Chapter 3

The Social Self

"Know thyself" (as a virtue in ancient Greece)

List at least 10 definitions of the self

The following website gives a fairly clear explanation of what is meant by the term "self": http://www.psych.neu.edu/ISSI/daily.htm

Note categories of self-definition that you are using

Can you ever really know thyself?

Some would argue "no":

Philosopher Hume: "all I can find are sensations; there is no self"

Nisbett & Wilson critique of introspection (knowing more than you can tell; e.g., serial position effects)  

Objective Self versus Subjective Self

Subjective Self: Self as AGENT; the I or Executive Function of the Self; the Knower; Reflexive

Aspect of self that is doing the thinking, feeling, knowing

Sense of self that is:

unique/distinctive

changing, but still stable

THAT NO ONE ELSE can tap into

Very difficult to study empirically

 

Objective Self: Self as OBJECT; the ME; aspects of self that are perceived

THIS has been the focus of most research on the self

Many different theories invoking construct of objective self

Each theory emphasizes

• different components of the self

• different functions of the self

• different sources of where the self "comes" from

Each theory focuses on a different component of the self.

There also are several theories regarding each component of self (a few highlighted below; many covered in chapter)

These are links to two classic articles that discuss the self, its origins and terminology. Both of these are excellent extra readings on classic explanation of the self for anyone who is interested.

The Self in Scientific Psychology by Mary Whiton Calkins (1915) http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Calkins/self.htm

The Social Self by George Herbert Mead (1913) http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Mead/socialself.htm

The ABC Components of the "Self"

There are different theories about the objective self and where is "comes" from.

Each theory focuses on a different component of the self.

A = AFFECT

We have feelings toward ourselves (like ourselves, hate ourselves)

This is commonly known as self-esteem

Self-discrepancy theory focuses on affect and its interaction with cognitive components of the self (covered later)

B = BEHAVIOR

Obviously, we behave and our behavior says something about who we "are"

Self-perception theory and dissonance theory focus on the behavioral component of the self. Social comparison theory is fairly behaviorally-focused as well (all covered later)

C = COGNITIONS

We also obviously have ideas about who we are. These ideas can be called cognitions about the kind of person we are.

The cognitive component of the self is typically what we mean when we use the word "self-concept."

Don't confuse the term self-esteem with self-concept

Your self-concept is what you know about yourself:

I have brown hair
I am short
I am a professor
I am a night owl

Your self-esteem is how you FEEL about each of these pieces of knowledge

I hate my brown hair
I hate being short
I like being professor
I like being a night owl

Schema theory focuses largely on the cognitive component of the self

In this view, the self =

an organized collection of beliefs about oneself that can change with time and feedback

beliefs can refer to actual and also possible selves (e.g., dreaded ones)

DO WE HAVE ONE SELF-CONCEPT OR MANY?

We think of our self-concept as relatively fixed. We also think of it as one whole (unitary).

Self-concepts do change with time (think of development)

We also have many different concepts of the self (multiple selves).

Think of Higgins' actual, ideal, ought selves.

Think of James' idea of different social selves.

Think of Markus' dreaded, possible, real selves (etc.)

HOW DO WE FORM A CONCEPT OF SELF EXACTLY?

Different views on this in social psychology

Some say we "introspect"

Essentially read off knowledge of self through cognition

Others caution us about the entire notion of introspection

Nisbett and Wilson research again (knowing more than we can tell)

Obvious biases (positive and negative in self-evaluation)

Others say through observations of our own Behavior

This is Daryl Bem's Self-Perception theory

We "watch" ourselves behave and "infer" the kind of person we are from the kinds of behaviors we do.

There's a catch, though: We use our behaviors as a clue to our self-concepts IF AND ONLY IF

• the behavior was not coerced (i.e., not "manded")

• we don't already have a firm belief about ourselves in "this realm" to begin with

Bem's theory is similar to Wegner and Vallacher's Action Identification Theory

They argue that there can be high versus low action identification cues.

What are these?

How do they affect use of our behavior for forming a self-concept?

Others say through comparisons of our own behavior with others

This is Festinger's Social Comparison theory

We behave (e.g., get 70% on a test)

We look to see how others performed

If the others performed even better, we infer?

If the others performed worse, we infer?

Social comparisons can be made "up" or "down"

Upward social comparison is? (look this up)

How smart would you infer you are after having made an upward social comparison?

Downward social comparison is? (look this up)

How smart would you infer you are after having made a downward social comparison?

"Usually" we make social comparisons that are just a "little" upward (e.g., we compare ourselves to people who are just a little smarter). Why do we do this, do you think? For example, we often raise self-esteem by identifying with our group (football team that just won) vs. distancing ourselves from group when performs poorly.

Social comparisons thus also affect how we feel about ourselves (our self-esteem) and are used strategically to bolster our self-esteem.

However, some people fairly consistently make extreme upward comparisons (e.g., by comparing themselves to someone who is a LOT smarter than them).

People who are clinically depressed do this often

Women have been shown to do this more than men

Others say we form a self-concept through principles of learning and feedback that we receive from others

Won't really cover learning ideas here; they're pretty obvious

Although not a behaviorist, Cooley emphasized the influence of the environment on our self-concept

You do need to know Cooley's concept of a "looking-glass self" and how our self-concept is affected by feedback from others:

"Each to each a looking-glass

Reflects the other that doth pass"....

"A self-idea seems to have three principal elements: the imagination of our appearance to the other person, the imagination of his judgment of that appearance, and some sort of self-feelings, such as pride or mortification....the thing that moves us to pride or shame...[is] the imagined effect of this reflection upon another's mind." (p. 266 from Kollock and O'Brien who reprinted Cooley's original work from the early 1900's).

Important to Cooley: Idea of reflected self-appraisal

Know that Cooley's looking-glass self model idea isn't completely empirically validated (self-perception and PERCEPTION of others' perceptions of self are the most highly correlated. Self-perception & others' actual perceptions are not highly correlated). Thus, there's a lot of filtering of what's reflected back to us. We don't blindly or directly incorporate into self-concept the feedback we get from others.

 

Experiments on the vicious interactive cycles involving our "looking-glass" self (self-concept), self-esteem, and behavior

The scar face experiment

Snyder et al.'s dating experiment

HOW DO SELF-CONCEPT AND SELF-ESTEEM INTERACT?

Higgins' self-discrepancy theory

Higgins argues that we have different standpoints on the self

He means that we "know" who we are from different people's perspectives (e.g., what we ourselves think; what our mom's or dad's think of us; what our spouse's think of us, etc.).

The perspectives don't always have to agree:

My husband can think I'm kinda cute and I can think I'm really ugly.

At other times the perspectives will agree:

My husband can think I take on too much work and so can I!

Higgins further argues that we have ideas about who we are in different realms or domains.

Here he means that we have concepts of how we:

actually are (how I really, really am)

ideally would like to be (if I were to close my eyes and fantasize about my wildest dreams and desires, e.,g., I would love to be tall, like a model)

ought to be (when I think about how I am morally obligated to be, as though an angel or a god were whispering into my ears, e.g., I must be always be a punctual person)

Higgins suggests further that we have these actual, ideal, and ought selves from the different standpoints on the self. So, for example:

	Domain	Domain	Domain
Standpoint:	Actual	Ideal	Ought
Own	I know I'm short	I'd like to be tall
Other (My husband)	Husband believes I work 80+ hours a week	Husband thinks a 60-hour work week is enough

short vs. tall actual-own vs. ideal-own results in a discrepancy

there is also an actual-other vs. ideal-other discrepancy. What is it?

 

So, you can take the standpoints on the self AND the domains of the self and combine them in various ways. Depending on what's being combined, you'll get some consonant and some discrepant results.

Another example:

	Domain	Domain	Domain
Standpoint:	Actual	Ideal	Ought
Own	Usually on time		I ought to be on time
Other (A good friend)	Tamara's always late		Tamara ought to be on time

So: here there's an actual-other vs. ought-other discrepancy

There's not an actual-own vs. ought-own discrepancy

Now, so what? Higgins argues that different comparisons can result in different feelings about the self (and lead others to feel differently about us!). In fact, it is these different self-discrepancies that can account for various psychological disorders or symptoms of disorders.

Example: Assume there's a large ACTUAL-OWN vs. IDEAL-OWN discrepancy. How would I feel?

Probably depressed and ashamed of myself.

Example: Assume there's a large ACTUAL-OTHER vs. OUGHT-OTHER discrepancy. How would I feel?

Probably anxious and guilty. How would the other person feel about me? Probably angry or at least disappointed.

Higgins has garnered considerable empirical support for his theory. It also is an intuitively appealing and elegant integration of much of the self literature. There are failures to replicate his ideas (most unpublished), however.

SO WHAT IF WE HAVE A SELF-CONCEPT????

Our self-concept acts as a kind of "schema"

Self-schemas consist of ALL of the information we know about ourselves.

Content & Structure of Self-Schemas (many possible examples)

Rentsch & Heffner (1994)

self-concept/schema contains specific information unique to each individual, but overall structure (factors describing) is basially same for all. Examples of basic structure:

interpersonal attributes: self in relation to others; roles

ascribed characteristics: age, gender

interests and activities

Any schema organizes the perception, encoding, and use of information to interact in the environment (e.g., our restaurant schema; our visit to doctor's office schema; our test-taking schema, partying schema, our car salesperson schema etc.). Self-schemas do this too.

In self-schemas, some information is really central and other information is less central (= peripheral). Central info. affects processing more when person motivated

Evidence from Sandra Bem's research on "weight" self-schemas

Some people are weight-schematic (info. is central to self-schema)

Others are weight-aschematic (info. is peripheral to self-schema)

Weight-schematic people:

perceive more info. as being related to weight

freely recall (correctly but also incorrectly) info. related to weight

recognize (correctly but also incorrectly) info. related to weight

respond faster during recognition experiments to weight-related than weight-unrelated info.

Sandra Bem has shown similar findings re. gender-schematics (versus -aschematics)

Sandra Bem's findings bear on other phenomena discussed in book, such as:

autobiographical memory (study from book)

egocentric bias (study from book)

self-reference effect ( info. processed in terms of self concept is best recalled, especially central info. to defining self), cf. Rogers & Kuiper.

More complex or less univalent self schemas bode better for adjustment

Evidence

•Adjustment following traumatic event is better for those who can imagine many different possible selves (Morgan & Janoff-Bulman, 1994)

•Self-complexity serves as a cognitive buffer against depression and stress-related illness (Linville, 1987)

AN ASIDE: BIG debate now about the consequences of self-esteem

Some argue: lower self-esteem, lower all kinds of functioning (e.g., social skills, depression, bad reactions to losing job, stress-related illness).

Others argue: highly inflated self-esteem (that is unstable) predicts to anti-social, entitlement behavior

Other evidence suggests that accurate self-esteem ---> good mental health functioning

What are implications of above for self-esteem improvement programs? (go to web to read the newspaper clipping)

INDIVIDUAL AND SITUATIONAL DIFFERENCES IN IMPORTANCE OF SELF-CONCEPT IN REGULATING BEHAVIOR

Individual Differences

Sandra Bem's research shows that people differ in how much they use schemas to process, store, and retrieve information from the environment. Some people are more schematic in a certain area regarding the self than are other people.

Mark Snyder's idea of self-monitoring is also getting at the idea that there are individual differences in the extent to which people look inwardly to use their values, attitudes, and beliefs as a guide to their overt behavior.

With self-monitoring, he means the extent to which a person lets their behavior be changed by the demands of the situation.

Characteristics of HSM vs. LSM

A person high in self-monitoring IS someone who lets their behavior be changed by the demands of the situation;

the person is a kind of social chameleon (think of actors, politicians, salespeople)

A person low in self-monitoring is someone who lets their behavior be guided more by their own inner values, attitudes, and beliefs.

A low self-monitorer would thus behave fairly consistently across situations regardless of situational pressures to behave otherwise (relative to a high self-monitorer).

Why is Snyder's idea of self-monitoring important to psychology in general? (Mischel & consistency debate)

Fenigstein, Carver, and Buss' ideas of private self-consciousness and public self-consciousness are also relevant here.

Somebody high in public self-consciousness would be very concerned with what we call "impression management" or "strategic self-presentation."

Does this mean that high public self-consciousness and high self-monitoring are the same thing? Not really, but can you tell me why?

Somebody high in private self-consciousness would be very attuned to their inner beliefs, attitudes, etc.

Does this mean that high private self-consciousness and low self-monitoring are the same thing? No, but can you tell me why?

Sample items from these scales and the self-monitoring scale (see textbook)

Situational Differences

We all have a self-concept; we all are (to varying degrees) aware of our inner beliefs, values, attitudes (etc.). BUT, some situations can cause us to be more aware of our inner selves, whereas other situations can cause us to become less aware of, or attentive to, our inner selves.

Can you think of examples of situations that raise inner self-awareness?

Can you think of any situations that would reduce inner self-awareness or, in other words, focus our attention more outwardly on the environment?

Think back to Duval and Wicklund's idea of objective self-awareness

the mirror experiments

remember this for when we are talking far into the future about "deindividuation."

**We all have self-concepts and, when focused on these, they can motivate us to control our behavior (e.g., improve ourselves; resist temptation).

BUT, engaging in self-control can be "depleted" by usage , however (Baumeister, Tice, etc. argument)

example: stifling negative emotional responses prevents people from later exerting "self-control" (Muraven & Baumeister, 1998)

example: resisting temptation to snack, increased later ice cream consumption (Vohs & Heatherton, 2000)

example: stifling negative emotional responses can lead to later increased negative emotional responses (e.g., Gross & colleagues), even suppressing immune system

example: writing down one's negative feelings (e.g., in diary) can actually help people rid self of experience & helps physiologically (e.g., Pennebaker & colleagues)

example: trying to inhibit a thought (e.g., don't think of white bears or the brownies your roommates just baked), actually increases thoughts about those topics (Wegner, 1994). Think of abuse victims; jury instructions

This is a fun activity that can give you an idea about how the self and self-esteem might be assessed by allowing you to take your own mini-evaluations. Click on the link below and then choose the option for the "Who am I?" scale. http://www.u.arizona.edu/%7Eschmader/self.htm

(note: study the Self-Presentation section on your own)

Back to Psy 3510 Homepage

Back to Psy 3510 Lecture Notes

---

© Copyright 2004 Tamara J Ferguson
Send e-mail comments regarding this site to: fatamara@cc.usu.edu

---