteem by "baking the reflected glory" of our inner groups or other people we know.
  • According to self-evaluation theory, when the actions of others threaten our sense of self, we can employ a variety of strategies designed to redefine our self-image and rebuild our sense of self.
  • The tendency to present a positive self-image to others in order to raise our social status is called self-expression and is a fundamental and natural part of everyday life. Different self-expression strategies can be used to evoke different emotions in other people.
  • We often use long-term self-expression to build and maintain a specific reputation with specific social audiences.
  • The individual difference in self-control variable concerns the ability and desire to present.

exercises and critical thinking

  1. Describe some aspects of your self-image that emerged through social comparison.
  2. Describe times when you engaged in upward and downward social comparisons and the impact these comparisons had on your self-esteem. To what extent do your experiences agree with the survey results here?
  3. What are your most prominent social identities? How do they create positive feelings for you?
  4. Describe a situation where someone else's behavior threatened your sense of self. Which of the strategies described in relation to self-evaluation theory did you use to rebuild your self-concept?
  5. Identify a time when you basked in the glory of your behavior or performance in the group. How did this affect your self-esteem and why?
  6. Describe some situations in which people you know have used each of the self-introduction strategies listed in this section. Which strategies seem to be the most effective and which are the least effective in helping them achieve their social goals and why?
  7. Consider your own level of self-control. Do you think you tend to have high or low self-control and why? What do you think are the pros and cons of the level of self-control you have?


Baldwin, M.W. & Holmes, J.O. (1987). Excellent private hearing and confidence.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,1087-1098.

Baumeister, RF, Smart, L. & Boden, J.M. (1996). Relationship of selfishness threatened by violence and aggression: the dark side of high self-esteem.psychological review,103(1), 5-33. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.1.5

Bauer I, Wrosch C & Jobin J (2008). I'm better than most people: the role of social comparisons in dealing with regrets in youth and old age.psychology and aging,23(4), 800-811. doi:10.1037/a0014180

Bazarova, N.N., Taft, J.G., Choi, Y. & Cosley, D. (2013). Impression and relationship management on Facebook: relationship and self-presentation concerns revealed by language style analysis.Journal of Speech Therapy and Social Psychology,32(2), 121-141. doi:10.1177/0261927X12456384

Beach SH, Tesser A, Mendolia M, Anderson P, Crelia R, Whitaker D, & Fincham FD. (1996). Maintaining self-evaluation in marriage: Towards an ecology of marital relationship performance.Journal of Family Psychology,10(4), 379-396. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.10.4.379

Beer A, Watson D & McDade-Montez E (2013). Self-other agreement and assumed similarity in neuroticism, extraversion, and trait affect: distinguishing form and content effects.Evaluation,20(6), 723-737. doi:10.1177/1073191113500521

Blanton H, Buunk BP, Gibbons FX. & Kuyper, H. (1999). When better than others are compared up: Comparative choice and benchmarking as independent predictors of academic performance.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 420–430.

Buunk, AP. & Gibbons, FX (2007). Social comparison: the end of a theory and the rise of a field.Organizational behavior and human decision-making processes, 102(1), 3–21.

Buunk, B.P., Gibbons, F.X. und Buunk, A.P. (1997).Health, Coping and Well-Being: Perspectives from Social Comparison Theory.Psychology Publisher.

Buunk AP, Gibbons FX. & Visser, A. (2002). The relevance of social comparison methods for prevention and health care.Patient information and advice, 47,1–3.

Buunk BP, Zurriaga R, Peiró JM, Nauta A, & Gosalvez I (2005). Social comparisons in the workplace in relation to a cooperative social climate and individual differences in social comparison orientation.Applied psychology: an international review,54(1), 61-80. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00196.x

(Video) THE Interview That "Solves The Human Condition And Saves The World!"

Bye H, Sandal G, van de Vijver FR, Sam D, Çakar N & Franke G (2011). Personal values ​​and expected self-presentation in job interviews: an intercultural comparison.Applied psychology: an international review,60(1), 160-182. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2010.00432.x

Carter, L (2012). Locus of control, internalized heterosexism, experiences of prejudice and psychological adaptation of lesbians, gays and bisexuals.Abstracts of International Dissertations,73.

Cheng, C. & Chartrand, TL (2003). Self-control without conscience: using mime as an unconscious belonging strategy.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,85(6), 1170-1179. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1170

Cialdini RB, Borden RJ, Thorne A, Walker MR, Freeman SR, & Sloan LR. (1976). Basking in glory: three field studies (soccer).Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366–374.

Collins, R. L. (2000). Among the Best: Upward Adjustment in Social Comparison. In J. Suls and L. Wheeler (eds.),Social Comparison Handbook(S. 159 and 172). New York, NY: Culver Academic/Plenum.

Cooley, CH (1902).Human nature and social order.Nova York: Scribners.

Deaux, K., Reid, A., Mizrahi, K. & Ethier, K.A. (1995). Social Identity Parameters.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 280–291.

Dovidio JF, Brown CE, Heltman K, Ellyson SL. & Keating, CF (1988). Demonstrations of power between women and men in discussions of gender-related tasks: a multichannel study.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,55(4), 580-587. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.4.580

Eagly, A. H. e Carli, L. L. (2007).Through the Maze: The Truth About How Women Become Leaders. Boston, MA, EE. UU.: Harvard Business School Press.

Emler, N. e Reicher, S. (1995).Adolescence and Delinquency: The Collective Management of Reputation.Publisher Malden Blackwell.

Emler N, Tarry H & St James A (2007). Postconventional moral reasoning and positioning.Journal of Personality Research, 41,76-89.

Feinstein BA, Hershenberg R, Bhatia V, Latack JA, Meuwly N, & Davila J (2013). Negative social comparison on Facebook and depressive symptoms: rumination as a mechanism.Psychology of popular media culture,2(3), 161-170. doi:10.1037/a003311

Festinger, LU (1954). A theory of social comparison processes.Human Relations 7,117-140. doi: 10.1177/001872675400700202

Fox, J.D. & Stinnett, T.A. (1996). The impact of labeling bias on children's prognostic outlook depending on diagnostic label and occupation.psychology at school,33(2), 143-152.

Friedlander, M. L. & Schwartz, G.S. (1985). On a theory of strategic self-portrait in counseling and psychotherapy.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32(4),483-501. doi: 10.10370022-0167.32.4.483

Galinsky AD, Wang CS, Whitson JA, Anicich EM, Hugenberg K, & Bodenhausen GV. (2013). The reappropriation of stigmatizing labels: the interrelation of power and self-labeling.psychological science,24(10), 2020-2029. doi:10.1177/0956797613482943

Gangestad, S.W. & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-regulation: assessment and reassessment.Psychological Bulletin,126(4), 530-555. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.530

Goffmann, E. (1959).The presentation of each one in daily life.Oxford, Inglaterra: Doubleday.

Goldstein NJ, Cialdini RB. & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a view: using social norms to drive environmental protection in hotels. consumer research magazine,35(3),472-482.

Hardin, C & Higgins, T (1996). Shared Reality: How Social Verification Objective the Subjective. In R.M. Sorrentino and E.T. Higgins (eds.),Motivation and Cognition Handbook: Fundamentals of Social Behavior(Bd. 3, S. 28–84). Nova York, Nova York: Guilford Press.

Helgeson, V.S. & Mickelson, K. (2000). Coping with chronic disease in the elderly: maintenance of self-esteem. In S.B. Manuck, R. Jennings, B.S. Rabin & A. Baum (Eds.),behaviour, health and ageing.Mahwah, Nova Jersey: Erlbaum.

Higgins, E. T., Loeb, I. und Moretti, M. (Hrsg.). (1995).Self-discrepancies and developmental shifts in vulnerability: life transitions in the regulatory meaning of others. Rochester, Nova York: University of Rochester Press.

Hogg, MA (2003). social identity. In M.R. Leary, J.P. Tangney, M.R.E.Self and Identity Manual(S. 462–479). Nova York, Nova York: Guilford Press.

Ickes W, Holloway R, Stinson LL. & Hoodenpyle, T. (2006). Self-monitoring in social interaction: the centrality of self-influence.personality diary,74(3), 659-684. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00388.x

Jones, E.E. & Pittman, T.S. (1982). On a general theory of strategic self-portrait. In J. Suls (ed.),Psychological Perspectives on the Self.Hillsdale, Nova Jersey: Erlbaum

König, C.J., Hafsteinsson, L.G., Jansen, A. & Stadelmann, E.H. (2011). Cross-cultural self-introduction behavior of candidates: less self-introduction in Switzerland and Iceland than in the US.International magazine for selection and evaluation,19(4), 331-339.

Kulik, J.A., Mahler, H.I.M., & Moore, P.J. (1996). Social comparison and belonging at risk: implications for recovery after major surgery.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(5), 967–979.

López-Romero, L., & Romero, E. (2011). Managing youth image of antisocial behavior.The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory of Human Development,172(4), 440-446. doi:10.1080/00221325.2010.549156

Luhtanen, R. & Crocker, J. (1992). A Scale of Collective Self-Esteem: Self-Assessment of Social Identity.Bulletin of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 302–318.

(Video) Debate Noam Chomsky & Michel Foucault - On human nature [Subtitled]

Marsh, H.W., Kong, C.-K. and Hau, K-T. (2000). Longitudinal multilevel models of the effect of the big fish and the small pond on academic self-concept: balancing the contrast and effects of reflected fame in Hong Kong schools.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78,337–349.

Marwick, A.E. and Boyd, D. (2011). Tweeting Honestly, Tweeting Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Analysis, and the Imaginary Audience.New media and society,13(1), 114-133. doi:10.1177/1461444810365313

Mazur, E & Kozarian, L (2010). Self-expression and interaction in emerging blogs for teenagers and young adults.Journal of Youth Research,25(1), 124-144. doi:10.1177/0743558409350498

Mehdizadeh, S. (2010). Self-expression 2.0: narcissism and self-esteem on Facebook.Cyberpsychology, behavior and social networks,13(4), 357-364. doi:10.1089/cyber.2009.0257

Morse, S. and Gergen, K. (1970). Social comparison, self-consistency and self-concept.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(1), 148–156.

Moses, T (2009). Self-labeling and its implications in adolescents with diagnosed mental disorders.Social Sciences and Medicine, 68(3),570-578.

Nicholls, E. & Stukas, AA (2011). Narcissism and the Self-Evaluation Preservation Model: Effects of Comparative Social Threats on Relationship Closeness.The Journal of Social Psychology,151(2), 201-212. doi:10.1080/00224540903510852

Oakes, P.J., Haslam, S.A. e Turner, J.C. (1994).Stereotypes and social reality. Oxford, Inglaterra: Blackwell.

Perkins, K., Wiley, S. & Deaux, K. (2014). Through which mirror? Different sources of public esteem and self-esteem among first- and second-generation black immigrants.Cultural diversity and psychology of ethnic minorities,20(2), 213-219. doi:10.1037/a0035435

Schachter, S. (1959).The psychology of belonging.. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Schlenker, BR (2003). Self-introduction. In M.R. Leary, J.P. Tangney, M.R.E.Self and Identity Manual(S. 492-518). Nova York, Nova York: Guilford Press.

Siero FW, Bakker AB, Dekker GB. & van den Berg, M.T. (1996). Change your organization's energy consumption behavior through benchmarking feedback.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16,235-246.

Smith K, Smith M & Wang K (2010). Does corporate reputation brand mean greater market value?Strategic Marketing Magazine,18(3), 201-221. doi:10.1080/09652540903537030

Snyder, C., Cheavens, J. & Sympson, S. (1997). Hope: an individual motive for social commerce.Group dynamics: theory, research and practice, 1, 107–118.

Strauman, T.J. & Higgins, E.T. (1988). Self-discrepancies as predictors of vulnerability to different chronic emotional distress syndromes.Personality Diary, 56(4), 685-707.

Szymanski, DM & Obiri, O (2011). Do religious coping styles moderate or mediate external and internal connections between racism and difficulties?The consulting psychologist,39(3), 438-462. doi:10.1177/0011000010378895

Tajfel, H. (1981).Groups of people and social categories: studies in social psychology.. Cambridge, Inglaterra: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor LM, Hume IR. & Welsh, N. (2010) Labeling and self-esteem: the impact of using specific versus generic labels.Educational Psychology,1,1-12

Tesser, A. (1980) Preservation of self-esteem in family dynamics.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1980,39(1),

Tesser, A. (1988). Towards a conservation model for self-assessment of social behavior.Advances in experimental social psychology, 21st century, 181–227.

Toma CL, Hancock JT & Ellison NB. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: an investigation of misleading self-portraits in online dating profiles.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,34(8), 1023-1036. doi:10.1177/0146167208318067

Van Lange, PAM (2008). Social comparison is fundamental to social psychology.American Journal of Psychology, 121(1), 169–172.

Vrugt, A & Koenis, S (2002). Perceived self-efficacy, personal goals, social comparison and academic productivity.Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51(4), 593-607.

Wang, S. & Stefanone, MA (2013). Provided? Human mobility and feature interaction, self-disclosure, and Facebook check-ins.Social science informatics review,31(4), 437-457.

White, K & Lehman, DR (2005). Seeking cultural and social comparison: The role of motives themselves.Bulletin of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 232-242.

Repeated, BK (2012). As parents invade Facebook, teens tweet more.Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networks, 15(8),385-386.

Wosinska, W., Dabul, A.J., Whetstone-Dion, R. & Cialdini, R.B. (1996). Self-presentation responses to organizational success: costs and benefits of humility.Basic and applied social psychology,18(2), 229-242. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1802_8

Yakushko, O., Davidson, M. and Williams, E.N. (2009). Identity salience model: a paradigm for integrating multiple identities in clinical practice.Psychotherapy: theory, research, practice, training 46,180-192. from: 10.1037/a0016080

Yeung, K. and Martin, J. (2003). The self in the mirror: an empirical examination and forces,81(3), 843-879. doi:10.1353/soft.2003.0048

(Video) Value After Hours S05 E09: Stock Market and Real Estate Crashes, Energy, Mortgages and Credit

media assignments


Who wrote Principles of social psychology 1st International H5P edition? ›

This book is a cloned version of Principles of Social Psychology - 1st International H5P Edition by Dr. Rajiv Jhangiani and Dr. Hammond Tarry, published using Pressbooks by BCcampus under a CC BY-NC-SA (Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike) license.

What is the role of social psychology in our society? ›

Social psychologists study interpersonal and group dynamics and social challenges, such as prejudice, implicit bias, bullying, criminal activity and substance abuse. They research social interactions and the factors that influence them, such as group behavior, attitudes, public perceptions and leadership.

What are the five principles of social psychology? ›

Five principles of social cognition and behavior are reviewed including: (1) the power of the situation over behavior, (2) blindness for situational influences, (3) social perception and self-perception are constructive processes, (4) blindness for the constructed nature of social and self-perception, and (5) self- ...

What are the three basic principles of social psychology? ›

Social psychology focuses on three main areas: social thinking, social influence, and social behavior. Each of these overlapping areas of study is displayed in Figure 1.1. The circles overlap because, in our everyday lives, these three forces blend together as they influence us.

What is the best social psychology textbook? ›

Best Social Psychology Books
  • Social Psychology (Sixth Edition) The science of social psychology delivered as a dynamic, interactive reading experience. ...
  • Pillars of Social Psychology. ...
  • Advanced Social Psychology: The State of the Science. ...
  • Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles. ...
  • Social Psychology and Everyday Life.

Who wrote the most important psychology text called Principles of Psychology? ›

William James (1890) William James's The Principles of Psychology[1] is widely considered to be the most important text in the history of modern psychology. Twelve years in the writing,[2] The Principles was, and in many ways still is, a document unique in the history of human thought.

What is a social role psychology examples? ›

the set of attitudes and characteristic behaviors expected of an individual who occupies a specific position or performs a particular function in a social context, such as being a spouse or acting as a caregiver for an aging parent.

What is a social role psychology quizlet? ›

social roles. refers to the expected behaviors and attitudes that come with one's position in society. a way in which adult development is studied. by examining the succession of. social roles that adults typically occupy over the years.

What are the 5 important motives of social psychology in the society? ›

In this sense, this field of study is focused on understanding the many different ways in which humans interact with each other and their environments. According to Susan Fiske (2010), the core motives that orient our interaction are belonging, understanding, control, self-enhancement, and trust.

What are the 4 major perspectives in social psychology? ›

4 Major Perspectives Used by Social Psychologists
  • Sociocultural Perspective.
  • Evolutionary Perspective.
  • Social Learning Perspective.
  • Social-Cognitive Perspective.
Aug 17, 2021

What are the basic principles of social behavior? ›

They encompass: caring, coaching, correcting, confirming, collaborating, clarifying, and conciliating.

What is the main principle of psychology? ›

Principles of Psychology emphasizes that psychology is a science through discussion of relevant big-picture and proven concepts and cutting-edge research-based investigations that examine behavioral, psychological, and neuroscience experiments.

What are the 4 principles of social learning theory? ›

These four concrete stages of social learning within social learning theory include attention, retention and memory, initiation and motor behavior, and motivation.

What are the three main focuses of social psychology quizlet? ›

Social psychology focuses on three broad topics: how people think about, influence, and relate to one another.

What are the 7 big ideas of social psychology? ›

The major themes are:
  • Social cognition and perception.
  • The self in a social context.
  • Attitudes and persuasion.
  • Group decisions.
  • Attraction and close relationships.
  • Prosocial behavior.
  • Stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination.
Apr 6, 2022

What is the main focus of study in social psychology? ›

Social psychology is the study of how individual or group behavior is influenced by the presence and behavior of others. The major question social psychologists ponder is this: How and why are people's perceptions and actions influenced by environmental factors, such as social interaction?

Should I study sociology or social psychology? ›

If you want to learn more about social structures and human society at the macro-level, sociology will be worth exploring. If you're more interested in learning about individual human behavior within those macro-level social structures, then psychology might be more appropriate for your intellectual curiosity.

What is significant about William James book Principles of Psychology? ›

In The Principles of Psychology (1890), American philosopher and psychologist William James shifted emphasis away from an association of ideas to an association of central nervous processes caused by overlapping or immediately successive stimuli.

Why are psychological principles important? ›

These principles reflect the importance of relationships, culture, community and well-being on learning. They focus on how instructors can help students by fostering healthy relationships with them and an interest in their lives outside the classroom.

Who is the best psychology author? ›

10 Psychology Books Everyone Should Read
  • Predictably Irrational – Dan Ariely. ...
  • Thinking, Fast and Slow – Daniel Kahneman. ...
  • Bad science – Ben Goldacre. ...
  • The Invisible Gorilla – Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons. ...
  • Influence: Science and Practice – Robert Cialdini.
Nov 8, 2021

What are the 7 social roles? ›

We considered seven types of roles: leader, knowledge generator, connector, follower, moralist, enforcer, and observer.

What are the three types of social roles? ›

In sociology, there are different categories of social roles: cultural roles: roles given by culture (e.g. priest) social differentiation: e.g. teacher, taxi driver. situation-specific roles: e.g. eye witness.

What is a social role and what are some examples of social roles? ›

A social role is a pattern of behavior that is expected of a person in a given setting or group (Hare, 2003). Each one of us has several social roles. You may be, at the same time, a student, a parent, an aspiring teacher, a son or daughter, a spouse, and a lifeguard.

What is an example of role in psychology? ›

Roles refer to the social position people have (e.g., teacher, mother, and customer) and behavior associated with that position. Roles tend to carry certain risks and benefits which may vary by individual characteristics, historical time, and cultural context.

What are the characteristics of social roles? ›

(2004), social role has four characteristics: 1) Position in the group; 2) Functions/tasks related to the position of the role's actor, usually in the form of explicit and documented expectations assigned by the group; 3) Behavior-expectations, nonexplicit expectations: “It is mostly an informal agreement and ...

How does social psychology affect human behavior? ›

Social psychologists believe that human behavior is determined by both a person's characteristics and the social situation. They also believe that the social situation is frequently a stronger influence on behavior than are a person's characteristics. Social psychology is largely the study of the social situation.

How does psychology affect our society today? ›

Essentially, psychology helps people in large part because it can explain why people act the way they do. With this kind of professional insight, a psychologist can help people improve their decision making, stress management and behavior based on understanding past behavior to better predict future behavior.

What are the key characteristics of social psychology? ›

There are four key characteristics of social psychology including broad scope, cultural mandate, scientific methods, and search for wisdom.

What are examples of the 7 principles? ›

They are popular sovereignty, limited government, separation of powers, federalism, checks and balances, republicanism, and individual rights.

What are the 6 principles of psychology? ›

Cialdini's 6 Principles of Influence are reciprocity, commitment and consistency, consensus or social proof, authority, liking and scarcity.

What is the purpose of the seven principles? ›

The purpose of the Principles is to guide the design of environments, products and communications.

What are the two types of social influence psychology? ›

Obedience and conformity are two kinds of social influences when people change attitude or behavior under the influence of the views of others. The term “obedience” refers to direct requests from an authority figure to one or more persons (Nail et al., 2000).

What are the two types of social learning in psychology? ›

From this perspective, social behavior is the result of two types of learning: observational learning and reinforced learning.

What are the 3 main faces or theoretical perspectives of sociological social psychology? ›

The text discusses the field of sociological social psychology in terms of its three major dimensions: symbolic interactionism, social structure and personality, and group processes. Within each chapter, each major topic is examined from each of these perspectives.

What is the most important principles in social work? ›

Ethical Principle: Social workers respect the inherent dignity and worth of the person. Social workers treat each person in a caring and respectful fashion, mindful of individual differences and cultural and ethnic diversity. Social workers promote clients' socially responsible self-determination.

What are the 4 principles of behavior? ›

The principles of ABA applied behavior analysis target the four functions of behavior, which include: escape or avoidance, attention seeking, access to tangibles or reinforcements, and instant gratification (or “because it feels good”).

What are the 5 types of social behavior? ›

Social behavior characterizes the interactions that occur among individuals. These can be aggressive, mutualistic, cooperative, altruistic, and parental.

What is the first principle of psychology? ›

Being non-judgmental is the first principle in psychology.

What are the different types of psychological principles? ›

7 Psychology Principles to Influence User and Customer Behavior
  • Loss Aversion. Humans hate to lose. ...
  • Paradox of Choice. ...
  • Social Proof. ...
  • The Decoy Effect (Psychology of Pricing) ...
  • Urgency. ...
  • Color Psychology. ...
  • Mere Exposure Theory.
Jan 16, 2019

What is the most important ethical principle in psychology? ›

Protection From Harm

Perhaps the most important ethical principle is that participants should be protected from harm, psychological or otherwise.

What are Bandura's 4 principles of social learning? ›

Observational learning is a major component of Bandura's social learning theory. He also emphasized that four conditions were necessary in any form of observing and modeling behavior: attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation.

Which of the following is a key principle of social learning theory? ›

The basic principles of social learning theory are: Attention. Retention. Reproduction.

What are the branches of social psychology and importance? ›

Social psychology

Social perception and social interaction are seen as key to understanding social behavior. Other branches include military, consumer, educational, cross-cultural, and environmental psychology. The number of branches continues to grow.

Which are the three major forms of influence discovered by social psychologist? ›

Social influence phenomena often are divided into conformity, compliance, and obedience categories. People exhibit conformity when they change attitudes or behaviors to reflect a perceived norm.

What is the primary focus of social psychology quizlet? ›

What is the main concern of social psychology? Social psychologists investigate human behavior, of course, but their primary concern is human behavior in a social context.

Who wrote the first social psychology textbook? ›

William McDougall cofounded the British Psychological Society in 1901 and published one of the first social psychology textbooks, An Introduction to Social Psychology (1908).

Who published the book Principles of Psychology? ›

The Principles of Psychology
Title page from the first edition.
AuthorWilliam James
PublisherHenry Holt and Company
Publication date1890
4 more rows

Who is the author of the book of social psychology? ›

In the 11th edition of Social Psychology, David Myers once again weaves an inviting and compelling narrative that speaks to ALL of your students regardless of background or intended major.

Who published Principles of Psychology? ›

Although the book originally appeared nearly 75 years ago, it remains unsurpassed today as a brilliantly written survey of William James' timeless view of psychology.
Product information.
Publisher‎Dover Publications; Revised ed. edition (June 1, 1950)
Item Weight‎1.48 pounds
8 more rows

What is social psychology in simple words? ›

Social psychology is the study of how individual or group behavior is influenced by the presence and behavior of others. The major question social psychologists ponder is this: How and why are people's perceptions and actions influenced by environmental factors, such as social interaction?

What is the basic concept of social psychology? ›

Social psychologists observe how an individual or a group's behaviour can be influenced by the beliefs and actions of others, which contribute to a person's decision-making process. Social psychology provides insight into how social dynamics can be improved and altered for general health and wellbeing.

What is the difference between psychology and social psychology? ›

Social psychology relies on understanding the role human behavior plays in mental well-being. Clinical psychology, on the other hand, uses a person-in-environment approach, emphasizing how biological, social, and psychological factors can affect a patient's mental state.

What are the 4 Principles of Psychology? ›

Answer and Explanation: "The four ethical principles" generally refers to the medical ethics of justice, beneficence, non-maleficence, and autonomy.

Who published the first book of social psychology in 1908? ›

McDougall, W. (1908). An introduction to social psychology.

What makes social psychology unique? ›

Unlike folk wisdom, which relies on anecdotal observations and subjective interpretation, social psychology employs scientific methods and empirical study. Researchers do not make assumptions about how people behave; they devise and carry out experiments that help point out relationships between different variables.

What is principles of psychology explain? ›

Principles of Psychology emphasizes that psychology is a science through discussion of relevant big-picture and proven concepts and cutting-edge research-based investigations that examine behavioral, psychological, and neuroscience experiments.


1. Homeostasis and Negative/Positive Feedback
(Amoeba Sisters)
2. Woke Capital with Marc Andreessen
(Coleman Hughes)
3. Attract Customers Like a Magnet: Proven Expert Marketing Strategies To Grow Your Business & Brand
(The Futur)
4. Carl Sagan Predicted The Mess 2021 Would Be 25 years Ago
5. Utilitarianism: Crash Course Philosophy #36
6. Frontline of Free Speech (LIVE) | Jordan Peterson & Ben Shapiro | POLITICS | Rubin Report
(The Rubin Report)


Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Amb. Frankie Simonis

Last Updated: 04/10/2023

Views: 6281

Rating: 4.6 / 5 (56 voted)

Reviews: 95% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Amb. Frankie Simonis

Birthday: 1998-02-19

Address: 64841 Delmar Isle, North Wiley, OR 74073

Phone: +17844167847676

Job: Forward IT Agent

Hobby: LARPing, Kitesurfing, Sewing, Digital arts, Sand art, Gardening, Dance

Introduction: My name is Amb. Frankie Simonis, I am a hilarious, enchanting, energetic, cooperative, innocent, cute, joyous person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.