One of the most consistent comments I’ve heard from my different friends over the years is that I’m always myself. When this was said to me I would smile and say thank you, but inside I was slightly confused. Of course I’m always myself, who else would I be? I didn’t understand how this characteristic of ‘being yourself’ could be true for me, but not for some people. Turns out people do vary on this characteristic, and the concept that best applies to it is Self-Monitoring.
Self-Monitoring is the tendency for people to change the way they act or present themselves in response to the environment or situation they are in (Snyder, 1987). Self-Monitoring is one of the concepts that deal with Self-Presentation, or the tactics people employ in order to influence how others perceive them (Schlenker, 2003). In terms of Self-Monitoring, people can be a low, moderate, or high Self-Monitor. Low Self-Monitors are usually very consistent with their Self-Presentation, regardless of the environment or situation. And according to the Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder, 1974), low Self-Monitors are likely to agree with statements such as ‘I can only argue for ideas which I already believe’ and ‘I have never been good at games like charades or improvisational acting’. In other words, they are unable, or unwilling, to change anything about themselves, from behavior to opinions. On the other hand, high Self-Monitors often adapt their Self-Presentation to the needs or concerns of the situation they are in and the people they are around, due to their concern with their public image. Furthermore, they are likely to agree to statements such as ‘I would probably make a good actor’ and ‘in different situations and with different people, I often act like very different persons’. They can easily and usually convincingly alter their behavior and opinions to fit the situation. Furthermore, due to their tendency of adaptation, high Self-Monitors are usually more observant and aware of their surroundings than low Self-Monitors. Moreover, moderate Self-Monitors usually fall somewhere in between and have a combination of the characteristics from the two extremes, low and high Self-Monitors.
After taking the Snyder’s Self-Monitoring Scale (1974), in which I scored a 2 out of 18, I realized I was a low Self-Monitor, and I can’t say I’m surprised. I am a terrible actor and seem to be incapable of lying. I usually have very little awareness of my surrounding, which have lead to some funny moments for my friends. Furthermore, one of the reasons I don’t have a close relationship with my father is the fact that I can’t or won’t change my opinions to match his own. As discussed in class, I have a small close group of friends instead of a larger less close variety of friends that is more common for high Self-Monitors. I probably have a low amount of friends because I am consistently the same person regardless of the situation, which puts me at a disadvantage as I am unable to relate or get close to people who might differ from me. While for high Self-Monitors, they are able to change their Self-Presentation, which allows them to better socialize with a bigger variety of people. There are definitely some disadvantages to being a low Self-Monitor, but I can’t say I would want to change, which seems like a really low Self-Monitoring to say.
Schlenker, B.R. (2003). Self-presentation. In M.R. Leary & J.P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 492-518). New York: Guilford
Snyder, M. (1974). The self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537.
Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances private/realities: The psychology of self-monitoring. New York: Freeman.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
The One About Me, Parties, and The Spotlight Effect
When looking through the topics discussed this week, there was one concept in particular that stuck with me, The Spotlight Effect. It is the reason I feel awkward in social situations and why I generally avoid big parties.
The Spotlight Effect is the tendency for people to overestimate how much others are watching and noticing them, the good and the bad (Gilovich & Savitsky, 1999). In other words, when a hypothetical person is walking down the street and almost trips, they would automatically feel as if everyone saw that minor slip-up and are laughing at them. On the flipside, that hypothetical person would also automatically expect people to pay particular notice when something good happens to them, like they answer a question right in class or have a good hair day. The truth is, people aren’t really paying that much attention to us, though we feel as if the whole world is watching.
A personal example is my history with parties, which I try to avoid most of the time. Due to The Spotlight Effect or my general paranoia, I feel almost suffocated at parties due to the belief that everyone is watching me. No matter how much I tell myself that these people are going to the party to have fun and not watch me awkwardly stand in the corner, I still feel as if everyone notices when I am standing alone. That when I almost slip because the floor is wet with beer, they are all laughing to themselves. And that when I accidently spill a drink on my shirt, the stain might as well glow in the dark because everyone is sure to notice. Of course this doesn’t hold true for where parties I consume alcohol, which seems to cancel out The Spotlight Effect. Similar to when negative things happen, I also expect people around me to pay special attention when good things are happening. Like when I feel I’m wear a particularly nice looking outfit, I expect people to be beside themselves over how cute it is.
The Spotlight Effect is a difficult thing to overcome. I’ve been aware of this concept for some years now and I still fall prey to it. Though it’s not the most urgent matter to overcome, being aware that people aren’t really paying much attention to you could help a person function more comfortably in a big crowd.
Gilovich, T., & Savitsky, K. (1999). The Spotlight effect and the illusion of transparency: Egocentric assessments of how we are seen by others. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(6), 165-168.
The Spotlight Effect is the tendency for people to overestimate how much others are watching and noticing them, the good and the bad (Gilovich & Savitsky, 1999). In other words, when a hypothetical person is walking down the street and almost trips, they would automatically feel as if everyone saw that minor slip-up and are laughing at them. On the flipside, that hypothetical person would also automatically expect people to pay particular notice when something good happens to them, like they answer a question right in class or have a good hair day. The truth is, people aren’t really paying that much attention to us, though we feel as if the whole world is watching.
A personal example is my history with parties, which I try to avoid most of the time. Due to The Spotlight Effect or my general paranoia, I feel almost suffocated at parties due to the belief that everyone is watching me. No matter how much I tell myself that these people are going to the party to have fun and not watch me awkwardly stand in the corner, I still feel as if everyone notices when I am standing alone. That when I almost slip because the floor is wet with beer, they are all laughing to themselves. And that when I accidently spill a drink on my shirt, the stain might as well glow in the dark because everyone is sure to notice. Of course this doesn’t hold true for where parties I consume alcohol, which seems to cancel out The Spotlight Effect. Similar to when negative things happen, I also expect people around me to pay special attention when good things are happening. Like when I feel I’m wear a particularly nice looking outfit, I expect people to be beside themselves over how cute it is.
The Spotlight Effect is a difficult thing to overcome. I’ve been aware of this concept for some years now and I still fall prey to it. Though it’s not the most urgent matter to overcome, being aware that people aren’t really paying much attention to you could help a person function more comfortably in a big crowd.
Gilovich, T., & Savitsky, K. (1999). The Spotlight effect and the illusion of transparency: Egocentric assessments of how we are seen by others. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(6), 165-168.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
The One About My Roommate, the Missed Question, and Counterfactual Thinking
When thinking about writing this blog, I kept hitting a brick wall. With concepts like priming and attribution theories to discuss, I could think of a million little example, but nothing I felt I could expand on. I almost decided to just skip this week’s blog, until my roommate came home with a story to tell.
Last week, my roommate became sick, which is bad enough. Unfortunately for her, she also had her first test in an important class that week. She contemplated not going, but decided she was well enough to go and she didn’t want to stress about the test anymore. Walking into our apartment today, I was met with my roommate, who told me they received their graded tests today. After asking her how she did, my roommate got a sad look on her face and said she would have had a perfect score, but she had accidently skipped one of the short essay questions.
After trying to reassure her that she could bounce back from this and do better on future tests, my roommate lamented that what bothered her most was that she knew the question. That she could have easily gotten a perfect score, but for whatever reason, perhaps due to her being sick, she had glazed over that one question. She went on to say she wouldn’t be so mad at herself if she didn’t actually know the question because then she could tell herself it didn’t matter that she had skipped the question because she didn’t know it anyway. She then fumed about the different scenarios that could have gotten her a better score. Maybe if she had looked over the test one more time. Maybe if she had waited till she had felt better to take the test, she would have been more attentive. The list goes on. Sadly for my roommate, no matter how many scenarios she thinks up, she still skipped the question.
What my roommate is suffering from is Counterfactual Thinking, which is part of a bigger concept, Cognitive Heuristics. Specifically, Cognitive Heuristics are information-processing tools that are usually helpful in allowing us to quickly and efficiently think about the world around us, but can lead us astray (Gilovich, Grifin, & Kahneman, 2002; Kahneman, Slovic, & Tversky, 1982; Nisbett & Ross, 1980). There are several different heuristic tools we use, but the one I’m focusing on in this blog is Counterfactual Thinking, which is the inclination of a person to think of the different possible outcomes, that did not occur, of an event (Kahneman & Miller, 1986). Furthermore, research has shown that the alternative outcomes we come up with affect how we feel about the event (Roese, 1997; Roese & Olson, 1995). In other words, if we imagine more positive alternates, we feel disappointed or frustrated with the actual outcome, but if we imagine negative outcomes, we usually feel more relieved or satisfied with the actual outcome. Moreover, certain situations make it easier to conjure up other possible outcomes, such as situations where we are on the verge of a better or worse outcome or just below a cutoff point (Medvec & Savitsky, 1997).
So for my roommate, the fact the she was so close to a perfect score made the situation even worse and much easier to think of different outcomes. If she had made a worse score, it might have made it easier for her to let it go and just tell herself to study and focus more next time. Furthermore, her feelings of anger and disappointment are explained by the fact that she was focusing on more positive alternatives, such as answering the last question, than on negative outcomes, such as missing more than just the one question. Had she thought of all the worse alternative outcomes, she might have felt better about the grade she received.
Gilovich, T., Grifin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.). (2002) Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman, D., & Miller, D.T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93, 136-153.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Medvec, V.H., & Savitsky, K. (1997). When doing better means feeling worse: The effects of categorical cutoff points on counterfactual thinking and satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1284-1296.
Nisbett, R.E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inferences: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Roese, N.J. (1997). Counterfactual thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 133-148.
Roese, N.J., & Olson, J.M. (Eds.). (1995). What might have been: The social psychology of counterfactual thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Last week, my roommate became sick, which is bad enough. Unfortunately for her, she also had her first test in an important class that week. She contemplated not going, but decided she was well enough to go and she didn’t want to stress about the test anymore. Walking into our apartment today, I was met with my roommate, who told me they received their graded tests today. After asking her how she did, my roommate got a sad look on her face and said she would have had a perfect score, but she had accidently skipped one of the short essay questions.
After trying to reassure her that she could bounce back from this and do better on future tests, my roommate lamented that what bothered her most was that she knew the question. That she could have easily gotten a perfect score, but for whatever reason, perhaps due to her being sick, she had glazed over that one question. She went on to say she wouldn’t be so mad at herself if she didn’t actually know the question because then she could tell herself it didn’t matter that she had skipped the question because she didn’t know it anyway. She then fumed about the different scenarios that could have gotten her a better score. Maybe if she had looked over the test one more time. Maybe if she had waited till she had felt better to take the test, she would have been more attentive. The list goes on. Sadly for my roommate, no matter how many scenarios she thinks up, she still skipped the question.
What my roommate is suffering from is Counterfactual Thinking, which is part of a bigger concept, Cognitive Heuristics. Specifically, Cognitive Heuristics are information-processing tools that are usually helpful in allowing us to quickly and efficiently think about the world around us, but can lead us astray (Gilovich, Grifin, & Kahneman, 2002; Kahneman, Slovic, & Tversky, 1982; Nisbett & Ross, 1980). There are several different heuristic tools we use, but the one I’m focusing on in this blog is Counterfactual Thinking, which is the inclination of a person to think of the different possible outcomes, that did not occur, of an event (Kahneman & Miller, 1986). Furthermore, research has shown that the alternative outcomes we come up with affect how we feel about the event (Roese, 1997; Roese & Olson, 1995). In other words, if we imagine more positive alternates, we feel disappointed or frustrated with the actual outcome, but if we imagine negative outcomes, we usually feel more relieved or satisfied with the actual outcome. Moreover, certain situations make it easier to conjure up other possible outcomes, such as situations where we are on the verge of a better or worse outcome or just below a cutoff point (Medvec & Savitsky, 1997).
So for my roommate, the fact the she was so close to a perfect score made the situation even worse and much easier to think of different outcomes. If she had made a worse score, it might have made it easier for her to let it go and just tell herself to study and focus more next time. Furthermore, her feelings of anger and disappointment are explained by the fact that she was focusing on more positive alternatives, such as answering the last question, than on negative outcomes, such as missing more than just the one question. Had she thought of all the worse alternative outcomes, she might have felt better about the grade she received.
Gilovich, T., Grifin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.). (2002) Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman, D., & Miller, D.T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93, 136-153.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Medvec, V.H., & Savitsky, K. (1997). When doing better means feeling worse: The effects of categorical cutoff points on counterfactual thinking and satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1284-1296.
Nisbett, R.E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inferences: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Roese, N.J. (1997). Counterfactual thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 133-148.
Roese, N.J., & Olson, J.M. (Eds.). (1995). What might have been: The social psychology of counterfactual thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
