Self-Understanding

Question 1

What did Descartes say about our self-understanding?

Answer 1

• People use to believe what Descartes said about the self.
  = Mental life was considered entirely conscious (i think, therefore, i am)

Question 2

What did Lotus and Klinger claim about self-understanding?

Answer 2

Agreed with Descartes that conscious mind was important but disagreed that self-understanding was entirely conscious.

Claimed that our self-understanding was made up of both consciousness and unconsciousness.

Unconscious mind
-> can only do things that are automatic or routine.
EG driving on a familiar route without thinking
-> cannot handle new, complex, or creative tasks on its own.

Conscious mind
- needs the conscious mind—the part of you that is aware, focused, and thinking actively.

=The unconscious can run habits, but it can’t do much beyond that without conscious thinking.

Question 3

What did Wilhem Wundt claim about self-understanding ?

Answer 3

Claimed that we can accurately produce the cognitive process of understanding the self through introspection.

-> the first systematic experimental attempt to study the mind under controlled conditions, by breaking up conscious awareness into basic structures of thoughts, images and sensations.

THEREFORE, to have an accuarte idea of someone’s self understanding, we should simply ask them.

-> Claimed we have an accurate self-understanding

Question 4

Explain how Nisbett and Wilson provide evidence that we have little self-understanding for our choices? (confabulation)

Answer 4

• We do not have an accurate self-understanding for our choices as we attempt to unconsciously confabulate explanations.

-Nisbett and Wilson found that when participants are showed a row of stockings and asked to pick one, they would chose the right-most stocking 4 to 1 but could not accurately explain the rationale behind their decision.
- They would produce an explanation that had no relevant evidence for determining their choice as they lack this self-understanding (confabulation).
EG claiming they chose that stocking due to the superior colour (even if the displayed pairs were all identical!)

-THEREFORE, we lack some self-understanding for some decisions we make, trying to give plausible explanations which have no relevance to the determining choice.

Question 5

Explain how Johansson et al provide evidence that we have little self-understanding for our choices? (choice blindness + confabulation)

Answer 5

PROCEDURE
-> shown two pictures of faces and asked to choose which one they found more attractive.

Tricked them : After they chose, the researchers secretly switched the photo and showed them the one they did NOT choose.
- asked participants to explain why they chose that face.

FOUND
Many people didn’t notice the switch at all—and confidently explained reasons for a choice they never actually made.
Participants created explanations even though:

Evidence for confabulation:
➡️ Inventing explanations to make our choices seem logical, even when they aren’t based on true self-knowledge.They didn’t make the choice they thought they made, and

Evidence for ‘choice blindness’ -> a phenomenon where people fail to notice a mismatch between their actual choice and the outcome they are shown, and then confidently justify the “choice” they never made.

THEREFORE,
shows we have little self-understanding as ppts had no real access to the true reasons for their decisions, when we lack knowledge we make up reasons without realising it.

Question 6

How did Evans et al show we have little self-understanding? (blood sugar levels)

Answer 6

Evans et al
CLAIM: it takes people a while to detect internal states; hunger, confusion, sweaty, irritable

FOUND:
- When participants’ blood sugar dropped (hypoglycaemia), they started showing clear signs of cognitive problems—such as slower thinking, difficulty concentrating, or confusion.
BUT: participants themselves didn’t realize anything was wrong for up to 20 minutes.

THEREFORE,
Our awareness of our own bodily and mental states lags behind what is actually happening.
-> proving we aren’t always good judges of how we feel or what condition we’re in.

Question 7

How did Bushman et al show we have little self-understanding? (voodoo doll)

Answer 7

AIM: To investigate if internal glucose levels affects out behaviour

PROCEDURE
-107 married couples over 21 days
-Measured aggressive impulse: ppts stuck 0-51 pins into a voodoo doll which represented their spouse
- Measured real aggressive behaviour-> participants later chose how loud and long a noise blast their spouse would hear through headphones.

FOUND:
-Lower glucose level -> stuck more pins and blasted their spouse with louder and longer noise blasts.

THEREFORE
- We have little self understanding of why we behave the way we do.
- We can become more aggressive when our glucose levels are low -> but ppts weren’t consciously aware that this biological state was influencing their behaviour.

Question 8

What did Danziger et al show about our self-understanding? (judicial rulings)

Answer 8

AIM: to investigate if judges judicial rulings were influenced by meal times

PROCEDURE:
-Experience judges making parole decisions
-2 food breaks per day for judges

FOUND: lots of parole given at the beginning (after eaten), middle day no parole given (hungry), then back up after eaten

THEREFORE, food/hunger has an unconscious influence on judicial rulings.

CONC:
we show little awareness of the underlying processes in how internal states effect our mood.

Question 9

What did Wilson, Laser and Stone find out about self understanding? (diaries)

Answer 9

AIM: To investigate how aware people are of their own feelings

PROCEDURE:
-Ppts keep diaries about their mood ,health ,exercise ,weather, food etc
- Asked other people to predict what was causing low moods of participants with diary entry

FOUND: other ppl just as good as understanding factors influencing mood as the person experiencing them

CONC:
we show little awareness of the underlying processes in how internal states effect our mood.

Question 10

Maier: Two string problem

Answer 10

AIM: To investigate how people have creative insights/solve challenging problems?

PROCEDURE:
- Two cords on opposite sides of the room
- Asked to try and tie them together
- Given random objects (chair, piece of paper, pliers and a jar of thumb tacks)

FOUND:
- ppts figured out that motion of swinging one of the cords allows them to tie together
- Asked how? -> random explanations given

THEREFORE:
We are unable to give insightful explanations for creative insights, we have little self understanding of our behaviours.

CONC:
- We show little awareness of the underlying processes in problem solving.

Question 11

Explain Davis et al’s claim: Unconscious influences on political judgements

Answer 11

AIM:To investigate if social influence affects the process of formulating attitudes towards those engaged in live debates.

PROCEDURE:
- 2 lectures
- Both debates had worm lines; one favouring Gordon Brown, other Nick Clegg

FOUND:
-lecture with line favoured Brown -> students slightly favoured Brown
- lecture with line favoured Clegg -> students overwhelmingly pro-clegg.

• Asked to what extent they think the line influenced them (said little; conscious)

THEREFORE, the influence of the worm on judgement went beyond conscious perception of the worms movement

CONC:
- we show little awareness of the underlying processes in attitude change.

Question 12

Eastwick and Finkel: romantic partner choice

Answer 12

AIM: To investigate if ppl know what they desire in a romantic partner?

PROCEDURE:
1) ask ppl about preferred romantic partner (attractiveness earning prospects)

2) speed dating event

3) follow up 1 month later: rate characteristics of dates and nature/potential relationships etc

FOUND:
-Individuals ideal characteristics were NOT predictive of preferences at the dating event.

THEREFORE:
- we show little awareness of the underlying processes in romantic partner choices.

Question 13

Nisbett and Wilson on erroneous reports of self understanding

Answer 13

Although we have little understanding of our mental states/behaviour, these erroneous reports (like confabulation etc) are SYSTEMATIC rather than haphazard (unorganized)

-We systematically use a priori causal theories to explain our behaviour.
-This is because explanations opf our actual mental states are difficult to access.
-SO, we use a priori causal theories to explain them (as they are easier to access)

-A priori causal theories: intuition/logic/reason rather than empirical evidence.
EG i work more efficiently in the morning once ive had coffee (intuitive, not empirical, easier to access than actual mental state)

Question 14

Is introspection ever better than independent observers?

Answer 14

Yes.
- We have vast amounts of private knowledge (personal historical facts; current focus of attention; current sensations).
- Knowledge of your own idiosyncrasies could lead to superiority over observers in specific situations which is then generalised.