دانلود ترجمه مقاله خود انتقادی صریح و حرمت نفس ضمنی – مجله الزویر

فهرست مطالب:

چکیده
مقدمه
خود انتقادی صریح و حرمت نفس ضمنی
خود ارزشیابی در روابط اجتماعی اشتراکی به هم وابسته
بررسی ۱
روش
اعضای نمونه
دستورالعمل
شرایط دوست تخیلی
نتایج
ارزشیابی صریح از خود
ارزشیابی صریح از خود
بررسی ۲
روش
شرکت کننده ها و دستورالعمل
نتایج
ارزشیابی ضمنی از خود
ارزشیابی صریح از خود
پانوشته ها
فهرست منابع

بخشی از ترجمه:

 مقدمه

از زمان ویلیام جیمز (۱۸۹۰)،عزت نفس به عنوان یک ساختار روانشناختی نسبتاً یکپارچه تعریف شده است. جزء اصلی عزت نفس مجموعه ای از ارزشیابی های مثبت از خود می باشد (روزنبرگ، ۱۹۶۵). این دیدگاه نسبت به عزت نفس در هدایت بخش اصلی تحقیق که همیشه در حال ترقی است، بسیار مفید از آب درآمده است (کراکر و وُلف، ۲۰۰۱، در یک بررسی). هرچند در سال های اخیر کم کم به این پیشنهاد روی آورده اند که این مفهوم سنتیِ عزت نفس شاید تا حدودی ساده گرایانه باشد. مهمتر از همه اینکه گرین والد، باناجی و همکاران شان استدلال کرده اند که ارزشیابی هایی که یک نفر صریحاً از خود صورت می دهد اغلب مجزا از ارزشیابی هایی هستند که بطور ضمنی به خود مربوط می باشند (برای نمونه، گرین والد و باناجی، ۱۹۹۵). در اینجا، ما این فرضیه را آزمایش می کنیم که این دو نوع ارزشیابی هنگامی که در یک بافت روابط اجتماعی کاملاً در هم تنیده و به هم وابسته امتحان می شوند عدم تطابقی مهمل نما را نشان می دهند.

بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی:

Since William James (1890), self-esteem has been defined as a relatively unified psychological structure. Its central component is a set of positive evaluations of the self (Rosenberg, 1965). This view of self-esteem has proved extremely useful in guiding an ever growing body of research on the issue (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001, for a review). In the recent years, however, researchers have begun to suggest that this traditional notion of self-esteem may be somewhat simplistic. Most importantly, Greenwald, Banaji, and their colleagues have argued that evaluations one explicitly makes of the self are often separate from evaluations that are associated with the self implicitly (e.g., Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). In the current work, we test the hypothesis that these two evaluations show a paradoxical discordance when assessed in a context of tightly knit, interdependent social relations. Explicit Self-Criticism and Implicit Self-RegardTo measure self-evaluations at an implicit level, Greenwald and colleagues have devised Implicit Association Test (or IAT; Greenwald & Farnham, 2000; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). IAT involves two separate judgments. In one judgment, participants are to make a self-other categorization of each of various personal attributes (e.g., name, job, phone number, ..etc.) that are either associated with or not associated with the self. In another judgment, participants are to make an evaluative categorization of each of either positive or negative evaluative words. After practicing each of the two judgments, the personal attributes and the evaluative words are mixed and presented in a random order. The participants are asked to perform either the self vs. not-self categorization when a personal attribute is presented or the evaluative categorization when an evaluative word is presented. In one condition, the same response key is assigned to both the “self” (or “not-self”) response in the self vs. not-self categorization and the “good” (or “bad”) response in the evaluative categorization judgment. In another condition, the combination of the responses in the two judgments is reversed. It has been found that the time required to make these judgments is considerably shorter when “self” responses are paired with “good” responses than vice versa. This demonstrates positive evaluations implicitly associated with the self.The main impetus for the current research stems from the fact that implicit and explicit self-evaluations often disagree with each other. In the contemporary literature, such a disagreement has been discussed in terms of correlations between the two types of self-evaluations across participants. Although these correlations tend to be positive especially when relatively automatic components of evaluations are assessed (Koole, Dijksterhuis, van Knippenberg, 2001), they are usually very weak (Bosson, Swann, & Pennebaker, 2000 Greenwald & Farnham, 2000). Thus, the two self-evaluations often fail to converge across individuals. The focus of the current work was different. We examine an analogous, yet logically independent, disagreement that is found in terms of overall levels of the two types of self-evaluations.