26th October 2023

Self and Interpersonal Psychology

Self-Psychology

Perceptions of self

We’re all familiar with the Ancient Greek aphorism: ‘Know thyself ’. How could we embark upon this Sisyphean task? A good start might be learning the core concepts of self-psychology, which – surprise, surprise – happen to be on the curriculum for the Paper A exam.

Let’s begin by understanding three key concepts in self-psychology: self-concept, self-esteem, and self-image. There is a varying degree of conceptual overlap between these terms, so it is important to identify the distinguishing elements.

Self-concept

What do we think of ourselves?

Self-concept is a cognitive construct that refers to an individual’s beliefs and perceptions about themselves in relation to their personality traits, values, experiences, and abilities. It includes both the positive and negative aspects of the self; for example, one may hold the self-concept of being ‘An intelligent but lazy person’ (don’t worry, we’ve all been called out here!). Our self-concept is developmentally malleable and is heavily influenced by the way we relate to our environment and the people inhabiting it.

Self-esteem

How do we feel about ourselves?

Self-esteem closely relates to the self-concept described above. Specifically, it refers to our evaluation or appraisal of our self-concept. It reflects an individual’s sense of self-worth and can be influenced by many factors, including relationships, competency levels, social comparison, and feedback from others. In simple terms, self-esteem in relation to self-concept can be understood with the following question: ‘How do I feel about the way I think of myself ’?’. If we take the earlier example of the self-concept ‘I’m an intelligent, but lazy person’, we may have the judgement: ‘I am proud of being an intelligent person despite my lazy tendencies’. Alternatively, we might think: ‘Though I am intelligent, I am lazy, and that makes me sad’. Unsurprisingly, the former appraisal would correlate to higher self-esteem, and the latter appraisal would correlate to lower self-esteem.

Self-image

How do we see ourselves?

Self-image refers to the mental picture we hold in relation to our self-perception, typically in reference to our physical appearance, personality traits and social roles. It can be influenced by both self-concept and self-esteem (internal factors) or feedback from others (external factors). Self-image may sound theoretically similar to self-concept, but a key difference is that self-image is a perception of the self that is concrete and measurable, whereas self-concept is a broader, more encompassing, and abstract perception of the self.

Self-recognition

When do we realise that we exist as objective entities in the world, as separate beings from others? Social psychology can help us answer this fundamental question on the development of self-recognition and self-awareness.

The mirror test

Self-recognition typically starts developing at around 15 months of age and is a feature present in most infants by 2 years of age. We know this from a simple yet clever behavioural study conducted in 1970 by evolutionary psychologist Gordon Gallup, known as the ‘mirror test’. It is also referred to as the ‘rouge test’, the ‘mark test’ or the ‘touching the dot’ experiment. In this test, infants were surreptitiously marked with a circle of red dye on their foreheads. These infants were then placed in front of a mirror. If the infant touched the red mark on their forehead upon looking in the mirror, this indicated that the infant possessed self-recognition; they identified the mark as belonging to themselves. A lack of self-recognition was identified in infants who, instead of touching their forehead, touched the red mark on their reflection in the mirror.

Interestingly, several animals have passed the ‘mirror test’, including killer whales, chimpanzees, ants and even the humble pigeon, though dogs, cats, and monkeys don’t seem to fare too well with the mirror test!

More recent studies have highlighted significant cultural variations that exist from the mirror test. For example, when the mirror test was conducted in Kenyan children aged 18-72 months, only 2.4% of children demonstrated self-oriented behaviours towards the mark. This mirror test outcome in Kenyan children persisted across a broader age span, which suggests that this was not simply a developmental delay but, rather, a cross-cultural behaviour

variation. In other words, a negative mirror test does not necessarily correlate to a lack of self-recognition in children living in non-Western countries.

A pre-requisite for the development of self-recognition in infants is the development of ‘Object permanence’, i.e., the understanding that objects continue to exist beyond one’s perception of them. Object permanence is achieved in the sensorimotor stage outlined in Jean Piaget’s ‘stages of cognitive development’ model.

References

• Broesch, T., Callaghan, T., and Rochat, P. (2010). Cultural Variations in Children’s Mirror Self-Recognition. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(6).
• Gallup, G. (1970). Chimpanzees: Self-recognition. Science, 167, 86–87
• Kilroy, E. (2021). Self-Recognition. Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders. 4163-4167.

Interpersonal Relationships

‘Friendship . . . is born at the moment when one man says to another “What! You too? I thought that no one but myself . . . ” ‘ – C.S. Lewis

Laws of attraction

In his book ‘The Acquaintance Process’ (1961), Thomas Newman identified four key factors that affect the probability of making a friend:

Proximity – We are more likely to become friends with someone with whom we are in close contact.

Similarity – We are drawn to people who share our beliefs and values.

Reciprocity – We like people who like us.

Complementarity – We prefer the company of those who complement our skills and abilities.

Of the four, proximity was deemed the most important factor in determining the chance of making an acquaintance. Propinquity, a term used to describe accidental proximity, was explored by Segal (1974). In this study, police trainees were assigned to seats in alphabetical order. When asked to rank their three closest friends at the end of the term, there was a strong correlation between seating order and friendship.

Types of Love

In the late 1980s, social psychologist Robert Sternberg proposed seven types of love, with key distinctions in the presence of three factors: intimacy, passion, and commitment. Intimacy is the feeling of connectedness; passion comprises romantic feelings, and commitment involves feelings that lead to long-term shared goals.

Friendship – Intimacy is present, but passion and commitment in the romantic sense are absent.

Infatuation – Passion is present, but intimacy and commitment are absent.

Empty love – Commitment is present, but passion and intimacy are absent.

Romantic love – Both intimacy and passion are present, but commitment is absent.

Compassionate love – Both intimacy and commitment are present, but passion is absent.

Fatuous love – Both passion and commitment are present, but intimacy is absent.

Consummate love – The presence of all three components – jackpot!

References

• Newcomb, T. M. (1961). The acquaintance process. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Segal, M. W. (1974). Alphabet and attraction: An unobtrusive measure of the effect of propinquity in a field setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(5), 654–657.
• Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119–135.

Attribution

‘Whether you think you can or you think you can’t – you’re probably right!’ – Henry Ford

Attribution theories

Attribution is a psychological process that refers to how individuals interpret events in the context of their perceived judgments on the cognitions and emotions of others.

The ‘father’ of attribution theory, Fritz Heider (1985), postulated that human beings have an innate drive to understand social phenomena, acting as ‘naïve psychologists’ in the process. This sense-making desire compels us to connect information about our surroundings in a cause-effect fashion, often subconsciously.

Heider distinguished attribution into two key domains:

• Dispositional / Internal Attribution – This is the attribution of personal characteristics to explain a person’s behaviour, e.g., ‘Mark was late to work today because he is lazy’.
• Situational / External Attribution – This is the attribution of environmental factors to explain a person’s behaviour, e.g., ‘Mark was late to work today because there was a lot of traffic’.

Attribution can be further understood using three distinct models – let’s take a closer look at each:

• Correspondent inference theory.
• Kelley’s covariation model.
• Weiner’s three-dimensional model.

Correspondent inference theory

Jones and Davis (1965) investigated dispositional (internal) attribution in more depth, referring to this form of attribution as ‘correspondent inference’. A correspondent inference is made in a situation where we infer that a person’s actions correspond to their personality or disposition.

These social psychologists suggested that when it comes to forming evaluations about motives and actions, intentional actions are more relevant than accidental ones. An intentional action is defined as one in which a person can and chooses to perform the action with full knowledge of the consequences of it.

For example, Sally’s colleague Mark eats a cupcake left at his desk. If Mark finds out that Sally gifted the cupcake to him, Mark is more likely to make a correspondent inference that Sally is generous (a dispositional attribution).

However, if it transpires that Sally left her cupcake on Mark’s desk by accident, Mark is unlikely to infer anything about Sally’s personality.

Jones and Davis highlighted six key factors that influence a correspondent inference or dispositional attribution:

• Non-common effects – A comparison is made between the effects of a person’s chosen action and possible alternative actions. The greater the commonalities between the effects of alternative actions, the harder it is to make an inference about a person’s dispositional traits. For example, if choosing between a holiday in London or Paris, Aisha picks London, it is harder to make an inference about Aisha given that both cities are busy, urban tourist hotspots. However, if given the option between a holiday in London and Mauritius, Aisha chooses London, we are more likely to infer that Aisha is adventure-seeking and prefers city breaks.
• Social desirability – We are less likely to make inferences from socially desirable actions as they are typically expected, but we are likely to make a correspondent inference from an action perceived as having low social desirability. For example, if Anita refuses to conform to the group’s opinion, we can be surer of her beliefs than those who conform, as some individuals in the conforming group may only be choosing to act in a socially desirable way.
• Choice – The more choice a person has in taking an action, the more likely we are to make a correspondent inference and vice versa. For example, Jeremiah’s teacher instructs him to debate a topic for a class assignment, so it would be unreasonable for the class to infer that these are Jeremiah’s beliefs.
• Expectancies – This can be category-based or target-based. Category-based expectancies are preconceived ideas about a group of people, e.g., all teenagers are reckless. Target-based assumptions are preconceived ideas in relation to a specific person, e.g., having strong opinions about a particular political leader.
• Hedonistic relevance – Hedonic relevance refers to how the pleasure or pain experienced by an individual in a particular situation can influence how their behaviour is interpreted and explained by others. For example, a co-worker who appears to enjoy working late at the office might be perceived as a dedicated and enthusiastic employee, while a co-worker who appears stressed or unhappy might be perceived to be working late out of obligation.
  
• Personalism – When an action directly affects us, we are more likely to view it as intentional and personal. For example, John and Michelle are both taking a long hike. When Michelle eats the last sandwich out of hunger, John infers that Michelle ate this to deprive him of much needed nourishment.

Kelley’s covariation model

Developed by Harold Kelly in 1967, the Covariation Model uses three factors to determine if a behaviour is attributed to a person’s disposition or the situation – consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency.

Consensus – If other people share the same opinion about a behaviour or behave similarly, we are more likely to attribute this behaviour to the situation rather than dispositional factors.

Distinctiveness – If a person’s behaviour or attitude is distinct compared to their behaviour to other stimuli, we are more likely to attribute this to situational factors.

Consistency – If a person’s attitude or behaviour across time and situations is consistent, we are more likely to attribute this to dispositional factors.

Let’s play with an example: Sally forgot to complete her weekly homework. We could ask the following questions:

• How many other students forgot to hand in their homework? (Consensus)
• Does Sally forget to hand in her homework to other classes too? (Distinctiveness)
• Does Sally forget to hand in her homework every week? (Consistency)

Weiner’s three-dimensional model

Bernard Wiener proposed a Three-Dimensional Model whereby attribution is influenced by three factors: Locus of control, stability, and controllability.

Locus of Control – Internal or external – Was the behaviour caused by internal or external factors?

Stability – Transient or permanent – Will the behaviour happen again in the future?

Controllability – Controllable or uncontrollable – Will expending more effort change the situation?

Attributional biases

There are several attribution biases. It is worth learning the table below as these are frequently tested in the MRCPsych Paper A exam.

References

• Cook, D.A., & Artino, A.R. (2016). Motivation to learn: an overview of contemporary theories. Med Educ, 50(10), 997-1014.
• Heider, F. (1985). The psychology of interpersonal relations. John Wiley & Sons.
• Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219-266). Academic Press.
• Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 192-238). University of Nebraska Press.
• Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. Springer

Theory of Mind

‘We are all each of us riddles when unknown one to the other.’ – Mary Shelley

Theory of mind refers to the ability to understand and ascribe mental states to others. You may have heard of this ability as ‘mentalising’. This capacity to infer the beliefs, intentions, emotions, and thoughts of others is often compromised in autism spectrum disorder, antisocial personality disorder, conduct disorder and during acute psychosis. It is believed that the Theory of Mind correlates to our capacity to empathise. The neuroanatomical regions related to the Theory of Mind include the amygdala, orbitofrontal cortex, interparietal cortex and medial frontal cortex.

Investigating the theory of mind

Theory of mind develops in children between 3 ½ and 4 years of age. Several social experiments have convincingly demonstrated the theory of mind and its developmental roots.

False belief tasks

False belief tasks comprise two levels: first-order tasks and second-order tasks. First-order tasks explore our ability to infer one person’s mental state, i.e., what does Michael think? In contrast, second-order tasks explore our ability to infer what other people may infer about each other, i.e. what does Michael think of Beatrice?

The Sally-Anne Test is a first-order false belief task that often features in exams. In this test, a child observes the actions of two dolls (Sally and Anne) in relation to the placement of a marble. Sally places a marble in a basket and leaves the room. Anne then takes the marble and places it in a box. Sally returns, and the child is then asked a series of questions, including where Sally will look for the marble. A child will pass the test if they are able to recognise that Sally will look for the marble in the basket as she has a false belief about the location of the marble, based on the information she had before leaving the room. Children aged 4 are typically able to pass this first-order false belief task – a child aged 3 would not.

The John and Mary Story Task is a second-order false belief task. In this test, a child hears a story about two characters: John and Mary. Both children are playing in a park. On the arrival of an ice cream van, John leaves to get some money. Mary then sees the ice cream van leave the park to drive to a new spot. On the way, the driver sees John and informs him of his new location, but Mary is unaware of this. The child is then asked: ‘Where does Mary think John will go to buy ice cream?’. To pass the test, the child would need to acknowledge that John would go to the park. Children no earlier than age 6 are typically able to pass this higher-order false belief task.

References

• Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Bradford Books.
• Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(4), 515-526.
• Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development, 72(3), 655-684.

Elemental Linguistics

‘A language is not just words. It’s a culture, a tradition, a unification of a community, a whole history that creates what a community is. It’s all embodied in a language.’ – Noam Chomsky

Functions of language

Elemental linguistics refers to the study of the building blocks of language, the relationships between language and other aspects of cognition like memory, perception and learning, and the evolution of language over time and across cultures.

British linguist Michael Halliday (1985) proposed seven key functions of language:

• Instrumental function – To fulfil one’s needs and desires.
• Regulatory function – To control the behaviour of others.
• Interactional function – To establish and maintain social relationships.
• Personal function – To express personal attitudes and feelings.
• Representational function – To convey information and knowledge about the world.
• Imaginative function – To create and appreciate aesthetic experiences.
• Heuristic function – To learn and discover new information.

Halliday expanded on his theory of language function with the exploration of three key components:

• Ideational – The use of language to capture experience.
• Interpersonal – The use of language to express social roles, attitudes, and emotions.
• Textual – The use of language to organise and create meaning through texts.

Linguistic terminology

The following table provides definitions for key linguistic terms:

Whorfian hypothesis

The Whorfian hypothesis is a much-debated idea in the field of linguistics. Also known as ‘linguistic relativity’, the Whorfian hypothesis proposes that language shapes our thoughts and perceptions. In its strong form, it suggests that language determines our thoughts and perceptions, while in its weaker form, it suggests that language can influence our thoughts and perceptions.

Language of persuasion

The following language persuasion techniques are often used in marketing and sales:

• Ingratiation – This technique involves trying to elicit positive feelings from the person you are trying to persuade, e.g., by giving compliments.
• Reciprocity – This technique involves doing a favour for someone before asking for something in return. This creates a sense of indebtedness in the person and increases the likelihood that they will comply with a request.
• Arousal of guilt – This technique involves making the person feel guilty to motivate them to comply with a request. This can be done by highlighting the negative consequences of not complying or by suggesting that compliance is the morally right thing to do.
• Scarcity – This technique involves emphasising that a product or service is only available for a limited time or in limited quantities. This creates a sense of urgency, which can increase the perceived value of the product or service and motivate people to act quickly.
• Social validation – This technique involves emphasising that many other people are already doing the desired behaviour or using the product or service. This creates a sense of social proof and can make people feel more comfortable with the idea of complying with your request.
• Multiple requests – This technique involves making multiple requests, with the first one being relatively small and easy to comply with, and then gradually increasing the size or difficulty of subsequent requests. This technique can increase compliance by building up a sense of commitment and making people feel like they have already invested in the desired behaviour or outcome.
• Social validation – This technique involves emphasising that many other people are already doing the desired behaviour or using the product or service. This creates a sense of social proof and can make people feel more comfortable with the idea of complying with your request.
• Multiple requests – This technique involves making multiple requests, with the first one being relatively small and easy to comply with, and then gradually increasing the size or difficulty of subsequent requests. This technique can increase compliance by building up a sense of commitment and making people feel like they have already invested in the desired behaviour or outcome.

References

• Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice. 4th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
• Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning to mean—Explorations in the development of language. London: Edward Arnold.
• Lucy, J. A. (1992). Language diversity and thought: A reformulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge University