Three Studies Testing a Model of Self-Reflexion

Brenda L. McDaniel & James W. Grice

Oklahoma State University

b4=image of the other from other’s point of view a4= image of the self from other’s point of view

b3=image of the other from self’s point of view a3= image of the self from self’s point of view

b2= image of other a2= image of the self

a1=The person “in the moment”

a1

a2 b2

a3 b3 a4 b4

a1

a2

b3

b2

a3 b4

Note. Asterisks indicate proportions that are significantly different from their respective, predicted proportions (p < .05, two-tailed).

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Pro

po

rtio

n

PositiveSelf

PositiveOther

Like-self

Judgments

Observed

Predicted

ABSTRACT

a4

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

Pro

po

rtio

ns

Positive Self PositiveOther

Like-self

Judgments

Observed

Predicted

Three studies were conducted to assess Lefebvre’s (1998) algebraic model of self-reflexion. In a replication study, participants rated themselves and eighteen others on fifteen bipolar adjectives (e.g., excitable-calm). Half of the eighteen individuals were positive (e.g., “close friend”) and half were negative (e.g., “disliked person”). The experimenters determined which adjective in each pair was positive, and the following proportions were predicted from Lefebvre’s model: (a) positive judgments of self, .719; (b) positive judgments of others, .628; (c) self-similar judgments, .619. The observed proportions were .757, .606, and .615, respectively. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals indicated that only the like-self proportion (.615 vs. .619) was not significantly different from the hypothesized value. In the second study, two additional sets of bipolar adjectives were administered to different groups of participants: Big Five personality descriptors (e.g., “quiet-talkative”) and unique personal constructs. Participants were also asked to first judge which adjective in each pair they considered as more desirable before rating themselves and the eighteen others. The following proportions were predicted: (a) positive self-judgments, .844; (b) positive other judgments, .613; (c) self-similar judgments, .578. The observed proportions across groups were, .851, .614, and .589, respectively. Ninety-five percent CI’s indicated that the positive self (.851 vs. .844) and positive other judgments (.614 vs. .613) were not significantly different from the hypothesized values. The same methods were used in the third study, except participants rated themselves first before rating the other individuals. The predicted proportions were (a) positive self-judgments, .844; (b) positive other judgments, .646; (c) like-self judgments, .625. The observed proportions were .857, .621, and .602, respectively. Ninety-five percent CI’s indicated that all were significantly different from the predicted proportions. The results from the three studies were hence mixed, but encouraging. Further experimentation and development of Lefebvre’s model is recommended and will be discussed in this presentation.

 

  REFLEXIVE STRUCTURE OF HUMAN COGNITION

Study 1•An attempt to replicate findings of Lefebvre, Lefebvre, & Adams-Webber

(1986).

•Participants rated themselves and 18 other individuals, in random order, on 15 bipolar semantic adjectives (the positive adjective in each set was determined by the experimenter).

•Examples for others include: A person in high school or middle school whom you did not like; A person in high school or middle school whom you liked; A current or past romantic partner

whom you still love (or a person of the opposite sex whom you like).

•Examples for the bipolar adjectives include: Generous-stingy; strong-weak; active-passive; etc. RESULTS: Study 1

Study 2• Again, participants rated themselves and 18 other individuals, in random order, on 15 bipolar

semantic adjectives.

•Participants also rated themselves and 18 other individuals, in random order, on big five descriptors (e.g., quiet-talkative; punctual-late; calm-worrying) and unique personal constructs

that each participant designed for themselves.

•Participants also judged which adjective in each pair was more desirable.

RESULTS: Study 2(Results were collapsed across groups)

Note. Asterisks indicate proportions that are significantly different from their respective, predicted proportions (p < .05, two-tailed).

Study 3• Study 3 was the same as Study 2 except participants rated themselves first, prior to rating the

18 other individuals.

RESULTS: Study 3(Results were collapsed across groups)

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

Pro

po

rtio

ns

Positive Self PositiveOther

Like-self

Judgments

Observed

Predicted

Note. Asterisks indicate proportions that are significantly different from their respective, predicted proportions (p < .05, two-tailed).

Discussion

• Mathematical modeling improvements from Study 1 to Study 2 seem to have made predictions more

accurate.

•In addition, it seems that it is important for the individual participant to choose which polar end of

each adjective pair is more desirable or positive. This would be in line with George Kelly’s theory of

personal constructs and how constructs must be personally relevant.

•Furthermore, it would seem that rating the self first had an effect on overall proportions. Perhaps

thinking of the self first on all dimensions affect subsequent ratings and comparisons of others.

•However, interpretations of the present studies warrants caution.

Future Directions

• A true manipulation of the model is needed to come to more definitive conclusions.

•We are currently designing a study to manipulate social desirability, which is one of the tiers within the

mathematical model.

•After this manipulation, more will be known about the model’s predictive power and the changes in

structure that were implemented in an attempt for more accurate modeling of human cognition.

•The results presented are encouraging, not only to be able to make point predictions about how we

structure our inner world, but for psychology as a science.

Contact Information• A manuscript encompassing the present three

studies is currently in progress. More details about the calculations and mathematical modeling will be

presented. Furthermore, more details of the method will be given.

•Please send requests for further information about our research and questions/comments to:

•Brenda McDaniel brenda.mcdaniel@okstate.edu

•Dr. James Grice jgrice@okstate.edu

•Thank you for your interest in our research!