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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

media assignments

• „Students run through the renovated Kinnick Stadium"Through theking of fox huntingis licensed under aLicense CC BY-SA 3.0.
  
• „Ralph Lauren climbs into his orange 997 GT3 RS"Through theDamian Morysis licensed under aCC BY 2.0 license.
  
• „help homeless"Through theEd Yourdonis licensed under aLicense CC BY-SA 2.0.
• „Angry Old Lion 50D"Through theKoorosh Bis licensed under aCC BY 2.0 license.
• „Federal Highway Police of Brazil' by Fabio Pozzebom is under licenseLizenz CC BY 3.0 BR.
  
• „Mad Dog" by the US Air Force. Josh Plueger's photo is licensed under aLicense CC0 1.0.
• „angry man 1"Through theChris Gallagheris licensed under aLizenz CC BY-ND 2.0.