Blog 3: Self-Perception

Ok so.... Dr. G was right- I have thought of soooo many examples of the concepts from this week. I'll start with the self-verification theory, which claims that our main goals for our self concept are consistancy and accuracy (Swann, 1987). Consistancy is prioritized because inconsistancy causes intrapersonal and interpersonal problems. Inconsistancy is problematic intrapersonally because we desire to predict and control our environments and to do this we must at least know what to expect from ourselves. Interpersonally, inconsistancy is problematic because it puts us at risk for unrealistic expectations from others. While we were discussing this today I couldn't help but think of one of my friends (I won't include her name). When asking my opinion on an outfit, she will sometimes ask "is my cleavage ok?" Because she is not that big I will tell her "put on a push up bra" to which she always responds "no! false advertising!" She doesn't know it but she is striving for self verification and avoiding the push up bra in order to prevent others (guys) from having unrealistic expectations (of her cup size) a.k.a. interpersonal inconsistancy.



I loved the Wegner research- I seem to have lots of trouble with the intentional operating and ironic monitering processes. The intentional operating process (intender) is responsible for the suppression of unwanted thoughts. The ironic monitering process (moniter) is responsible for making the intender aware of unwanted thoughts. Normally, these two systems function smoothly and spot and suppress unwanted thoughts without our conscious awareness (Wegner, 1994). However, under a cognitive load the intender (but not the moniter) is impaired. When an unwanted thought appears the moniter attempts to alert the intender but the intender is unable to fuction correctly. However, the intender is still able to trigger the moniter. Therefore, when an unwanted thought appears the moniter alerts the intender to get rid of it. The intender is unable to suppress the thought but continues to trigger the moniter which triggers the intender which again triggers the moniter. This vicious cycle of triggering not only prevents suppression but also makes the unwanted thought present in conscious awareness and so the whole process is hugely unsuccessful (Wegner, 1987). I had a double incident of this earlier this evening. I was in the library studying when I noticed that there was a faint (but really annoying) beeping sound in the background. I slowly realized that the sound had been present for several minutes but that I did not become immediately aware of it- apparently my moniter and intender worked for a few minutes. As I was under cognitive load though, my intender was unable to be fully effective and I finally became aware of the beeping. I tried briefly to banish the distracting beeping from my mind and return to my work. However, after a few trys, it occurred to me that my intender and moniter were at work and that my intender must be struggling because I was cognitively busy. So then I decided to acknowledge the beeping so I would be able to put it out of my mind. But by then I was already busy thinking about the intender and moniter and was completely disctrated from my work. I tried to eliminate my thoughts of both the intender and beeping but it was too much and I sat there stuck in two cycles of neverending thoughts! Finally I gave up and asked a librarian to put an end to the beeping so I could get back to work.



Swann, W. B., Jr. (1987). Identifying negotiation: Where two roads meet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1038-1051.

Wegner, D. M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review, 101, 34-52.

Wegner, D. M., Schneider, D. J., Carter, S., & White, T. (1987). Paradoxical effects of thought suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 5-13.