Defining “Self”

1. Defining “Self” • The way people think and feel about themselves (Brown, 1998). • The human self is a self-organizing, interactive system of thoughts, feelings, and motives that characterizes an individual (Hoyle).

2. Self vs. Personality • According to Brown: Self is what people think they are like. Personality is what people are actually like.

3. History of the Self in Psychological Science • William James (1842-1910) • Discussed concepts such as self-concept and self-esteem • Used introspection-observation of one’s own consciousness. • Behaviorists (e.g., Watson, Skinner) • Dominated American psychology from 1915-1955. • Psychology is the science of behavior, not of the mind. • Self relegated to non-scientific psychology. • Cognitive Revolution and Re-Emergence of the Self • People are active organisms, capable of planning and initiating behaviors in order to achieve desired end-states.

4. Self at the Center of Human Experience ENV  SELF  BEH

5. William James’ View of Self 2 Main Components: • Me: the self-concept (knowledge and thoughts related to who you think you are). • I: the perceiver (the part of self that allows you to be consciously aware of who you are). “I sees Me”

6. Three Components of Self-Concept (James) • Spiritual Self- your internal perception of who you are. • Personality traits, abilities, interests, feelings, desires. • Social Self- how you are perceived by others. • Largely based on social roles and group memberships. • Material Self- tangible objects, people, or places that carry the designation my or mine. • Bodily self • Extracorporeal self

7. Cognitive Components of the Self The Self is a collection of knowledge. • Network Models • Self-schemas- cognitive generalizations about the self, derived from past experience, that organize and guide the processing of new self-related information (Markus, 1977).

8. Markus' (1977) Self-Schema studies Step 1: Individuals are categorized as independent, dependent, or aschematic. How would you describe yourself: Dependent 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Independent Conformist 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Individualist Follower 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Leader

9. Markus' (1977) Self-Schema studies Step 2 (3-4 weeks later): Judge whether 69 traits are self-descriptive or not (RT measured). Each item presented for 2s. Example: Individualistic:   Me Not Me

10. Results (Markus, 1977) Self-schemas • Allow consistent judgments of self • Speed up processing of self-relevant info

11. Extensions of Self-Schema Research • Memory • Acceptance of feedback • Judgment of others

12. Self-Reference Effect Rogers, Kuiper, & Kirker (1977): Step 1:  Structural properties: Is kind printed in lowercase letters? Phonemic properties: Does kind rhyme with mind? Semantic properties: Does kind mean the same as nice? Self-relevance: Does kind describe you? Step 2: Surprise recall.

13. Self-Reference Effect • Information related to the self is more easily recalled.

14. Working Self-Concept Working self-concept- the portion of the self that is accessible at the moment. Consists of: • core self-conceptions (stable across situations). • tentative self-conceptions (change depending on the situation).

15. Self-Complexity (Linville, 1987) “…self-complexity entails cognitively organizing self-knowledge in terms of a greater number of self-aspects and maintaining greater distinctions among self-aspects.” “A complex cognitive representation of the self serves to moderate the adverse physical and mental health effects of stressful events.”

16. Motivational Views of Self Self-evaluation motives: • Self-enhancement- people want to feel good about themselves. • Accuracy- people want valid info about themselves. • Self-verification- people want info that is consistent with how they view themselves. • Self-improvement- people want to get better.

17. Swann et al. (1987) Method • Participants were high or low in social SE • Task: read a passage from a book while evaluator watches • Evaluator gives favorable or unfavorable feedback. • Participants rate the evaluator and their current mood.

18. Swann et al. (1987) Results

19. Swann et al. (1987) Results

20. Compromises b/w Enhancement and Verification • Morling & Epstein (1997; Study 2): • Participants were high or low in self-esteem. • P’s read scenarios involving potential dating partners: • Self-verifying partner • Slight or extremely enhancing partner • Slight or extremely belittling partner • P’s rated immediate gut reactions of liking for each partner • And more considerate, deliberate reactions of liking.

21. Compromises b/w Enhancement and VerificationImmediate Condition

22. Compromises b/w Enhancement and VerificationDeliberate Condition

23. Self-Discrepancy Theory (Higgins, 1987) Three components of self: • Actual self- the person you think you are. • Ideal self- the person you’d ideally like to be. • Ought self- the person you think you should be.

24. Self-Discrepancy Theory (Higgins, 1987) 1. We are motivated to reach a condition where actual self matches our personally relevant self-guides (ideal or ought selves). 2. Self discrepancies have affective consequences. • Actual-ideal self discrepancy leads to dejection-related emotions. • Actual-ought self discrepancy leads to agitation-related emotions.

25. Experimental Evidence for Self-Discrepancy Theory (Higgins et al., 1986) • Participants were students who scored high on both actual-ideal and actual-ought discrepancy and those who scored low on both. • Ideal prime condition: “describe the kind of person you and your parents would ideally like you to be…” • Ought prime condition: “describe the kind of person you and your parents think you ought to be…” • DV: pre and post-test mood questionnaire.

26. Results (Higgins et al., 1986) • Ideal priming increased high-discrepancy participants’ dejection. • Ought priming increased high-discrepancy participants’ agitation.

27. Working Self-Concept Working self-concept- the portion of the self that is accessible at the moment. Consists of: • core self-conceptions (stable across situations). • tentative self-conceptions (change depending on the situation).

28. Stability and Malleability of the Self-Concept (Markus & Kunda, 1986) • Manipulated similarity vs. uniqueness e.g., Which card do you prefer? Uniqueness condition: 2 confederates disagree with you on 15/18 trials. Similarity condition: 2 confederates agree with you on 15/18 trials.

29. Results, Markus & Kunda (1986) Me/not me judgments for similarity (average, normal, follower) and uniqueness (original, independent, unique) words: • No effect of condition on # similarity and uniqueness words endorsed as self-descriptive. • But, p’s in the uniqueness condition hit “me” faster for similarity words. • P’s in the similarity condition hit “me” faster for uniqueness words and “not me” faster for similarity words.

30. Conclusions • Self can be described in cognitive units such as nodes in a network or self-schemas. • Different social situations activate different portions of the self and different self-motives. • Motives affect our processing of self-related information and subsequent emotions. • Several theories suggest that the self is resistant to change.