Self & Personality

Question 1

self-schema

Answer 1

• cognitive schema (knowledge structure) that contains beliefs about the self (also called self-construals)
• Has implications for how the self relates to other people, and attainment of personal goals

Question 2

Research by Markus & Kitayama: self-schemas

Answer 2

• their research suggests 2 prototypical self-concepts (or self-schemas)
• Independent self-construal and interdependent self-construal

Question 3

independent vs. interdependent self-construal

Answer 3

• Independent self-construal:
• • Main separation is between self and others
• • Fluid shifting between in-group and out-group (people in your out-group can easily come into your in-group and vice versa → relationships viewed as something that needs effort and attention to maintain)
• • Linked to individualism
• Interdependent self-construal:
• • Main separation is between in-group and out-group
• • In-group boundary more difficult to penetrate (people in in-group will likely stay there and vice versa → assumed commitment and loyalty to each other)
• • Linked to collectivism

Question 4

independent vs. interdependent self-construal: definition of self & structure of self

Answer 4

• definition of self:
• • Indep: free from social context
• • Interdep: tied to social context
• structure of self:
• • Indep: stable, bounded, unitary (you will be the same person regardless of context)
• • Interdep: variable, fluid, flexible (you might have to be a different person in different contexts)

Question 5

independent vs. interdependent self-construal: primary tasks & basis of self-esteem

Answer 5

• Primary tasks:
• • Indep: uniqueness, self-expression, realization of internal attributes, promotion of personal goals
• • Interdep: fitting in, self-restraint, assuming one’s proper place, promotion of others’ goals
• Basis of self-esteem:
• • Indep: ability to express oneself and one’s internal attributes
• • Interdep: ability to restrain oneself and maintain harmony with others

Question 6

4 differences that different self-construals lead to

Answer 6

• self-descriptions
• self-consistency
• implicit theories of self
• self-esteem

Question 7

4 differences that different self-construals lead to: self-descriptions

Answer 7

• Indep: use abstract, global, stable attributes/traits (ex. “I am easy-going, fun-loving, and extraverted”
• Interdep: use social categories, affiliations, social roles (ex. “I’m a student at UBC, member of Pre-Ed club, a sister”)

Question 8

4 differences that different self-construals lead to: self-consistency

Answer 8

• are we the same person in different situations?
• European-Canadians have stronger correlation between self-esteem and self-concept clarity than East Asians
• Indep: tend to be the same person in different contexts (ex. Act the same way with friends, parents, co-workers, etc. → consistent)
• • Conformity seen negatively; as immature → people who adapt to different situations seen as “fake”/not genuine
• Interdep: expected to be slightly different in different situations and with different people (ex. Study where Japanese students were more self-critical on the Twenty Statements test when in the presence of others compared to alone)
• • Conformity seen positively; as mature → insistence on non-conformity seen as immature, stubborn

Question 9

4 differences that different self-construals lead to: implicit theories of the self

Answer 9

• Indep:
• • Self = stable, bound entity
• • Entity theory of the self: abilities are fixed and reflex innate qualities
• • During failure: blame innate lack of ability (“I’m just not a math person”); withdraw from task (“I’m never taking math again”)
• Interdep:
• • Self = malleable, fluid
• • Incremental theory of self: abilities are malleable, and can be changed with effort
• • During failure: blame lack of effort (“If only I’d tried harder/done more”; redouble efforts (more practice)

Question 10

personality

Answer 10

• a sense of self

- One’s characteristic pattern of thought, emotion, and behaviour, along with accompanying psychological mechanisms

Question 11

big challenge in studying personality cross-culturally

Answer 11

• Debate on universal applicability of “personality”:
• • Variable aspects:
• – Some languages (ie. English) pay a lot of attention to personality (and have lots of vocab to describe it)
• – Personality = trans-situationally stable, but many cultures do not discuss trans-situational stability
• – Simply an extension of studying Western individualism
• • Universal aspects:
• • All cultural groups possess terms that describe one’s enduring characteristics
• • “Personality” exists, but may need to reconceptualize as something existing within relationships for certain cultures

Question 12

personality framework: lexical approach

Answer 12

• states that all important individual differences in personality are encoded in natural language
• Steps researchers went through to develop this approach:
• • Looked for all dictionary entries that are trait adjectives
• • Reduced list by eliminating synonyms, physical descriptors, temporary states, unfamiliar terms
• • Administered list of traits to participants to answer (how much would they describe themselves using each of those terms?)
• • Conducted factor analysis to determine how many facets/factors underlie a construct
• This is how the Big 5 was developed

Question 13

Big 5 (Five Factor Model of Personality)

Answer 13

• Openness to experience: intelligence and curiosity about the world
• Conscientiousness: how responsible and dependable someone is
• Extraversion: how active/outgoing and dominant someone is in social interactions
• Agreeableness: how warm and pleasant an individual is
• Neuroticism: emotional instability and unpredictability

Question 14

NEO-PI-R

Answer 14

• most recent/prominent version of measuring 5-factor model traits
• Studies using the NEO-PI-R across 50 cultures reveal universality in five-factor structure
• BUT, NEO-PI-R started with English terms in the English dictionary, which yielded 5 factors → uses those same words in different cultural contexts, so it’s not that surprising that it yield five factors again

Question 15

factors found using lexical approach in other languages –> tagalog

Answer 15

• Gregariousness: liking the company of others, talks a lot, humourous (positive correlation with extraversion)
• Self-assurance: assertive, brave, insensitive, not gullible (negative correlation with neuroticism)
• Concern for others vs. egotism: not violent, humble generous (positive correlation with agreeableness)
• Conscientiousness: dependable, hardworking, religious (positive correlation with conscientiousness)
• Intellect: clever, sensitive, inquisitive, talented (positive correlation with openness to experience)
• PLUS 2 additional factors not identified in English (believed to be indigenous Filipino personality factors):
• • Temperamentalness: emotional reactivity, hot-headedness, irritable
• • Negative valence: sadistic, social deviance, crazy

Question 16

how do we determine universality of personality frameworks

Answer 16

• depends on use of emic vs. etic measures
• • Emic: a measure created from within a culture, and used to assess people from within the culture –> tend to see more variability (because they tap into more cultural nuances)
• • Etic measure: a measure created from one culture, and exported for use in another culture –> tend to see more universality

Question 17

4 differences that different self-construals lead to: self-esteem

Answer 17

• indep tend to:
• • Have strong emphasis on having and maintaining high self-esteem
• • Have tendency to view selves as positive and socially desirable (self-enhancement)
• • Be motivated by desire to bolster self-image
• interdep tend to:
• • Have strong emphasis on social categories, affiliations, social roles
• • Have tendency to view selves in critical/disparaging manner (self-effacement)
• • Be motivated by desire to fit in with others; self-improve

Question 18

self-esteem

Answer 18

• how positive one’s overall/global evaluation of oneself is
• • High self-esteem: person thinks everything is great about themselves
• • Low self-esteem: person thinks there is nothing good about themselves

Question 19

self-enhancement vs. self-effacement -> differences depending on self-construal

Answer 19

• independent self-construal:
• • More emphasis on positive traits
• • Try not to think about discrepancy between actual and ideal self
• Interdependent self-construal:
• • More attention paid to negative traits
• • Experience more actual-ideal discrepancy

Question 20

self-enhancement (and its strategies)

Answer 20

• Compensatory strategies (used to feel better about yourself):
• • Downward social comparison: compare ourselves to those who are worse off than us (ex. “I came in fifth, but at least I didn’t come in last”)
• • Discounting: downplaying the importance of that attribute (ex. “That track meet wasn’t important anyway”)
• • External attributions: attribute failures to others rather than ourselves (ex. “The clock must have been wrong”)

Question 21

why might self-enhancement be beneficial?

Answer 21

• More ambition
• Ignore adversity
• Better physical health
• Compensatory strategies help with all of the above

Question 22

cultural differences on Rosenberg self-esteem scale

Answer 22

• European-Canadians tend to score higher than Asian and Indian Canadians
• Suggests cultural variability in self-esteem and self-enhancement

Question 23

cultural differences on Rosenberg self-esteem scale: alternative explanations

Answer 23

• Self-enhancement vs. group enhancement → ie. maybe Americans better at self enhancement, Asians better at group enhancement → NOPE (Americans better at both)
• Matter of importance → maybe Asians have a specific domain that’s important, whereas Americans tend to think everything’s important → NOPE (variability persists regardless of domain)
• Response set → maybe moderacy bias is at play → NOPE (no matter how questions are re-worded, same responses persist)
• Modesty norms → want to appear modest, reduce boasting

Question 24

modesty norms: overconfidence and its 3 components

Answer 24

• Overconfidence: having an unjustifiably positive belief in one’s characteristics or performance
• 3 components:
• • Overestimation: thinking that your performance is better than your actual performance
• • Overplacement: thinking that your performance is better than 80% of people (when it was only better than 50%)
• • Overprecision: being very certain about their score or placement

Question 25

self-enhancement study: basics

Answer 25

- Examined cultural variability through the lens of overconfidence → are modesty norms playing a role? - Gave participants ambiguous tasks where participants had no idea how well they were doing - - Task: Test of empathy (reading emotions only by looking at someone’s eyes) - - Participants were from Canada, Japan, and Hong Kong - - Some given 10 tokens, others given 10 coins (actual currency) - - At end of task, they had to guess how well they did on the task using a number line, and had to place tokens on line to demonstrate how confident they were - - People with coins could keep the coins they’d placed in the appropriate place on the line - - Researchers look at overestimation and overprecision

Question 26

self-enhancement study: overestimation results

Answer 26

- With no incentive (token group): European-Canadians overestimated a lot, Hong Kong Chinese overestimated a bit, Japanese underestimated (self-effacement) - - Classic self-enhancement finding - With incentive (coin group): everyone overestimates (Euros still overestimated most, followed by HK and JP, and overestimation is higher) - - Everyone exhibits self-enhancement - Therefore, modesty norms appear to explain away cultural variability → less cultural variability in overestimation

Question 27

self-enhancement study: overprecision results

Answer 27

- Without incentives, the spread of people’s bets were all pretty similar - With incentives, the spread begins to spread - Therefore, modesty norms don’t really explain the cultural variability in uncertainty → more cultural variability in overprecision