3.9: Alternate Text Descriptions

Figure 3.2.1: Self-Recognition Across Species

The figure is a five-panel collage showing examples of individuals observing their reflections.

• One image shows a person looking at a reflection in a mirror.
• One image shows a dog walking beside a reflective glass surface.
• One image shows a cat looking at its reflection in water.
• One image shows a young child touching or looking at a mirror.
• One image shows a monkey viewing its reflection in a handheld mirror.

Each panel involves an individual interacting with a mirror or reflective surface.

The figure illustrates the concept of self-recognition, a topic studied in social and cognitive psychology. Researchers use mirrors and other reflective surfaces to investigate whether individuals recognize themselves as the source of the reflection. Comparisons across humans and other animals help researchers examine self-awareness and the development of self-concept.

Figure 3.2.2: Brain Regions Involved in Self-Reference and Social Cognition

The figure shows a sagittal (side-view) cross-section of the human brain. Five shaded and numbered regions are highlighted within the cerebral cortex.

• Region 1 is located toward the front and lower portion of the cerebral cortex.
• Region 2 is located in the upper front portion of the cortex.
• Region 3 is located in the upper middle portion of the cortex.
• Region 4 is located below Region 2 and toward the center of the brain.
• Region 5 is located along the upper central portion of the cortex.

Dashed outlines distinguish the highlighted regions from surrounding brain tissue. The cerebellum, brainstem, and other major brain structures are also visible but are not numbered.

The figure identifies multiple brain regions that have been associated with self-referential processing and social cognition. It is intended to help learners visualize the locations of brain areas involved in thinking about oneself, understanding others, and processing social information. The numbered regions correspond to areas discussed in the accompanying text or research findings.

Figure 3.2.3: The Self-Reference Effect

The figure is a bar graph showing memory performance across four experimental conditions.

• The y-axis is labeled Memory and ranges from 0.00 to 0.30.
• The x-axis is labeled Experimental condition and includes:
  • Structural
  • Phonemic
  • Semantic
  • Self-reference

Approximate memory scores are:

• Structural: 0.03
• Phonemic: 0.07
• Semantic: 0.13
• Self-reference: 0.30

Memory performance increases across the conditions, with the self-reference condition producing the highest score by a substantial margin.

The graph demonstrates the self-reference effect, a finding that information processed in relation to oneself is remembered better than information processed at other levels. Participants showed the strongest memory performance when evaluating information in terms of its relevance to themselves, indicating that self-related processing enhances memory retention.

Figure 3.2.4: Cultural Differences in Desire for Uniqueness

The figure is a bar graph showing the percentage of participants who selected an uncommon pen from a set of pens.

• The y-axis represents the percent choosing the uncommon pen and ranges from 0 to 90.
• The x-axis represents the number of majority and minority pens available:
  • 4/1 (four common pens, one uncommon pen)
  • 3/2 (three common pens, two uncommon pens)

The legend identifies:

• East Asian participants (purple bars)
• European American participants (light blue bars)

Approximate values are:

4/1 condition

• East Asian: 31%
• European American: 78%

3/2 condition

• East Asian: 15%
• European American: 72%

In both conditions, European American participants selected the uncommon pen much more often than East Asian participants. Selection of the uncommon pen decreased for both groups when two uncommon pens were available instead of one.

The graph illustrates cultural differences in preferences for uniqueness and conformity. Participants from European American cultural backgrounds were more likely to select a distinctive option, whereas East Asian participants were less likely to do so. The figure demonstrates how cultural values can influence decision-making and consumer choices.

Figure 3.2.5: Social Norms and Conformity

The figure is a collage composed of three photographs.

• Upper left: A group of individuals wearing matching robes and pointed hoods standing together in an outdoor setting.
• Upper right: A historical photograph showing several individuals gathered together, many with one arm raised in the same gesture.
• Lower image: An individual participating in a drinking activity involving beverage containers in a public or social setting.

Each image depicts people engaging in behaviors that occur within a group or social context.

The figure illustrates the role of social norms, conformity, and social influence in shaping behavior. The examples show how individuals may adopt behaviors, symbols, gestures, or activities that are supported or encouraged by a social group. The image reinforces the social psychology principle that group expectations and cultural norms can strongly influence individual actions.

Figure 3.2.6: The Illusion of Transparency 

The figure is a bar graph showing the proportion correct for two participant instruction conditions.

• The y-axis is labeled Proportion correct and ranges from 0 to 50.
• The x-axis is labeled Participant instructions and includes:
  • Liar
  • Observer

Approximate values are:

• Liar: 49% correct
• Observer: 26% correct

The bar for the liar condition is nearly twice as high as the bar for the observer condition.

The graph illustrates a research finding related to deception. Participants instructed to lie achieved a higher proportion of correct responses than observers tasked with identifying deception. The results demonstrate that detecting lies is often difficult and that observers may perform relatively poorly when attempting to distinguish truthful statements from deceptive ones.

Figure 3.3.1: Enhancing the Self

The figure is a bar graph comparing the number of participants whose first thought was extroverted or introverted after being assigned to different postcollege success conditions.

• The y-axis represents the number of participants and ranges from 0 to 30.
• The x-axis represents the postcollege success condition:
  • Extrovert
  • Introvert

The legend indicates:

• First thought was extroverted (green bars)
• First thought was introverted (red bars)

Approximate values are:

Extrovert condition

• First thought was extroverted: 24 participants
• First thought was introverted: 15 participants

Introvert condition

• First thought was extroverted: 14 participants
• First thought was introverted: 23 participants

The graph demonstrates that information made temporarily accessible can influence how people think about themselves. Participants exposed to extrovert-related success examples were more likely to generate extroverted self-descriptions, whereas participants exposed to introvert-related success examples were more likely to generate introverted self-descriptions. The figure illustrates how priming and accessibility can shape self-perception and social judgment.

Figure 3.4.1: Self-Monitoring and Behavioral Mimicry

The grouped bar chart compares face-touching frequency for participants assigned either a worker role or a leader role, separated by self-monitoring level.

• The x-axis shows participants’ assigned role: Worker and Leader.
• The y-axis shows face-touching frequency and ranges from 0.00 to 0.14.

For participants assigned the worker role:

• Low self-monitors show a face-touching frequency of approximately 0.07.
• High self-monitors show a higher face-touching frequency of approximately 0.12.

For participants assigned the leader role:

• Low self-monitors show a face-touching frequency of approximately 0.08.
• High self-monitors show a lower face-touching frequency of approximately 0.06.

The chart illustrates an interaction between assigned role and self-monitoring level. High self-monitors change their behavior depending on the role they are assigned, showing more face touching in the worker role and less in the leader role. Low self-monitors show relatively similar levels of face touching across both roles. This pattern suggests that high self-monitors may adjust their nonverbal behavior more in response to social roles.