When does introspection bear fruit? Self-reflection, self-insight, and interpersonal choices.

Hixon, J. Gregory; Swann, William B.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.1.35

Cited by 154 publications

(124 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

118

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One speculative explanation is that introspective efforts may trigger a multitude of processes and that context factors may determine which process gains more weight in which case (cf. Hixon & Swann, 1993). On the one hand, thinking about what exactly their attitudes or personality characteristics are like may lead people to form a more accurate propositional representation of their underlying association-based attitudes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What moderates implicit—explicit consistency?

Hofmann¹,

Gschwendner²,

Nosek³

2005

European Review of Social Psychology

176

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implicit and explicit indicators of attitudes or personality traits are positively, and variably, related. This review places the question of implicit -explicit consistency into the tradition of attitude/trait -behaviour consistency (e.g., Wicker, 1969). Drawing on dual-process models, such as the recent distinction between associative and propositional representations (Strack & Deutsch, 2004), we identify a working model of implicit -explicit consistency that organises the empirical evidence on implicit -explicit moderation into five factors: translation between implicit and explicit representations (e.g., representational strength, awareness), additional information integration for explicit representations (e.g., need for cognition), properties of explicit assessment (e.g., social desirability concerns), properties of implicit assessment (e.g., situational malleability), and research design factors (e.g., sampling bias, measurement correspondence).A significant proportion of psychological research over the last three decades concerns the automatic nature of information processing (Bargh, 1997;Khilstrom, 1999;Wegner & Bargh, 1998). Theory and empirical data have broadened notions of core psychological concepts like attitudes, stereotypes, self-concept, goals, personality, and self-esteem to include not Correspondence should be addressed to Wilhelm Hofmann, Fachbereich 8 -Psychologie Universita¨t Koblenz-Landau, Fortstraße 7, 76829 Landau, Germany. Email: hofmannw@ uni-landau.de Preparation of this chapter was supported by a grant from the German Science Foundation (DFG) to Manfred Schmitt (Schm 1092/5-1) and by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health to Brian Nosek (R01 MH-068447). We would like to thank Rainer Banse, Boris Egloff, Malte Friese, Bertram Gawronski, and Jane Thompson for valuable comments on an earlier version of this chapter.EUROPEAN REVIEW OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 2005, 16, 335 -390 2005 European Association of Experimental Social Psychology http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/10463283.html DOI: 10.1080/10463280500443228 just the explicit assessments that are products of introspection, but also implicit components of these constructs that may occur outside of conscious awareness or control (Asendorpf, Banse, & Mu¨cke, 2002;Greenwald & Banaji, 1995;Wilson, Lindsey, & Schooler, 2000). Whereas implicit constructs are assumed to operate automatically and may be inaccessible to conscious experience, their explicit counterparts are conceptualised as reflective (conscious) and capacity-consuming mental representations that influence action through deliberation (e.g., Bargh, 1994;Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). This distinction plays a role in a variety of dual-process theories that distinguish two modes of information processing such as implicit vs explicit (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995;Wilson et al., 2000), automatic vs controlled (Bargh, 1994), impulsive vs reflective (Strack & Deutsch, 2004), and associative vs rule-based (Sloman, 1996;Smith & DeCoster, 2000). These theories share an assumpti...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What moderates implicit—explicit consistency?

Hofmann¹,

Gschwendner²,

Nosek³

2005

European Review of Social Psychology

176

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other researchers state that individuals are experts about themselves, and therefore anyone else will be less able to provide accurate ratings about that person than the person him or herself (e.g., Klein & Loftus, 2014). Several researchers have taken intermediate positions in this discussion, proposing that self-other agreement will be higher, when, among other things, the visibility of the construct is higher and the desirability of the construct is lower (e.g., John & Robins, 1993), when 'good' raters are used (e.g., raters with a higher dispositional intelligence, who are better able to relate behavior to underlying dispositions; De Kock, Lievens, & Born, 2015), and for ratees who are better ratable (e.g., low self-monitors; Funder, 1995) or have more self-insight than others (Hixon & Swann, 1993). John and Robins (1993) provided empirical support for the idea that a higher observability and a lower evaluativeness (favorability versus unfavorability) of a construct will lead to a higher self-other agreement.…”

Section: Self-other Agreementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies into self-other agreement have predominantly focused on agreement in terms of personality, although other self-attributes such as physical attractiveness and social skills (e.g., Hixon & Swann, 1993), and values varying from conservatism to hedonism and self-realization (e.g., Dobewall, Aavik, Konstabel, Schwartz, & Realo, 2014) have also been studied. Findings from such studies regarding self-other agreement have shown that people can assess some of these characteristics of others and therefore can be used to validate self-reported constructs.…”

Section: Self-other Agreementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Other Agreement Between Employees on their Need for Achievement, Power, and Affiliation: A Social Relations Study

Jager¹,

Born²,

Molen³

2017

Scandinavian Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Next, analogous to the distinction Swann et al (1994) drew between marital versus dating partners in examining individual selfverification, we varied the in-group status of a potential interaction partner as a manipulation of the depth of one's ties to a source of self-verification (see also Hixon & Swann, 1993). Finally, we manipulated whether the partner did or did not verify participants' negative, collective self-view.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Verification Motives at the Collective Level of Self-Definition.

Chen¹,

Chen²,

Shaw³

2004

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

120

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three studies examined self-verification motives in relation to collective aspects of the self. Several moderators of collective self-verification were also examined-namely, the certainty with which collective self-views are held, the nature of one's ties to a source of self-verification, the salience of the collective self, and the importance of group identification. Evidence for collective self-verification emerged across all studies, particularly when collective self-views were held with high certainty (Studies 1 and 2), perceivers were somehow tied to the source of self-verification (Study 1), the collective self was salient (Study 2), and group identification was important (Study 3). To the authors' knowledge, these studies are the first to examine self-verification at the collective level of self-definition. The parallel and distinct ways in which self-verification processes may operate at different levels of self-definition are discussed.Who am I? In response to this question, research has shown that people refer not only to who they are as individuals (e.g., "I am clumsy"), but also to who they are in relation to other individuals (e.g., "I am a mother") and to social groups (e.g., "I am a Democrat"; see, e.g., Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Although cultural and other factors may influence the relative emphasis of these different self-aspects (e.g., Cousins, 1989;Rhee, Uleman, Lee, & Roman, 1995), it is widely believed that there are multiple possible levels of self-definition. Moreover, recent years have witnessed a rise in efforts to integrate work on different levels of self-definition into a single framework or to extend concepts formulated at one level to other ones (for a review, see Sedikides & Brewer, 2001). For instance, Brewer and Gardner (1996) offered a single theoretical framework encompassing three levels of self-definition: personal self, relational self, and collective self. As another example, the relational-self idea that people incorporate significant others into the self (Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991) has been extended to the collective level in research showing that people incorporate in-group members into the self (Smith & Henry, 1996). A final example is work on collective self-esteem in which processes examined with regard to personal or individual self-esteem have been applied to the collective self (Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990).Joining this trend, the present research attempts to integrate theorizing and research on different levels of self-definition in a new domain. Specifically, our goal was to examine whether and in what ways self-verification motives (Swann, 1990), which have been examined only with respect to individual self-views, extend to collective self-views, guiding evaluation of the self as a member of a group or collective. Self and MotivationAn assumption shared by many social-psychological theories of the self is that people are driven to achieve and maintain a high level of self-esteem. As a group, they are often referred to as self-enhancement theories, because th...

show abstract

When does introspection bear fruit? Self-reflection, self-insight, and interpersonal choices.

Cited by 154 publications

References 33 publications

What moderates implicit—explicit consistency?

What moderates implicit—explicit consistency?

Self-Other Agreement Between Employees on their Need for Achievement, Power, and Affiliation: A Social Relations Study

Self-Verification Motives at the Collective Level of Self-Definition.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About