The self, as a concept is one of the oldest and most persistently researched parts of social psychology. At the beginning of the twentieth century William James put down the framework for many of today’s principal issues. With expert research into the fundamentals of what goes into creating ‘the self’ James argued that it was through our “emotional identification” with them that made them part of “me” (as cited in Franzoi 1996).
Many other psychologists have studied the idea and subject of the ‘self’, namely Freud with his work on the ‘ego’ and the ‘super ego'(. The knowledge that people possess about themselves is both complex and extensive, therefore making research challenging yet productive. However, despite early and recent studies, ‘the self’ as a concept still remains one of the more complex queries concerning the human personality. I will be discussing the elements that go into creating this puzzling entity and elaborating upon three major features of the self.
The two major factors I believe go into creating and maintaining the self are; ‘identity’ (having a stable sense of who we are within our own ociety and the most prominent is that of the ‘self-concept’ or ‘the self’ (what we believe about ourselves). These, in addition to various other factors I shall address, will assist in explaining and exploring the notion of ‘the self’, as both a unitary concept and a multiple entity.
I have chosen to focus on these two factors as they clearly underpin the research I have collected on ‘the self’ (see references). Firstly, I will look at the main idea of the ‘self-concept’. This is, essentially, a set of beliefs about a person’s qualities and typical behaviour. Although we usually talk about ‘the self’ as a single entity, it is probably more accurate to say that people have a number of specific self- concepts that operate in different situations (Harter, 1990 as cited in Weiten & Lloyd, 2000).
The self-concept is created in much the same way as we create impressions of others. That is by coming to conclusions about their characteristics as a result of their behaviour. Self-knowledge is also gained through our own judgments and feelings, as well as from other people’s response to our actions. We also tend to compare ourselves to thers in order to work out what makes us distinctive within our own environment. This is known as ‘social comparison’ theory (Festinger, 1954).
More recently his theory has been succeeded by the work done by Buunk et al. in 1990, which suggested that people not only compare themselves to others to assess their abilities but also to maintain their self image and improve their skills. It is all these components that go into creating an accurate self- perception. The studies of Don Hamachek (1992, as cited in Weiten and Lloyd, 2000) express the theory that people have separate concepts of their hysical, social, emotional, and intellectual selves.
Each of these various self-concepts is characterised by relatively distinct and separate thoughts and feelings. I believe this is a central argument for the ‘multiple’ theory of the self. Using myself as an example, I may have considerable information and confidence about my social skills and feel quite capable about that section of my life. However, I may have limited information and less confidence about my physical skills. Current thinking is that only a portion of the total self operates at any one time.
The self that is currently being accessed has been deemed the ‘working self-concept’ by Hazel Markus, a leading researcher in this area (Markus & Wurf, 1987 as cited in Smith & Mackie 2000). When a particular component of ‘the self’ is operating, its thoughts and feelings strongly influence the way a person processes information about that aspect of ‘the self’ (Fiske and Taylor, 1991 as cited in Franzoi 1996). For example, whilst in a lecture the beliefs and emotions associated with your intellectual self typically dominate how you process information you eceive in that setting.
Similarly, when you are at a party, you tap into your social self and the thoughts, feelings and behaviour related to it. These ideas about the self are not set in concrete but they are not easily altered either. Individuals are strongly motivated to maintain a consistent view of self. Therefore, once the self-concept is established, the individual has a tendency to preserve and defend it. However, change can occur, which makes ‘the self’ a dynamic element within the human psyche.
These changes are most likely to occur in correlation with a major odification in our social environment, such as changing jobs or moving from school to University (Harter, 1993 as cited in Weiten & Lloyd 2000). Self-concepts are not merely an abstract idea of interest to psychologists but a guide to human behaviour. This is because our self- concepts guide the processing of self-relevant information. Furthermore self-conception obviously plays a powerful role in how people see themselves and others, how they feel and most importantly how they behave.
For example, if I had been keen on a certain classmate recently my social elf may be the critical factor that determines whether I actually approach that person. As well as the self-concept being made up of various elements it also varies in complexity. Self-complexity refers to how simple or elaborate ‘the self’ is. People with greater self-complexity have a number of different aspects to their self-concept so each single component makes up a small part of the whole; consequently, different events in their lives will only affect small parts of their self-concept.
In contrast, those with low self-complexity have relatively few different self components, so each one akes up a large part of the whole; consequently events in their lives will affect a large part of their self-concept. Based on this theory Linville asserted that people with low self-complexity would experience greater swings in emotion and self-esteem than those who are high in self- complexity (1985, 1987 as cited in Franzoi, 1996).
There are many positive aspects to having high self-complexity such being able to cope better with negative events, by counter balancing them with positive events in other sections of the self. This coping strategy is less effective in individuals ith low self-complexity, as they have fewer elements to ‘fall back on’ if another is affected negatively (Linville and Fischer, 1991 as cited in Weiten & Lloyd, 2000). Personally, I believe that Linville and Fischer’s conclusion is an accurate one.
I feel that people who have more components in their lives, such as sport, education, hobbies and an active social life, together with a stable family, cope better with life’s ‘ups and downs’ as they have different parts of their lives to ‘lift’ them back up and to define themselves by. In comparison, a person who solely relies on ne component to make them feel good and define themselves, for example sport, would find it very difficult to cope if that one element was taken away, for example by injury.
The development of the self is also shaped by cultural and political values. The society in which you are brought up defines what is desirable and undesirable in your personality and behaviour. For example, in my opinion English culture tends to put a premium on education, tradition, individuality and service. When individuals meet cultural expectations, they feel good about themselves and, according to Matsumoto, experience an ncrease in self-esteem, and vice versa (1994 as cited in Gleitman 1998).
An opinion which I agree with in the most part. However, in my view modern society puts a strong emphasis on ‘not following the crowd’ – on being an individual. Therefore, to some not being part of culture is as important to them as following it is to others. Achieving individuality within society is becoming an increasingly important part of growing up in the modern world in which we live. The formation of an identity is how we do this. By having an identity we are able to maintain a stable sense of who we are within the social order.
In childhood, a key task is identifying the attributes that are perceived as “me” and integrating them into a self-concept. In adolescence, the work of developing a sense of the self continues, yet broadens into another arena. As adulthood looms nearer, individuals attempt to place themselves within a larger society. Therefore adolescents are preoccupied with clarifying their career goals, moral standings, political ideas and religious beliefs which will assist them in making decisions within the context of a larger social order.
Erik Erikson (1968), an influential sychoanalytic theorist, contributed the term “identity” to express this important psychological connection between self and society (as cited in Mischel, 1977). Although much of the process of identity formation is unconscious, a key point is that individuals create their identity; they do not just unquestioningly assume the roles and beliefs designated for them by parents and society.
For example, in my experience you do not agree with your parents a great deal in adolescence, this is all part of gaining your own views, opinions and learning how to interact with people with whom you agree and disagree with. By forming your own identity you are becoming your own person and in turn an adult. As well as an individual identity we also create social identities and a group identity within our environment. Personal and social identities are fundamentally distinct aspects of a person’s self-concept.
Social Identity theory is “that part of an individuals self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership” (Tajfel, 1982). [1] According to this theory, self-esteem[2] is partly determined by person’s social identity, which is tied to one’s group memberships (nationality, gender, career and so forth) (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992 as cited in Gleitman, 1999). Whereas your personal self-esteem is elevated by individual accomplishments, such as getting a grade A in an exam.
Likewise, your collective self-esteem is boosted when an in-group is successful. For example, your swim team wins a match. Personal and social identities are different ways of thinking about yourself in relation to other people. Personal identity is the perception f the self as a unique individual, whereas social identity is the perception of the self as part of a social group. We divide the world into social categories and define ourselves in terms of our social identity.
People are motivated to achieve a positive social identity and there are various ways to accomplish this. One example is by making social comparisons between groups. In making these comparisons we are motivated to seek out positively valued distinctions between groups. For example, inter- group differentiation and discrimination, in-group bias and out-group erogation. By using these tools each group seeks to view itself as somehow better than other groups, this is called a state of “social competition” (Rosenberg, 1979).
Based on this research I feel that people are motivated to establish positively valued differences between in-group and out-group, in order to achieve a positive social identity. Although social and personal identity has its roots in your formative years, it continues to develop throughout adulthood (Marcia, 1991 as cited in Franzoi, 1996). However, Erikson (discussed above) saw adolescence as he most significant period for identity development, and research has supported his view (as cited in Mischel, 1977).
The fact that identity accomplishment is a concern during late adolescence probably reflects the conjunction of several developmental milestones during this time (Lloyd, 1985 as cited in Weiten & Lloyd, 2000). That is, the achievement of a stable and familiar sense of self depends on physical and sexual maturity, competence in abstract thought and a degree of emotional stability. In addition, Harter considered that identity achievement requires a certain mount of freedom from the constraining influences of parents and peers (1990 as cited in Gleitman, 1998).
As it happens, late adolescence is the period during which such conditions are first likely to exist. The roles of gender and ethnicity within the formation of the identity are very influential. The preconceived male and female stereotypes assumed within a society can affect the manner in which we see our place within it. Because identity is based on social roles, one would predict that there are gender differences in identity, and research supports this idea (Harter, 993 as cited in Weiten & Lloyd 2000).
The formation of an identity allows an individual to have a stable sense of self. This supports the view that the self, at the same time as being a single entity, is also made up of various components such as identity, which plays a fundamental part. From the research and information that I have discussed I am able to infer that ‘the self’ is not only a complex and vastly studied subject, but also a topic of conflicting opinion and ideas. The manner in which individuals create, defend and maintain the concept of the self is both an nteresting process and a puzzling one.
This is partly due to the fact that each person sees the environment in which they live differently from the next person. This affects the process of self-perception, resulting in unpredictable evaluations of the self. By taking into account the research that I have considered in my essay I have come to the conclusion that ‘the self’ is a single unit within a person. However I also believe that it is constructed of a variety of multiple components, such as identity, self-esteem and self-concept, which all contribute to its elaborate web-like structure.