+

Reward and Social Motivation

+

Quick Review on the Psychology of the Social Self (adapted from Farisides, Social Psychologist)

+ One Problem for Consideration:

n Introspection n  How useful are self-reports?

n Self-perception n  Can others’ behaviors change who we are?

n Self-esteem & Self-enhancement n  How is depression possible?

+The self-concept

n The self-concept is the sum total of a person’s beliefs (i.e., cognitions) about their own personal attributes.

n These beliefs can be about affect, behavior, (other) cognitions, motives, etc.

n Sometimes evaluations of these beliefs (i.e., self-esteem) is considered part of the self-concept.

+The development of self-awareness and identity

•  ‘Subjective’ self-awareness

•  ‘Objective’ self awareness

•  Symbolic self-awareness

+Self-assessment: The perils of introspection n  Nisbett & Wilson (1977)

n  People often cannot explain the causes and correlates of their own behaviour.

n  Wilson (1985)

n  Analysing the reasons for our preferences and actions (e.g., choosing a painting) may make us reach decisions we later come to regret.

n  Wilson & Schooler (1991)

n  Analysing the reasons for our preferences and actions (e.g., ranking jams) may make us reach objectively bad decisions.

n  Wilson & Kraft (1993)

n  Analysing the reasons why we are in romantic relationships can reduce our satisfaction with them.

+Benefits of introspection

n  Millar & Tesser (1989)

n Need to match introspection ‘type’ (i.e., of feelings, of thoughts) with behaviour type (i.e., relationships, decision-making).

n There may be other benefits to be derived from introspection, even if is not always accompanied by ‘genuine’ self-knowledge, e.g., in health (Pennebaker, 1997).

Trafimow et al. (1997)

“Students who took the test in English focused more on personal traits, while those who took the test in Chinese were more focused on group affiliations” (Brehm et al., 2002, p. 67)

+Bem’s (1972) self-perception theory n  To the extent that n (i) people’s internal states are weak or difficult to

interpret, and n (ii) they believe their behaviour to be

unconstrained (e.g., by promise of reward or threat of punishment),

n  then people will infer their attitudes (beliefs and feelings) from their behaviour.

+Self-perception research

n  Rhodewalt & Agustsdottir (1986) n  People subtly induced to describe themselves in positive

terms scored higher on a subsequent self-esteem test than people who were not so induced.

n  Swann & Ely (1984) n  People subtly induced (by leading questions) to describe

themselves as either introverted or extroverted subsequently defined themselves as such, but only when not previously certain about their level of dispositional introversion/extraversion.

+Self-perception of motivation

n The over-justification effect

n Providing extrinsic reasons (rewards, punishments) for behaviour formally engaged in for intrinsic reasons (enjoyment, duty) results in reduction of intrinsic motivation to engage in those behaviours (and thus in spontaneous expression of such behaviours).

n This is the ‘paradoxical effect of reward on motivation’.

Lepper et al. (1973) Making play into work

+Self-perception and performance quality

n  Eisenberger & Cameron (1996)

n Post-performance rewards for quality of performance can enhance intrinsic motivation as long as such rewards were not guaranteed in advance for completion of the performance.

n  Amabile (1996)

n Overjustification decreases performance quality as well as intrinsic motivation.

+Self-esteem: Self-perception of self-value

n Self-esteem is the result of the self’s evaluations of the self-concept.

n Self can be evaluated in part (‘specific’) or whole (‘summary’).

n Evaluations can be positive, negative, neutral, ambiguous, and ambivalent.

n ‘State’ and ‘trait’ self-esteem.

+How self-esteem affects us

High self-esteem has all sorts of benefits.

n Conversely, low self-esteem predicts an altogether poorer life experience.

+Self-enhancement

n  Four mechanisms to improve self-esteem

•  Self-serving cognitions

•  Self-handicapping

•  Basking in reflected glory

•  Downward social comparison

+Self-serving cognitions

n Schlenker et al. (1990) n People tend to take credit for their own successes and

distance themselves from failure.

n Weinstein (1980) n Unrealistic optimism. n Often ‘explained’ by reference to the person’s

particular characteristics (Kunda, 1987).

+Self-handicapping

n If we (i) are unsure of our success on a task we value and (ii) feel we should do well, we may claim or create a handicap to our own performance.

n We do this in order to (i) build an advance excuse for possible future failure that might otherwise damage our self-esteem and/or (ii) be able to claim additional credit should we nevertheless succeed.

+BIRGing

n Basking in reflected glory

n Enhancing self-esteem by identifying or claiming affiliation with a successful group.

n Cialdini et al. (1976) n  BIRGing and CORFing (Cutting off reflected

failure) n  Used most after threats to individual self-esteem Hirt et al. (1992)

n  Sometimes, we cannot CORF

n  This affects our individual functioning

+Post Super Bowl Edition

n  The concept of BIRGing is rooted in the social identity theory which explains how one’s

self esteem and evaluation can be enhanced by the identification with another person’s success. One of the keys to BIRGing is that the person trying to receive this glory has done nothing tangible to bring the team’s success (Hirt et al. 1992). They are truly basking inreflected glory not earned. When a person’s public image is threatened the tendency to BIRG is even stronger, and BIRGing becomes an important impression management technique to counter any threats to self esteem (Lee 1985)

+Team Identity Continued…

n  The different levels of commitment that a fan might have towards a team dictate the degree to which he or she can distance him or herself from that team when failure occurs.

n  If a fan is strongly allied, the social identity theory states that it will be hard for them to distance themselves, and therefore, to not threaten their self esteem, the fans must attribute the loss to external cues of the situation but not the team itself. If a person is not so closely linked they then engage in the phenomena of CORFing, which means cutting off reflected failure, done by distancing themselves as far as possible from the losing team. (Cialdini & Richardson 1980). These fans want to avoid any negative evaluations by others in relation to the team that was unsuccessful. The closer the identification to the team and the degree of commitment by the fan, the greater the risk the fan has of suffering a loss in self esteem if their team has lost.

+Downward social comparisons

n  Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954). n  In the absence of objective criteria, people may evaluate themselves

relative to similar others.

n  People can use this phenomenon proactively (Wills, 1981). Low or threatened self-esteem → motivated downward social comparison → relatively positive evaluation of self → improved or secured self-esteem

n  This works by demonstrating that: n  I am better (off) than someone else. n  I am better (off) than I could be.

+A sequence of self-biases

Self-relevant information

Automatic emotional

assessment

Reflective cognitive

assessment

Verify overrides enhance,

if necessary

+From Larry Young – Social Brain

+Social Motivation Pathway

+

Figure 1 A simplified and highly theoretical model of social information processing in the mammalian brain. Sensory unimodal information is tagged as social in the accessory olfactory bulb (AOB), fusiform area (FFA), or superior temporal gyrus (STG). This signal becomes instantiated as significant or salient in a subsequent multimodal projection to poorly defined fields in the amygdala, temporal cortex, and prefrontal cortex, three regions where emotion, social status, or familiarity may be encoded. Social attachment (maternal behavior, pair bonding, and, potentially, infant attachment) involves recruitment of the mesolimbic dopamine pathway, including the ventral tegmental area, with development of individual preferences. Finally, social behavior involves activation of the neuroendocrine hypothalamus, including the medial preoptic area (MPOA), as well as motor and autonomic centers. The available data, although limited, suggest reciprocal activation between levels (see text for evidence that maternal behavior involves MPOA activation of the nucleus accumbens).

+Pair and Parent Bonds

+The Steroid/Peptide Model of Social Bonds (van Anders et al)

+ Hormone/Peptide Interactions

Human dopaminergic system

+ Cortical and striatal projections

Schultz, 1998

Koob & Le Moal, 2001

+ How do Drugs of Abuse Elicit Reward?: n  Marijuana: Active ingredient THC is lipid soluble, binds to

cannabinoid receptors in the hippocampus, basal ganglia, and cerebellum. May also alter ACh receptor function. Anandamide: "natural stash“.

n  Morphine: Opiate receptors; endogenous opiates: enkephalins, endorphins

+ Morphine Addiction: Allostasis?

Chronic Administration of Morphine in the rat shrinks dopamine neurons in the VTA

+Alcohol Triggers Opioid Systems

Opiate Blockade via Naltrexone administration tends to eliminate “wanting”.

+Glutamate and Cocaine addiction

Brief stimulation of Hippocampal Glutamate Fibers induce cocaine searching Stimulation of the Medial Forebrain Bundle does not induce this searching Effect.

FIGURE 8 Diagram describing the hypothetical spiraling distress-addiction cycle from a neurobiological perspective. Small arrows refer to increased or decreased functional activity. The addiction cycle is conceptualized as a spiral that increases in amplitude with repeated experience, ultimately resulting in the pathological state of addiction. DA, dopamine; CRF, corticotropin-releasing factor. Reprinted with permission from Koob and Le Moal (1997).