Week 4: Self-Knowledge And Attitudes—How Different People Th

Week 4 Self Knowledge And Attitudesdifferent People Think Differently

Week 4: Self-Knowledge and Attitudes Different people think differently about themselves. Some think very positively about themselves while others consider themselves in a more negative light. Where do these self-perceptions come from? How do you develop the view you have of yourself? Is it because of how you were raised or from what your parents told you as a child?

Is your self-view due to the view your peers, teachers, coworkers, or close friends have of you? And is your self-perception fixed and permanent or can you change it? This week, you examine how you come to know yourself. You consider how you develop your attitudes about the objects, issues, people, and other aspects of life. You also look at what it takes to change your attitudes and the attitudes of others, should you want or need to persuade or should you want to resist persuasion.

Paper For Above instruction

Understanding the development of self-knowledge and attitudes is vital in comprehending human social behavior. Self-perception influences how individuals view themselves and their interactions within society. This paper explores the origins of self-perceptions, their malleability, and how attitudes towards various objects and issues are formed and can be changed.

Self-perception is shaped by multiple factors, primarily family upbringing, peer influences, societal norms, and personal experiences. According to Aronson, Wilson, and Sommers (2019), early childhood experiences and parental feedback significantly impact self-concept development, providing foundational beliefs about oneself that persist into adulthood. These beliefs can be positive or negative depending on the nature of the reinforcement received during formative years. For instance, a child consistently praised for achievements may develop high self-esteem, while one subjected to criticism may internalize negative self-views (Baumesiter & Heatherton, 1996).

Moreover, social comparison theory, introduced by Festinger (1954), emphasizes that individuals evaluate themselves relative to others. This process can influence self-esteem—comparing oneself favorably may bolster self-confidence, whereas unfavorable comparisons can lead to feelings of inadequacy. For example, a student might compare their academic performance to that of their peers, affecting their self-perception and motivation. Such comparisons are dynamic; they can be altered by changing one's reference group or perspective (Morse & Gergen, 1970).

Self-views are not fixed and can be altered through various mechanisms. Cognitive dissonance theory explains how individuals seek consistency between their actions and beliefs, often leading to attitude change when inconsistencies are recognized (Festinger, 1957). For example, a person who smokes despite knowing health risks may justify their behavior to reduce dissonance, which influences their attitude towards smoking. Additionally, interventions such as persuading individuals through credible messaging or social influence can modify attitudes and, consequently, self-perceptions (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004).

Attitudes are learned responses that develop through conditioning, social interactions, and exposure to persuasive messages. Research indicates that attitudes towards issues like politics, health behaviors, or social norms significantly influence behavior (Ajzen, 1992). For example, media campaigns aiming to promote healthy eating employ persuasive strategies based on emotional appeals and social proof to change public attitudes (Rothman et al., 1999). The process of attitude change involves recognizing the source’s credibility, message relevance, and individual's motivation to change (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).

Persuasion techniques often target the central or peripheral route to attitude change, according to the elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). The central route involves careful consideration of arguments, suitable when individuals are motivated and able to process information. Conversely, the peripheral route relies on superficial cues, like attractiveness or credibility of the source. An example is political advertising, which may utilize emotional appeals or celebrity endorsements to sway perceptions (O'Keefe & Jensen, 2007).

Changing attitudes requires understanding the audience’s existing beliefs, their openness to change, and the context of the message. For example, health campaigns often employ social proof and vivid storytelling to encourage safer behaviors (Cialdini, 2007). Resistance to attitude change can occur due to cognitive biases like confirmation bias or motivated reasoning (Nickerson, 1998). However, repeated, consistent messages delivered by trusted sources can gradually influence attitudes over time.

In conclusion, self-knowledge and attitudes are dynamic constructs shaped by a multitude of factors throughout development. While early life experiences and social comparisons form a foundation, attitudes can be reshaped through persuasive communication and conscious effort. Recognizing how attitudes are formed and change provides valuable insight into human behavior and offers strategies for influence in personal and societal contexts.

References

• Ajzen, I. (1992). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
• Baumeister, R. F., & Heatherton, T. F. (1996). Self-regulation failure: An overview. Psychological Science, 7(2), 89-94.
• Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. Harper Business.
• Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591-621.
• Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140.
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
• Morse, S., & Gergen, K. J. (1970). Social comparison, self-consistency, and the concept of the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14(4), 308-319.
• Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220.
• O'Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2007). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for health-related behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Communication, 57(2), 301-318.
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer-Verlag.
• Rothman, A. J., Bartels, D. M., Wlaschin, J. T., & Salovey, P. (1999). The strategic use of gain- and loss-framed messages to promote healthy behavior: How theory can inform practice. Journal of Communication, 49(3), 46-54.