Self-perception - what is it in psychology: development and self-attribution

Self-perception is the ability acquired in social development to analyze one’s personality, behavior and abilities, as well as an assessment of such life areas as family and place of residence, position held and developing interpersonal relationships. Self-perception in psychology refers to one of the elements of self-awareness, and expresses its most simplified function and the initial stage - perception, after which assessment and awareness are involved.

An individual's self-perception is a factor that determines the level of self-esteem and ambition, behavioral characteristics, relationships and the ability to achieve success. It is this mental neoplasm that can influence what an individual will perceive as simple or complex (regardless of the phenomenon itself), how he will establish intrapersonal boundaries and norms of permissible behavior, as well as the ability to see obstacles or multiple ways to achieve goals.

Self-perception beliefs are so deep and strong that almost a person’s entire life is subject to these stereotypes. It is correct to use stereotypical thinking, since once an ingrained opinion about one’s quality is quite difficult, it is quite difficult to make any subsequent correction, especially an intentional one. This is due to the fact that the internal image of oneself is formed in early childhood, based on the assessment of others (when the psyche is most vulnerable to any comments), but as one grows up, the influence of other people’s opinions becomes invisible, since the previously formed image of oneself remains a priority.

Definition of self-perception

In simple words, self-perception in psychology is a person’s system of ideas about himself, his appearance, his inner world, and behavior. The name is derived from two English words self and concept, which literally translates as “concept, notion, idea of ​​oneself.” Self-perception is formed on the basis of a person’s observations of himself, analysis of his own emotions, states, thoughts, actions, successes and failures. Self-perception is closely related to self-esteem.

Does the environment influence a person's self-perception?

Yes, the environment greatly influences a person’s self-perception, especially in childhood. Until the age of 6-7 years, children have not yet developed critical thinking, so they build all their ideas about themselves based on the judgments of other people. At first, only the family, the parents, have an influence. Then kindergarten teachers and peers get involved, then teachers and classmates. And although when entering school the child already has the basics of self-esteem, he is still more focused on assessing the environment.

In fairness, it is worth noting that in adult life, every person is dependent on the opinion of society. We still focus on other people's assessments. Some depend more on the assessment of society, and others less, but we continue to build a concept of self-image through comparison with other people, analysis of their reactions and behavior in response to our words and actions. We also listen to the opinions of close, significant people and are ready to correct some of our characteristics if they interfere with building healthy and strong relationships.

What comes first - beliefs or behavior? Internal attitudes or external actions? Character or course of action? What is the relationship between what we are

(inside ourselves) and what we
do
(in the outside world)?

The answers to these questions (from the same series as the question about the chicken and the egg) can be exactly the opposite. “The progenitor of all action is thought,” wrote American essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson in 1841. British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli said the exact opposite: “Thought is the child of action.” Yet most people side with Emerson. The basis of our instructions, morals and recommendations, as a rule, is the assumption that behavior in society is determined by personal beliefs: if we want to change people's behavior, first of all we need to change their souls and minds.

Do attitudes influence behavior?

Settings

are beliefs or feelings that can influence our reactions.
If we are convinced
that a certain person is threatening us, we may feel
hostility
and therefore act
unfriendly.
“Change the way people think,” said South African civil rights activist Steve Biko, echoing Emerson, “and reality will never be the same again.”

Believing that these words were true, social psychologists in the 40s and 50s carefully studied the factors influencing attitudes. And how shocked they were when dozens of studies conducted in the 1960s showed that what people think and feel often has very little to do with their actual behavior (Wicker, 1971). In particular, it was found that students’ attitude towards cheat sheets is very weakly related to how often they use them. A statement about how a person feels about church allows only a distant guess as to whether he attends Sunday services. And what people say about their attitudes toward people of other races implies some variation in behavior when confronted with real-life interracial situations. It seems that people are talking about one thing, but playing completely different games.

Understanding all this inspired much of the research done in the 70s and 80s, which found that our attitudes are indeed

influence our actions under the following conditions:

— When external influences on our words and actions are minimal.

Sometimes, when expressing our position, we adapt to the opinions of our listeners. This was clearly demonstrated when the House of Representatives of the US Congress, in a preliminary closed vote, increased the wages of its members, and literally a few days later, in an open vote, unexpectedly for everyone, failed this decision. Fear of criticism has distorted the true intentions of congressmen. It happens that social pressure takes us very far from the behavior that our own attitudes dictate, forcing us to be cruel towards those towards whom, in fact, we do not feel any hostility. When external pressures do not blur the connections between attitudes and actions, they can be observed more clearly.

— When we are dealing with specific attitudes regarding specific actions.

People are willing to preach honesty and yet be “cunning” when preparing their tax returns; they verbally care about the cleanliness of the environment and at the same time are too lazy to sort household waste for recycling; They welcome a healthy lifestyle and at the same time smoke and do not play sports. However, how they feel about jogging is a better predictor of whether they jog or not (Olson Zanna, 1981), as is their attitude toward recycling—whether they sort their trash (Oskamp, ​​1991), and their attitude toward contraception—whether they use to them or not (Morrison, 1989).

— When we consciously perceive our attitudes.

Our attitudes can remain unused when we follow a habit or go with the flow. In order for them to guide our actions, we need to pause and take them into account. By remembering how we really feel about all this, we begin to tailor actual actions to our beliefs (Fazio, 1990). Attitudes formed during the rethinking of experiences are remembered more often and have a stronger impact.

So, to summarize: the attitude will influence our behavior when

other effects are minimal
when
it is specifically associated with specific actions and
when
it becomes potentially operative because it is brought to our consciousness.
In such cases, we will
stand firmly by what we believe.

Does behavior affect attitudes?

Do we begin to believe in what we firmly hold? Without a doubt. One of the main lessons of social psychology is that we probably not only act as we think, but also think as we act. It has been confirmed more than once that attitudes follow behavior.

Playing roles

The word "role" is borrowed from theatrical life, and, as there, it is used to denote the actions expected of people occupying a certain social position. Having moved to a new level of the social ladder, we are forced to behave appropriately, even if we feel somewhat awkward. However, it should be noted that such awkwardness passes very quickly.

Think back to a time when you were settling into a new role—perhaps the day you first showed up at a new job or college or social organization. During that first week on campus, you must have been overly sensitive to your new social status, trying to behave as expected, completely forgetting about your old school habits. At such moments we try to understand what we are now. We monitor our new speech and our new actions because they are unnatural for us. And then, at one point, an amazing thing happens: we notice that our heroic enthusiasm or our pseudo-intellectual conversation is no longer forced. We begin to feel as comfortable in a new role as in an old pair of jeans or a T-shirt.

In one experiment, student volunteers were asked to “do time” in a makeshift prison organized by Philip Zimbardo (Zimbardo, 1971) in the psychology department at Stanford University. Like many others, Zimbardo was interested in the question of what is primary and what is secondary: is prison cruelty a product of the depravity of prisoners and the ruthlessness of guards, or, conversely, do the prescribed roles of guards and prisoners in prison harden and embitter people - including those who are not alien to compassion? Do people make prison cruel or does prison make people cruel?

By tossing a coin, Zimbardo selected from among the students those who would serve as guards. They were given uniforms, batons and whistles, and instructed in the prison rules they would have to adhere to. The other half of the students, the “prisoners,” were forced to wear humiliating robes and locked in cells. The first day was a day of general fun: all participants willingly got used to their roles. But soon guards, prisoners and even experimenters found themselves hostage to the situation. The guards began to humiliate the prisoners, and some of them even succeeded in inventing cruel abuse. The prisoners could not stand it: some rebelled, others fell into apathy. “Thus,” wrote Zimbardo (1972), “real life and illusions, imposed roles and the true “I” were increasingly mixed... This prison, which we created... swallowed us up as the creation of our own reality.” Seeing the danger of the emergence of social pathology, Zimbardo was forced to stop the experiment, designed for two weeks, on the sixth day. There is a profound lesson to be learned from research on role-playing: the unreal (the artificial role) can easily lure us into what ends up being reality.

When statements become beliefs

In 1785, Thomas Jefferson hypothesized that distorted information can have an impact on the speaker: “Whoever lies for the first time soon realizes that it becomes easier and easier to tell a lie, and eventually it becomes a habit. He begins to lie without thinking at all, and when he tells the truth, no one believes him anyway. So the vices of the tongue lead to the vices of the soul, and at some point this begins to outweigh all the good in it.” Experiments confirmed Jefferson was right.

People who are forced to give oral or written testimony about something about which they are not entirely sure often feel uneasy, fearing unwitting deception. However, they soon begin to believe what they say - provided that

they are not bribed or forced to do so. When the speaker is not under pressure, his statements become his beliefs (Klaas, 1978).

Tory Higgins and his colleagues (Higgins Rholes, 1978; Higgins McCann, 1984) clearly illustrated how this happens in their research. They asked university students to read a description of a person, and then retell this description to people whose attitude towards the imaginary subject was known in advance. Students described a person as more positive when they knew the listener liked them. And what’s curious is that as soon as they spoke well of the person, they liked him even more. When asked to recall the original text of the description, they drew a more positive image than that presented in the description. In other words, we often adapt to the opinions of our interlocutors, and having done this, we ourselves begin to believe in what we say.

The “feet in the door” phenomenon

Many of us can probably remember cases when, having agreed to assist in something or someone, we ended up being involved in this matter much more than we would like; after which, of course, there followed a vow never to succumb to such persuasion in the future. How does this happen? Experience shows that if we want to receive serious help, we first need to provoke people to provide a small service. In a well-known experiment that illustrated the feet-in-the-door phenomenon,

research assistants, acting under the guise of road safety advocates, asked Californians to install huge, rather ugly “Be careful on the roads!” posters before entering their areas. Only 17% of residents gave their consent. And other people living in the same area were first asked to provide a small amount. Almost everyone willingly agreed. Two weeks later, when they were asked to install a poster at the entrance to the sites, 76% agreed (Freedman Fraser, 1966). One of the campaigners later recalled how, having no idea whether anyone had visited the house before with an offer to take a sticker or not, he “was simply amazed at how easy it was to convince some and how difficult it was to convince others” (Ornstein, 1991). .

Several other studies have confirmed that using the foot-in-the-door technique often provokes people to show altruism.

— Patricia Pliner and her associates (Patricia Pliner, 1974) found that of those residents of a Toronto suburb who were immediately asked to donate money to the Cancer Society, 46% agreed to help..

At the same time, among those who were approached the day before with a request to wear badges advertising this campaign, the number of people who agreed was almost twice as large.

— Joseph Schwarzwald and his colleagues (Joseph Schwarzwald, 1983) asked Israelis to donate money to help mentally retarded people. 53% did not refuse. Among those approached two weeks earlier with a request to sign a petition in support of the creation of a recreation center for the mentally retarded, 92% donated.

— Anthony Greenwald and his colleagues (Anthony Greenwald, 1987) asked a number of potential voters the day before the 1984 presidential election, “Are you going to vote?” Everyone answered in the affirmative. The number of those who actually voted, compared to those who were not asked about their intentions, was 41% higher.

—Angela Lipsitz others (1989) reports that it was only necessary during a donor campaign to change the ending of the campaign appeal to the following words: “We can count on you, can’t we?” (then a pause, as if waiting for an answer) as the number of people donating blood increased from 62% to 81%.

Please note that in all the experiments conducted, initial consent—signing a petition, wearing a badge, announcing one’s intentions—was purely voluntary. More than once we will encounter the fact that, having publicly made some commitments, people begin to believe more strongly in what they are doing.

- Robert Cialdini and his colleagues (Robert Cialdini, 1978) demonstrated another variation of the “foot in the door” technique - “luring with a discount”; This tactic is known to be widely used by car sellers. After the buyer, flattered by the favorable price, decides to purchase a new car and begins to draw up documents for the purchase, the seller unexpectedly demands additional payment for what, in the buyer's opinion, should be included in the total price, thereby negating the announced discount. Or the boss suddenly appears and prohibits the deal: “This is not profitable for us.” They say that in this situation, buyers are still more likely than usual to purchase cars at an inflated price.

Marketing researchers have been surprised to find that this principle works even when consumers perceive that marketers are simply pursuing their own profit (Cialdini, 1988). Taking on seemingly innocuous commitments—agreeing to return a card to claim a prize or listening to what an opportunity is—often leads us to take on much larger commitments. The day after I wrote this chapter, an insurance agent came into my office with an offer to do a detailed analysis of my family's financial situation. He didn't ask me if I wanted life insurance or if I wanted to use his free service. He asked a premeditated question designed to obtain consent, which in its insidiousness is comparable to the “foot in the door” technique. “Do you think,” he asked me, “do people need to know about their financial situation?” I nodded my head before I realized that I was already giving my consent to the analysis. But now I have become a scientist. Just the other day a man knocked on the door of my house.

Having persuaded me to sign a petition to protect the environment, he immediately offered to make a feasible monetary donation. So, I put my signature, but I didn’t give in to more - I didn’t give money.

Sellers use small concession tactics when trying to persuade people to sign trade agreements. Many American states now have laws in place that allow buyers, if they keep a traveling salesman's product, to take a few days to decide whether to purchase it or not. To counteract this, many companies resort to what one sales training manual calls "a very important psychological influence that will prevent buyers from backing out when signing a contract" (Cialdini, 1988, p. 78). . They give simple advice: it is better if the trade agreement is filled out not by the seller, but by the buyer. When they fill out documents with their own hands, they usually adhere to their obligations.

The foot-in-the-door phenomenon deserves very careful study. Anyone who tries to seduce us - financially, politically or sexually - usually seeks to persuade us to make concessions. Before agreeing to any request, even a small one, think about what will follow.

Malicious actions and attitudes

The principle of “attitude follows behavior” also works in the case of more immoral actions. Sometimes a crime is the result of a series of offenses, each increasing in degree of immorality. Committing an offense that is only slightly outside the boundaries of generally accepted norms of behavior may make it easier to attempt to commit a more serious offense. Immoral behavior undermines a person's ability to recognize what is moral and what is immoral. To paraphrase the Maxims of La Rochefoucauld (1665), we can say that it is easier to find someone who has never given in to temptation than someone who has only given in to it once.

Thus, cruelty corrodes the consciousness of those who resort to it. Inflicting harm on an innocent victim usually creates contempt for the aggressor, thereby giving him the opportunity to justify his behavior (Berscheid others, 1968; Davis Jones, 1960, Glass, 1964). We humans have a tendency not only to harm those we do not love, but also to dislike those we abuse. Studies examining this phenomenon have found that people tend to justify their actions, especially when they are pushed rather than forced to do them. By voluntarily agreeing to do something, we take greater responsibility for what we have done.

This phenomenon almost always occurs in wartime: soldiers usually try to denigrate their victims in one way or another. During World War II, American soldiers contemptuously called the Japanese "Japs" [Close to the Russian "Japs." (Translator's note)

], and in the 60s of the Vietnamese - “gooks”.
[A contemptuous nickname for Asians, close to the Russian “hillbilly”. (Translator's note)
]

This is another example of the spiral development of actions and attitudes: the more a person commits cruel acts, the easier they come to him. Consciousness is transformed.

The same goes for prejudices. If one group of people holds another in slavery, then it is likely that they perceive slaves as people with character traits that justify their oppression. Actions and attitudes feed each other, sometimes reaching the point where it is no longer perceived what is moral and what is immoral.

Fortunately, not only vicious actions shape a personality, but also moral ones. They say that our character is reflected most strongly in what we do when we feel like no one is watching. The researchers assessed the children's personalities by tempting them at a time when the children thought no one was watching them. Let's look at what happens when children try to resist temptation. They subconsciously act as expected of them if

their constraint factors are strict enough to allow them to choose the expected
behavior,
but at the same time soft enough to leave a sense of freedom of
choice.
In a very impressive experiment, Jonathan Freedman (1965) showed elementary school students an entertaining electronic robot, but forbade them from playing with it when the experimenter was not in the room. Friedman promised one half of the children a fairly serious punishment in case of disobedience, the other - less serious. Both warnings were sufficient to deter the children.

A few weeks later, another researcher who had nothing to do with the previous experiment left the same children playing in the same room with the same toys. Of the eighteen children who were promised serious punishment if they violated the ban, fourteen calmly continued to play with the robot. But two-thirds of the children who were promised a lenient punishment did not give in to the temptation to play with the robot. Having previously made a conscious choice not to

play with the robot, children who were promised a moderate punishment seemed to internalize this decision, and the new attitude controlled their subsequent actions. Thus, a moral act, especially when it is done consciously rather than under duress, influences subsequent thinking about what is moral and what is immoral.

Interracial communication and racial attitudes

If moral actions fuel moral attitudes, will positive interracial communication prevent racial prejudice? This was precisely the opinion held by social scientists in 1954 before the US Supreme Court decision on school desegregation. They argued something like this: If we hope that prayers and teachings will change people's souls, we will have to wait a long time for fair treatment of all races without exception. But by elevating moral actions to the rank of law, we will be able to indirectly influence our attitudes, adopted not formally, but with the heart.

This idea goes against the statement that “we cannot legislate morality.” After all, desegregation was actually followed by a change in attitudes. Look at the connections that emerged from the massive social experiment of desegregation in the United States.

— Since the Supreme Court's decision on desegregation, the number of white Americans favoring coeducational education has more than doubled and is now close to 100%.

— In the ten years since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the number of white Americans who previously said their neighbors, friends, and co-workers were “all white” has dropped by 20 percent. Interracial ties increased. During the same period, the number of white Americans who favored allowing blacks to live in their neighborhoods increased from 65% to 87% (ISR Newsletter, 1975). The settings have also changed.

— A consequence of the reduction of differences in racial attitudes between representatives of different religions, classes and geographical areas was the emergence of uniform national norms against discrimination. As Americans' actions became more similar, their thoughts became more similar (Greeley Sheatsley, 1971; Taylor others, 1978).

Experiments confirm that positive actions towards another person lead to us beginning to like that person. For example, if we help an experimenter or help a student, we are more likely to like them (Bianchard Cook, 1976). Benjamin Franklin learned from his own experience that courtesy breeds sympathy. As secretary of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, one influential member constantly spoke out against him at meetings. Franklin set out to defeat him.

«To gain his favor, I did not resort to either servility or offers that were beneficial to him, I decided to act differently. Having heard that there was a very rare and interesting book in his library, I wrote him a letter in which I expressed my desire to familiarize myself with this book and asked him to do me the courtesy of borrowing it for a short time. He immediately sent me the book. I returned it about a week later with expressions of sincere gratitude. The next time we met in Parliament, he was the first to speak to me (which he had never done before), and in an extremely friendly manner. And after this he was always ready to do me a favor, so that we soon became great friends, and our friendship continued until his death

"
(Rozenzweig, 1972, p. 769).
Brainwashing

Many believe that people are most effectively indoctrinated through brainwashing (a term coined to describe what happened to American prisoners of war during the Korean War in the 1950s). In fact, China's "thought control" program, designed to re-educate the entire Chinese population into communism, could be resisted. However, the results obtained are simply discouraging. Hundreds of prisoners of war agreed to cooperate with their enemies. Twenty-one people refused to return to America despite being given permission; many of those who returned home were convinced that “although communism was unlikely to work in America, it was quite acceptable in Asia” (Segal, 1954).

Edgar Schein (1956), who interviewed many returning American prisoners of war, observed that their treatment methods included gradually increasing demands. The Chinese always started with trivial demands, gradually reaching more serious ones. “So, only after a prisoner of war was “trained” to say and write something insignificant, they began to demand more serious confessions from him.” In addition, the Chinese always expected captives to actively participate—whether by simply copying actions or participating in group discussions, expressing self-critical thoughts, or publicly repenting. As soon as a prisoner of war declared something orally or in writing, he immediately felt an inner need to make sure that his words did not diverge from his actions. This often led to prisoners convincing themselves that their actions were right. The “start small” tactic was an effective practical application of the “foot in the door” method, which is still used to this day in the training of terrorists and executioners.

In Nazi Germany, participation in mass rallies and demonstrations, wearing uniforms, and especially the constant repetition of the “German salute” (“Heil Hitler!”) initially created in many Germans a deep discrepancy between behavior and beliefs. Historian Richard Granberger (1971) writes that for those who doubted their attitude towards Hitler, “...the greeting “Heil Hitler!” was a powerful means of forming an attitude. Having once decided to pronounce it as an outward sign of obedience, many experienced schizophrenic discomfort from the contradiction between words and feelings. Unable to say what they believed, they tried to achieve balance by consciously forcing themselves to believe what they said.”

From observations of the influence of role-playing games, foot-in-the-door phenomena, moral and immoral actions, interracial behavior and brainwashing, a very important practical lesson can be learned: if we want to make serious changes, it is better not to rely on intuition and inspiration. Sometimes you just need to act: write something, call someone, meet someone, even if you don’t want to. Strengthening beliefs helps bring them into the rank of law. In this aspect, beliefs and love are similar to each other: if we keep them to ourselves, they dry out. If we legitimize them and express them openly, they grow.

Why does behavior influence attitudes?

Social psychologists agree: our actions influence our attitudes, sometimes turning enemies into friends, captives into accomplices, doubters into firm believers. But social psychologists are haunted by the question: why?

One possible explanation is that in order to make a good impression, people may express insincere opinions that are simply consistent with their attitudes. Let's not lie, we are all concerned about our appearance - otherwise why do we spend so much money on clothes, cosmetics and maintaining the desired weight? In order to make the desired impression, we can deliberately try to say only pleasant things to people and not in any way offensive. To appear consistent, we may pretend to hold an attitude that is consistent with our actions.

And that is not all. Experiments show that our true attitudes often change in accordance with the obligations we assume after committing certain actions. Cognitive dissonance theory and self-perception theory offer two possible explanations for this.

According to the theory of cognitive dissonance,

put forward by Leon Festinger (1957), people experience tension (“dissonance”) when they simultaneously have two psychologically incompatible thoughts or beliefs. This happens when our words or actions contradict the attitudes we already have. Festinger argues that to reduce unpleasant feelings, we often try to regulate our thinking.

Dissonance theory is useful to use mainly when behavior contradicts attitudes. We consciously perceive both. And if we feel an inconsistency (perhaps feeling hypocrisy), then we understand: something needs to be changed - either behavior or attitudes. This helps, for example, to understand why those who smoke justify smoking. Thus, one British study notes that while among non-smokers almost everyone agrees with the statement that smoking “is really as dangerous as they say,” then among smokers only about half agree (Eiser others, 1979).

Thus, if we can persuade others to accept the new attitude, their behavior will change accordingly. This simply follows from common sense. Conversely, if we can get people to behave differently, their attitudes will change (this is the self-persuasion effect we already discussed).

Cognitive dissonance theory suggests that the need to perceive ourselves as positive and consistent people causes us to take positions that are consistent with our actions. In self-perception theory

this is stated quite simply: when our attitudes are not clear to us, we observe our behavior and, starting from it, logically deduce what our attitudes are. As Anne Frank wrote in her diary:

“I can monitor myself and my actions like an outsider.” By monitoring our behavior, we can come to a conclusion about what caused it.

Self-perception theory, proposed by Daryl Bem in 1972, posits that when we are uncertain about our own attitudes, we infer them by observing our own behavior, just as we evaluate the attitudes of others. We just need to identify what we say and do when nothing connects us. To paraphrase an old saying, one might ask, “How can I know what I’m thinking when I hear what I say or see what I do?”

The debate over what follows what: attitudes followed by behavior or behavior followed by attitudes inspires researchers to conduct hundreds of experiments in which it is discovered that dissonance processes are triggered under some conditions and self-perception under others. Dissonance theory better explains what happens when our actions openly contradict our ingrained attitudes. By traumatizing someone we love with our words, we feel discomfort, which can be significantly reduced by presenting this person as a complete idiot. Self-perception theory better explains what happens when we are unsure of our attitudes. We logically deduce them from observations of ourselves. If we lend a cup of sugar to new neighbors about whom we have not yet decided whether we like them or not, such help may lead to the logical conclusion that we do like them.

As often happens in science, each theory provides only a partial explanation of a complex reality. If human nature were simple, it could be described by just one simple theory. Fortunately, we are not such primitive creatures - which is why the time when psychologists can sleep peacefully is still far away.

Concepts to remember

The technique of “luring with a discount”

(Low-ball technique) - a tactic designed to achieve agreement. People who give in to initial demands often give in when the stakes are raised. People who are immediately approached with an offer to purchase something that will cost them a lot are less likely to express their consent.

Role

(Role) - a set of norms that determine how people occupying a certain social position should behave.

Cognitive dissonance theory

(Cognitive dissonance) - tension that arises when people simultaneously have two psychologically incompatible thoughts or beliefs; when we realize that we acted without sufficient grounds, in contradiction with our attitudes. To reduce this tension, the theory of cognitive dissonance proposes to respond by adjusting attitudes to actions.

Self-perception theory

(Self-perception theory) - a theory that states that, feeling unsure of determining our own attitudes, we logically deduce them by observing ourselves, our behavior under appropriate circumstances.

Installation

Attitude is a favorable or unfavorable evaluative reaction manifested in beliefs, feelings and intentional behavior.

The “feet in the door” phenomenon

(Foot-in-the-door-phenomenon) - the tendency in which people, having initially agreed to a mild request, later give in to more serious demands.

Table of contents

Self-perception theory

Self-perception is based on a person's comparison of himself with other people. Here are the criteria for comparison:

1. Physical characteristics: height, weight, body structure, condition of hair, nails, teeth, etc. We even compare facial features, such as the shape of the nose or eye color. Based on this comparison, a person forms an idea of ​​his own external attractiveness.
2. Appearance: clothes, accessories, hairstyle. Based on this comparison, a person’s ideas about his success and social status are formed. For example, it is generally accepted that branded items are a sign of wealth.
3. Manner of speech, behavior, gestures. Another criterion for ideas about a person’s social status and belonging to a group. For example, girls from the outback, who came to conquer the capital and have already reshaped their face and body after external comparison with Instagram divas, begin to adopt the behavioral characteristics of their idols. They change their gait, work on their voice, facial expressions and gestures.
4. Character traits, personal qualities. Based on this comparison, we choose our friends. Not just anyone, but those who are somewhat similar to us. In the process of communication and other interactions, we analyze a person’s personal characteristics and compare them with ourselves.
5. Capabilities. For mental balance, it is important to understand that in some ways we are better than others, in some ways worse, and in others we go hand in hand with dozens of other people. This is fine. And we understand this based on comparing our achievements with the achievements of others.

In psychology, it is customary to consider Daryl Bem's theory as the main theory of self-perception. To put it briefly and in simple words, its essence is as follows: a person’s ideas about himself are built on the basis of observations of his own behavior, activities, actions and the reactions of other people to them. However, there is a clarification in Daryl’s theory: the situation should not repeat the traumatic experience and should not be unfamiliar to the person. That is, objective, healthy observation of one’s behavior and the reactions of others is possible only in familiar situations that do not evoke a strong emotional response and do not entail a chain of traumatic memories.

Interesting! People with problematic self-perception and complexes sometimes become hostage to comparisons. For example, they spend their last money or take out a loan to purchase branded items in order to outwardly fit the image of wealthy people, but on the internal level nothing changes. And the person himself understands this, which makes him feel even more worthless. Although this does not always happen, some people drown in their illusion.

Examples

A person’s self-perception can be adequate and inadequate, that is, positive and negative or overly positive. With adequate self-perception, a person knows all his strengths and weaknesses, abilities and capabilities. With a negative self-perception, a person belittles his dignity, devalues ​​his achievements, and suffers from complexes and low self-esteem. With an overly positive self-perception, a person has a noticeable inflated self-esteem and an inflated level of ambition.

Let's look at one example for each type of self-perception from the theory:

1. Adequate positive self-perception. A person is offered a promotion at work - the position of head of a department. He understands that along with the salary, responsibilities also increase, and new tasks appear. But all this does not go beyond the scope of the company’s activities, with which the employee has been familiar for many years. That is, most likely, there will be no problems with mastering new responsibilities. And the employee has managerial skills, and leadership qualities are also present. He agrees to the promotion.
2. Inappropriate overly positive self-perception. An employee who has worked for the company for only a month, and before that did not work at all, asks for a raise. At the same time, he does not know how to manage people at all, and he also has problems with self-discipline and self-organization (being late, not completing tasks on time). The boss denies a request for a promotion, the employee quits with a scandal.
3. Inappropriate negative perception. A person has been holding the same position for 10 years. He works without raises or promotions, although he has been offered many times to become the head of the sales department. But every time he refuses out of fear of not being able to cope. He is not even motivated by the fact that the company recognized him as the most responsible, efficient, organized and generally the best employee, including in carrying out group tasks. And also, throughout the entire time he was working, he was haunted by the feeling that he was doing something wrong, taking someone else’s place, in general, he was tormented by impostor syndrome.

Thus, self-perception influences all human judgments. Based on self-perception, the subject decides what is difficult for him and what is simple, what he is worthy of and what he will never get, what kind of attitude he deserves from others.

Boehm's original experiment

In an attempt to decide whether people induce their attitudes toward observers without access to their internal states, Bem used an interpersonal simulation in which an "observer-participant" is given a detailed description of a single state cognitive dissonance experiment. The subjects listened to a tape in which a man enthusiastically described the tedious task of turning over pegs.

The subjects were told that the man was paid $20 for his testimony, while the other group was told that he was paid $1. Those in the latter condition thought that this person must have enjoyed the task more than those in the $20 condition. The results obtained were similar to the original ones. Festinger-Carlsmith experiment. Since observers who did not have access to actors' internal cognition and mood states could infer actors' true attitudes, it is possible that actors themselves also arrive at their attitudes by observing their own behavior. In particular, Bem o.

Errors in our self-perception

The problem with self-perception is that it is subjective. Not only the assessment of others affects a person’s perception of himself, but also his beliefs and ideas. It can also be difficult to get rid of old settings. For example, if in childhood a person was convinced that he was bad, then in adulthood it is difficult for him to believe the opposite, even if most people from the new environment tell him that he is worthy and good.

In addition, some people have a conflict between the real self and the ideal self. That is, a person does not like himself. This stimulates some people to develop themselves, while others fall into depression and despair because of this.

Perception errors especially often relate to appearance. The Dove company conducted a social experiment that proves the correctness of this judgment. Several women were invited to participate. They were asked to describe themselves. At this time, an artist was sitting behind a screen, drawing portraits based on these descriptions. At the same time, other people were asked to describe the same women. Based on these descriptions, the artist also painted portraits. What happened? That in drawings based on other people's descriptions, women looked much more attractive than in portraits based on their descriptions.

Thus, the experiment proved that others not only do not notice the bulk of the external shortcomings of other people, but also generally perceive them as more attractive than the people themselves think. And also those around you notice those attractive external features that go unnoticed by the owners of these features themselves.

Important! Negative self-perception (emphasis on shortcomings or inventing them, ignoring or underestimating abilities) interferes with the development and self-realization of the individual, and prevents the building of relationships with others.

Problems and criticism

Initially, self-perception theory was proposed as an alternative to explain the experimental results of cognitive dissonance theory, and there was debate about whether people experience attitude change as an attempt to reduce dissonance or as a result of self-perception processes. Based on the fact that the self-perception theory differs from the cognitive dissonance theory in that it does not claim that people experience a "negative drive state" called "dissonance" that they seek to alleviate, the following experiment was conducted to compare the two theories under different conditions .

Early research on cognitive dissonance theory suggests that people actually experience arousal when their behavior is inconsistent with their previous attitudes. Waterman[19] designed an experiment in which 77 male freshman college students were asked to write an essay challenging a position with which they essentially agreed. They were then immediately asked to do an easy task and a difficult one; their effectiveness in both tasks was assessed. They were found to perform better on the easy task and worse on the difficult task compared to those who had just written an essay that matched their true attitudes. As indicated by social facilitation, increased performance on simple tasks and decreased performance on complex tasks shows that arousal is caused by people when their behavior is inconsistent with their attitude. Therefore, the theory of cognitive dissonance is obvious in this case.

Self-perception disorder

Almost all mental disorders are associated with impaired self-perception. However, the greatest problems with self-perception are observed in the following conditions:

• depersonalization – a person’s loss of his personality (it seems to him that someone is controlling him);
• body dysmorphomania is a person’s conviction that he has an imaginary external defect.

Both conditions are usually a symptom of other disorders: schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder and others.

Note! A person’s self-esteem and level of ambition depend on self-perception. And also, a person’s perception of himself determines the boundaries in relationships with other people, that is, the subject broadcasts to others how they can interact with him. With a healthy self-perception, positive self-esteem and an adequate level of ambition, a person achieves success in life.

Truce experiment

Fazio, Zanna, and Cooper conducted another experiment in 1977, demonstrating that cognitive dissonance and self-perception can coexist.[21]

In an experimental design similar to Zanna and Cooper's 1974 study, another variable was manipulated: whether the counter-evaluative essay's position was breadth of acceptance or breadth of rejection (see social judgment theory). It turned out that when the essay's position dropped to the level of rejection, the results contributed to cognitive dissonance. However, when the essay fell in breadth of acceptance, the results favored the self-perception theory.[21]

The question of whether cognitive dissonance or self-perception is a more useful theory is the subject of considerable debate and a large body of literature. There are some circumstances in which a particular theory is favored, but the default terminology has traditionally been cognitive dissonance theory. Cognitive dissonance theory explains attitude changes when people's behavior is inconsistent with their initial attitudes, which are clear and important to them; Meanwhile, self-perception theory is used when initial attitudes are relatively ambiguous and less important. Research has shown that, contrary to traditional beliefs, most people have weak and vague attitudes. Thus, self-perception theory plays an important role in interpreting one's attitudes, such as assessing one's personality traits[22][23] and whether one will cheat to achieve a goal.[24]

According to J. Jademir and Yojiyfus, the perception of various aspects of interpretative theory can be determined by many factors, such as circumstances regarding dissonance and contradictions. This may also be due to balance theory as it relates to attitudes towards responsibility and measurement.

Ways to Develop Self-Perception

It is important to develop a positive self-image. What it is? This is a person’s adequate perception of his abilities, merits, and external features. Positive self-perception develops based on an analysis of achievements. It doesn't matter what others tell you. What matters is what you achieve. For example, if you got a job in a prestigious company, then you are an excellent specialist. If you win a music competition, it means you are an excellent player of a musical instrument.

Reviewing your achievements is not the only way to develop a positive self-perception. Let's look at how else this can be achieved:

1. We increase self-esteem by analyzing the facts. Make a list of your strengths, positive characteristics and advantages relative to other people around you. You can also include your achievements, victories, and experience in overcoming difficulties. And also write down the characteristics for which others value you.
2. We exclude toxic people from our lives. Start keeping a diary and track in which situations your confidence weakens and your attitude towards yourself deteriorates. Refuse to communicate with those who constantly criticize, devalue, insult, and be sarcastic. Surround yourself with those who help, support, guide, praise, constructively criticize. How do you know who you should communicate with and who you shouldn’t? If in the presence of some person you feel bad, your mood deteriorates, you lose motivation, you begin to criticize yourself and look for shortcomings in yourself, you feel powerless and weak, then you need to say goodbye to this person. If, when interacting with someone, you focus on your strengths and feel a surge of strength for new achievements, then you need to maintain contact with this person.
3. We are learning new things. First, identify an area in which you have achieved great success (take a period of your entire life). Achieve even more at what you are good at. After that, turn to what you like or once liked and were attracted to. Take the first step towards mastering this activity. Try whatever you want - this is the only way you can know yourself. Don't give up after the first failure. It is normal to make mistakes during the learning process.
4. Developing positive thinking. Learn to perceive difficulties as opportunities for growth, and failures as life lessons and invaluable experience. Using psychological tests, find out your temperament, abilities, personality type and other characteristics. Develop what is already in you and always believe in yourself. This is what positive thinking is all about. Start small: right now, remember some problematic situation and describe its advantages (how this experience is useful to you). Or think about what you could have done to change the outcome of events. And then ask yourself what you should take into account, change, develop in yourself in order to avoid making the same mistake next time.

In developing a positive self-perception, it is extremely important to learn to listen to yourself. You need to pay attention to your needs and desires.

Note! If we are talking about psychiatric distortions of self-perception, which occur, for example, with anorexia (an exhausted person sees in the mirror not his real reflection, but an obese image), then you cannot cope with this on your own - you need to contact a psychologist.

Obvious rebuttal

Debate ensued as to whether dissonance or self-perception was the operative mechanism of attitude change. The main difficulty was to find an experiment in which two flexible theories made completely different predictions. Some famous social psychologists such as Anthony Greenwald thought that it would be impossible to distinguish between the two theories.

In 1974, Zanna and Cooper conducted an experiment in which people were forced to write counter-attitude essays.[20] These were divided into low or high choice conditions. They were also given a placebo; they were told that the placebo caused tension, relaxation, or had no effect. At low choice, all participants showed no change in attitude, which would be predicted by both cognitive dissonance theory and self-perception theory.[20] At high choice, participants who were told that the placebo would cause tension showed no change in attitude, and participants who were told that the placebo would cause relaxation showed more change in attitude.[20]

These results cannot be explained by self-perception theory because arousal should have nothing to do with the mechanism underlying attitude change. However, cognitive dissonance theory could easily explain these results: if participants could attribute their state of unpleasant arousal to the placebo, they would not have to change their attitude.

Thus, for a time, it seemed that the debate between self-perception theory and cognitive dissonance was over.

My experience

I had to deal with a distorted self-perception of appearance. Until I was 16, I considered myself terribly ugly. Excess weight (even when it was no longer there, I continued to feel like I was in an old body), a big nose, short stature, bad teeth - I didn’t like all this. Where did this come from? From childhood. Only it was not the parents who suggested this, but other children. About the nose, height and teeth, I still don’t understand who inspired it. Perhaps glossy magazines.

Some of this could be corrected and attributed to objective defects and even health problems. I don’t know why my parents didn’t pay attention to the terrible condition of my teeth and weight problems. At the age of 15, I finally got help to fix my teeth. Some of the complexes disappeared immediately - I began to smile openly. Then I lost weight (not in the healthiest way and later I gained those kilograms again, and then lost them again in a healthy way). Along with losing weight, some more complexes disappeared.

A little later, I began to notice that someone might like me too. This was a real discovery. For a long time I was wary of those who tried to get close to me. I was expecting a catch. But he wasn't there. I began to realize that guys liked me. People told me compliments (just random passers-by on the street) and got to know me. And the more such situations there were, the more I doubted that my belief “I’m scary” was true.

Closer to 17 years old, I met my husband. It turned out that magazines, TV and other beauty “experts” were lying. It turns out that everyone has their own idea of ​​beauty. Some people like short girls and, on the contrary, do not like models, especially those who walk in heels like paralyzed grasshoppers. Some people like long, pointed noses rather than a small potato nose. Some people like skinny girls, while others like curvy girls. Etc. All this can be continued endlessly.

In general, I realized that in addition to internal attractiveness, I also have external attractiveness. Although they say that you first need to love yourself, and then those around you will love you. In my case, the opposite principle worked: I was loved sincerely and truly without any conditions, after which I accepted myself and began to blossom more and more every year, learned to take care of myself and look after myself. I also learned not only to receive heat, but also to give it away. I stopped being aggressive for the purpose of protection, got rid of the war paint on my face and provocative clothing, began to monitor my health, etc. (you can’t tell everything). Well, then I also plunged into psychology, after which a global transformation began on all fronts: both externally and internally.

At one time, the following plan for self-analysis and determining the way to correct self-perception of appearance or personality helped me:

1. We write down the main tormenting statements. For example: “I’m scary”, “I’m fat”, “I have a huge nose”, “I’m short”, “I’m rude”, “I’m aggressive”.
2. We write down all the situations in which we say these phrases to ourselves. Let’s remember the first situation and determine who and when instilled this attitude in us.
3. We separate someone's opinion from fact. We determine the hidden motives of this person’s behavior. Or we are looking for facts to counterbalance the statement.
4. We abandon this belief and form a healthy attitude based on facts, not someone else's opinions.

This method also helps me: I choose the image I want to get closer to and make a step-by-step plan. As a rule, this is a collective image from individual traits and qualities of famous people or simply invented by me. One way or another, I imagine this image in front of me in the form of a person and copy his behavior, speech, thinking, actions, etc. Gradually, all this becomes my true, and not repeated after someone else.

It is important to understand that how you think about yourself is how you will behave. For example, if you want to lose weight, then now treat yourself as if you were in a new body. Without any “later”, “you have to earn it”, “it’s too early” and other things. For example, right now you can change your hairstyle, buy new clothes, learn how to care for your skin. For some reason, many women make this mistake: worrying about being overweight, they completely forget about taking care of themselves.

Note! The main conclusion that I have made for myself so far is that you can endlessly work on your appearance and content, but it is more important to achieve harmony within yourself. When you understand where you are going, value and respect yourself, accept yourself here and now, then all positive changes come easier. You just need to start this flywheel.

Recommendations

1. Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of the phenomena of cognitive dissonance. Psychological Review, 74, 183-200.
2. Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1-62). New York: Academic Press.
3. Roebuck, R. W., Ward, A., & Ostolaza, C. (2005). Development of a general measure of individuals' recognition of self-perception processes. Psychology, 7, 337-344.
4. Laird, J. D. (2007). Feelings: self-awareness. New York: Oxford University Press.
5. ^ a b c
   Laird, J. D. (1974). Self-attribution of emotions: The influence of expressive behavior on the quality of emotional experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(4), 475-486. DOI: 10.1037/h0036125
6. ^ a b c
   Ito, T., Chiao, K., Devine, P., Lorig, T., & Cacioppo, J. (2006). The effects of facial feedback on racial prejudice. Psychological Science, 17(3), 256-261. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01694.x
7. ^ a b c
   Chaiken, S., & Baldwin, M. W. (1981). Affective-cognitive consistency and the influence of salient behavioral information on self-reported attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(1), 1-12. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.41.1.1
8. Brunel, J. P. (2001). The impact of community service on empathy, social responsibility, and concern for others among adolescent volunteers. Science and Technology, 62, 2514.
9. ^ a b
   Guadagno, R. E., Lankford, A., Muscanell, N. L., Okdi, B. M., & McCallum, D. M. (2010). Social influences on online recruitment of terrorists and terrorist supporters: Implications for social psychology research. Revue Internationale De Psychologie Sociale, 23(1), 25-56.
10. ^ a b
    Kreacher, K. R., & Gilovich, T. (2010). Drawing conclusions from mind wandering. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(9), 1255-1266.
11. ^ a b c
    Goldstein, N. J., & Cialdini, R. B. (2007). The spyglass: A model of indirect self-perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 402-417.
12. Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (6th ed.). New York, New York: Academic.
13. Hemmerly, F. M., & Montgomery, R. L. (1982). Self-perception theory and non-intrusive biased interactions: Treatment of heterosocial anxiety. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29, 362-370.
14. Hemmerly, F. M., & Montgomery, R. L. (1984). Goal-biased interactions: Reducing heterosocial anxiety using self-perception theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 900-908.
15. Snyder, M., & Cunningham, M. R. (1975). To comply or not to comply: Testing a self-perception explanation of the foot-in-the-door phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 64–67.
16. Uranowitz, S. W. (1975). Helping and self-attribution: A field experiment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 852–854.
17. Seligman, K., Busch, M., & Kirsch, C. (1976). Relationship matching in the foot-in-the-door paradigm and first request size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 517–520.
18. Burger, J. M. (1999). The foot-in-the-door compliance procedure: A multiple process analysis and test, Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 303–325.
19. Waterman, K. K. (1969). Facilitating and hindering effects of cognitive dissonance on simple and complex paired learning tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 31-42.
20. ^ a b c
    Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. (1974). Dissonance and the pill: an approach to studying the arousal properties of dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(5), 703–709. doi:10.1037/h0036651
21. ^ a b
    Fazio, R. H., Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. (1977). Dissonance and self-perception: an integral view of the actual scope of each theory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(5), 464-479. DOI: 10.1016/0022-1031 (77) 90031-2
22. Schwartz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of information retrieval: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 195-202.
23. Tice, D. M. (1993). Changing self-esteem and self-presentation: The looking glass is also a magnifying glass. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
    , 63, 435-451.
24. Dienstbier, R. A., & Munter, P. O. (1971). Deception as a function of denoting natural arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 208-213.

• Gilovich, T., Keltner, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (2006). Social Psychology. New York: Norton & Company.
• Bem, D. J. (1972). "Self-Perception Theory". In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
  , Vol. 6, 1-62. New York: Academic Press. Full text (PDF). Summary.