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.

Blog 2: Attribution Theory, Bias

Unfortunately I feel like I commit the fundamental attribution error on a daily basis. The fundamental attribution error describes the tendency for people to attribute other people’s behavior to personality traits rather than situational circumstances (Ross, 1977). When someone else is late or rude or lazy I instantly jump to blame and criticize them. It is not until I find myself making the same type of error that I realize that maybe their circumstances affected their behavior and that I could have been more understanding. I feel like I make the FAE most with my best friends. When I call one of them and they are short with me and they tell me they are just busy and stressed, I do not believe them, assuming that they are just being rude on purpose. I always think to myself “jeez, don’t take it out on me it’s not my fault!” However, when I am stressed and they call me I often snap at them. When they ask me not to be rude, I’m usually surprised and can’t see why they don’t understand that I am just busy and stressed. Thankfully, I have patient, understanding friends who seem to understand that I am only human and can forget that others often experience the same stress as me.

Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental and social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 174-221). New York: Academic Press.

Blog 1: Person Perception, Social Judgment, Heuristics

I am from Austin, which has been and still is a fairly small, safe city. Technically we live out on the lake, which is out in the country, so I have been spoiled as far as safety is concerned. I have never come close to any kind of unwanted confrontation with a stranger on the road. I have never been followed or chased, and I have never been approached with anything more than a question about my car at a gas station. I don't know anyone who has ever been attacked or followed or anything. However, a long time ago I received one of those emails women send out to warn each other about possible attacks, etc. The email told the story of a woman (no clue if it was a real story) who narrowly avoided abduction at a gas station. It was late at night and she was by herself getting gas. After she paid and pumped the gas, the attendant inside called her on the intercom to come inside because there was a problem with her credit card. The woman didn't believe him and tried to leave. When he insisted she finally went inside and he told her that there was no problem but that he had watched a man crawl under her car and wait for her to get in so he could grab her ankles and attack her. The email suggested that women be careful to keep an eye on their cars when getting gas and to check underneath them and in back seat before getting in to make sure no one is hiding. I do not even know the statistics of women being abducted in this manner, although I'm guessing it is not extremely high relative to other situations considering the intense lighting at gas stations. However, since reading that email, I have developed a a habit for checking my car when I leave a store or get gas by myself at night. I have one of those keys that you can press once to unlock only the driver side and as I walk out I look behind me compulsively and press my key only once as I approach, glance under the car and hop in. I immediately close the door, glance behind the seat, lock the doors, and glance in the rear view to make sure no one has followed me. Maybe I'm just cautious, maybe I'm paranoid, or maybe my behaviors are in accordance with the base-rate fallacy. The base-rate fallacy describes the human tendency to react much more strongly to dramatic events, such as reading the story of the woman at the gas station, than to statistics, which I have failed to even research. Either way, I guess I probably won't get abducted.

Lowenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267-286.

Slovic, P. (2000). The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan.