Dealing with threats to the self part one
Download
1 / 18

Dealing With Threats to The Self: Part One - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 119 Views
  • Uploaded on

Dealing With Threats to The Self: Part One. What is a Self-Threat?. “when favorable views about oneself are questioned, contradicted, impugned, mocked, challenged, or otherwise put in jeopardy” (Baumeister et al., 1996). How do people maintain favorable self-views?.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Dealing With Threats to The Self: Part One' - orpah


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

What is a self threat
What is a Self-Threat?

  • “when favorable views about oneself are questioned, contradicted, impugned, mocked, challenged, or otherwise put in jeopardy” (Baumeister et al., 1996).


How do people maintain favorable self views
How do people maintain favorable self-views?

1. Self-Serving Bias- tendency to take credit for success (self-enhancement) and deny responsibility for failure (self-protection).


Self serving bias
Self-Serving Bias

Miller & Ross (1975) review article:

  • Teacher-Student Paradigm


Self serving bias1
Self-Serving Bias

Miller & Ross review article:

  • Achievement Tasks

    • Effect of success vs. failure on attributions.


Self serving bias2
Self-Serving Bias

Miller & Ross review article:

  • Conclusions

    • Research supports self-enhancement, but not self-protection.

    • Self-enhancement can be explained in non-motivational terms:

      • Covariation b/w effort and success

      • Success is the expected outcome


Self serving bias3
Self-Serving Bias

Evidence for a motivational explanation:

  • Miller (1976)—ego involvement

  • Campbell & Sedikides (1999)– Meta-analysis of moderators of SSB.

    • High SE

    • High achievement motivation

    • High expectations

    • Moderately challenging tasks vs. unchallenging

    • Competitive settings

    • Positive mood

      …all lead to greater SSB!


2 self handicapping
2. Self-Handicapping

  • Undermining performance so that one has a handy excuse for failure (self-protection) or a boost to self-esteem (self-enhancement) in the event of success.


Types of self handicapping
Types of Self-Handicapping

  • Behavioral- person actually creates impediments to performance.

  • Claimed- person claims impediments to performance.


Berglas jones study
Berglas & Jones’ Study

  • Cover story: study of drugs and intellectual performance.

  • Contingent Success Condition: intellectual test was tailored so that all p’s performed well.

  • Non-contingent Success Condition: intellectual test contained mostly unsolvable items, but p’s were told they did well.


Choice of drug
Choice of Drug

Actavil facilitates intellectual performance.

Pandocrin inhibits intellectual performance.

10mg 7.5mg 5mg 2.5mg 0 2.5mg 5mg 7.5mg 10mg

Actavil Actavil Pandocrin Pandocrin



Gender differences in self handicapping
Gender Differences in Self-Handicapping

  • Males are more likely to self-handicap, but only on measures of behavioral self-handicapping.

  • Why?

    Women may be less threatened by failure or they may experience the same amount of threat, but choose to deal with it differently (Hirt et al., 2000).


Self esteem differences in s h
Self-Esteem Differences in S-H

Tice (1991)

  • Self-enhancement condition: test can clearly identify high ability, but not low ability.

  • Self-protection condition: test can clearly identify low ability, but not high ability.

  • Also, test framed as important or unimportant.

  • DV: amount of time practicing before test.



Consequences of self handicapping
Consequences of Self-Handicapping

  • Rhodewalt et al. (1991) found that self-handicapping leads to better mood and self-esteem following failure.

  • Zuckerman et al. (1998) show that there are costs in the long run.


Zuckerman et al 1998
Zuckerman et al. (1998)

Study 1:

  • Students completed questionnaires at beginning and end of semester.

  • Higher SH predicts lower GPA.


Zuckerman et al 19981
Zuckerman et al. (1998)

Study 2:

  • Replicated Study 1

  • Found cyclical relationship between SE and SH.

  • Also cyclical relationship between negative affect and SH.