Create A 1750 To 2100 Word Self-Analysis Of Your Attitudes

Createa 1750 To 2100 Word Self Analysis Of Your Attitudes Beliefs

Create a 1,750- to 2,100-word self-analysis of your attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors in a social context. Describe in detail the way you think and act with respect to the topics of this course. Include appropriate examples to illustrate your understanding of the concepts presented in the course. Address the following in your self-analysis answers:

• Self-concept: Define yourself by completing the sentence “I am ...”. Include three of your most defining characteristics with brief explanations. Discuss whether you are independent or interdependent, supported by evidence.
• The role of self-serving bias: Explain how self-serving bias influences your self-concept.
• Locus of control: Determine whether you have an internal or external locus of control and discuss how this shapes your self-concept.
• Attitudes and feelings: Analyze how confirmation bias affects your perception of yourself and others, and describe experiences where beliefs generated their own confirmation. Discuss how your behaviors influence your attitudes.
• Gender roles: Reflect on how genetics and environment influence your gender identity, providing evidence to support your views.
• Social influence: Discuss your conformity tendencies, examples of willingness or resistance, and how authority impacts obedience. Describe experiences with the foot-in-the-door technique—both being persuaded and persuading others—and how your behavior changes in social settings.
• Group dynamics: Share experiences with social loafing and deindividuation. Predict future experiences based on past behaviors and insights.
• Relationships: Describe what attracts you to others, how you maintain relationships, and how you resolve conflicts, with supporting examples.

This self-analysis aims to comprehensively explore your attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors in social contexts, integrating psychological concepts with personal reflection and examples.

Paper For Above instruction

My self-concept is a foundational aspect of my identity, shaping how I perceive myself and interact with others. To define myself, I would complete the sentence: “I am a dedicated, empathetic, and ambitious individual.” These three characteristics encapsulate my core traits. I consider myself dedicated because I commit fully to my responsibilities, whether in academic pursuits or personal projects. My empathy enables me to understand and share others' feelings, which fosters meaningful relationships. Lastly, my ambition drives me to constantly improve and set higher goals for myself.

I am primarily interdependent, meaning I value close relationships and rely on social connections for support and identity. Evidence of this includes my tendency to seek community opinions and my strong sense of social obligation. I prioritize group harmony and cooperative effort, which aligns with interdependent orientations. For instance, I often collaborate with peers on projects and derive satisfaction from contributing to collective success. However, I also maintain a degree of independence, balancing my reliance on others with personal agency, especially in decision-making processes that require critical thinking.

Self-serving bias significantly impacts my self-concept. I tend to attribute successes to my own abilities and efforts while externalizing failures or setbacks. This bias protects my self-esteem and motivates me to continue striving. For example, when I receive praise for a project, I credit my hard work and skills; but if I make a mistake, I often blame circumstances or external factors rather than internal shortcomings. This bias has a dual effect: it boosts my confidence but can also hinder self-improvement if I am reluctant to acknowledge personal faults.

My locus of control leans toward internal, as I believe that my actions predominantly influence my outcomes. I strongly feel responsible when I succeed or fail, which motivates me to take initiative and improve. This internal locus enhances my self-efficacy, fostering a proactive attitude. An example is my approach to academic challenges: I believe that consistent effort and strategic study can lead to success, encouraging perseverance rather than passive resignation.

Regarding attitudes and feelings, confirmation bias plays a prominent role in shaping my perceptions. I tend to focus on information that supports my existing beliefs about myself and others while dismissing contradictory evidence. For instance, if I believe I am good at public speaking, I notice positive feedback and successful experiences, reinforcing this belief. Conversely, I may overlook moments of nervousness or mistakes to maintain a positive self-image.

My beliefs can generate their own confirmation. For example, I might assume that I am a caring friend, which leads me to seek out interactions that confirm this—such as offering support—while neglecting situations where I may have been less attentive. My behaviors, such as practicing active listening and providing support, influence my attitudes by reinforcing my self-image as a caring individual. Conversely, when I act in ways inconsistent with my beliefs, like neglecting others’ needs, I experience cognitive dissonance, which prompts me to re-evaluate either my behavior or my beliefs to restore consistency.

My gender identity has both genetic and environmental influences. Genetics contribute to certain biological traits, such as levels of aggression, social dominance, and interest in particular activities, which subtly shape my gendered inclinations. For example, I naturally exhibit higher levels of competitiveness, which I attribute partly to biological predispositions. However, my gender identity has been significantly shaped by environmental factors, especially the cultural norms I was raised with. In my community, traditional gender roles emphasizing independence and assertiveness for males influenced my development. I received societal messages about what behavior was deemed appropriate for my gender from family, media, and peers, reinforcing cultural expectations and shaping my gender identity further.

Evidence for the influence of environment includes my upbringing in a household where independence was encouraged, and external validation was tied to achievements. This nurturing environment fostered my confidence in asserting myself and pursuing leadership roles. Although biological factors laid the groundwork, cultural and social influences played a substantial role in shaping my gender identity, aligning with research highlighting the complex interplay of genetics and environment in gender development (Eagly & Wood, 2012).

In terms of social influence, I find that I am somewhat resistant to conformity when core values are challenged but also tend to comply when it aligns with group norms or authority figures. For example, I have occasionally conformed to peer pressure, such as participating in group activities I was initially hesitant about, to maintain social harmony. However, I generally resist conforming when it conflicts with my personal principles or ethical beliefs.

Authority figures substantially influence my obedience. When I perceive authority as legitimate and credible, I am more likely to comply with directives. A notable example was during a group project where I followed the leader’s instructions despite personal reservations because I believed in their expertise and leadership. Conversely, I have also challenged authority when I believed orders were unjust or unethical, exemplifying moral independence.

The foot-in-the-door technique has persuaded me on multiple occasions. For instance, I was initially asked to participate in a small volunteering activity; once involved, I was more receptive to larger commitments. Similarly, I have used this technique to persuade others—such as requesting small favors first, which then led to larger requests, leveraging their commitment.

In social settings, I tend to behave differently. When in a group, I often become more expressive or assertive, motivated by social facilitation effects. For example, I might speak more confidently during presentations or social gatherings when others are present. However, I might also experience deindividuation—losing a sense of self-awareness—when part of a large crowd, leading to less personal accountability. An example is when I participated in large protests, where individual expression was overshadowed by collective emotion.

Social loafing has been evident in group assignments, where I noticed that some members contributed less, assuming others would carry the workload. I have been both guilty of and resistant to social loafing, depending on group dynamics and motivation levels. I foresee that similar group experiences will occur if accountability mechanisms are weak or motivation diminishes. Recognizing these patterns allows me to strategize for better participation and to foster individual accountability.

Regarding deindividuation, in large groups or anonymous settings, I sometimes adopt a more conformist or uninhibited behavior. For example, during online discussions with anonymity, I have noticed a tendency to express opinions more freely, sometimes radically, due to reduced self-awareness. This aligns with research showing that deindividuation can diminish self-restraint, especially in emotionally charged settings (Zimbardo, 1969).

Attraction factors for others include shared interests, kindness, and confidence. I am attracted to individuals who demonstrate authenticity and are open-minded. To sustain relationships, I prioritize communication, empathy, and shared experiences. Conflict resolution involves open dialogue, active listening, and aiming for mutual understanding. For instance, in disagreements, I strive to express my feelings calmly and listen to the other’s perspective, seeking solutions that satisfy both parties. These strategies help maintain healthy relationships and foster trust.

References

• Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social Role Theory. In P. van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 458–476). SAGE Publications.
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
• Moore, C., & Small, D. (2018). The role of gender in social influence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42(3), 370–385.
• Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice: Individuation, reason, and order versus deindividuation: Implications for the presence and prevention of violence. The Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1970, 237–301.
• Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2016). Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications. Guilford Publications.
• Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and practice. Routledge.
• Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
• Hogg, M. A., & Vaughan, G. M. (2018). Social psychology. Pearson Education.
• Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice. Pearson Education.
• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.