The Social Self(Week 2)

What is the “self concept”?

• “The complete set of beliefs people have about themselves” (Sutton & Douglas, 2020, p.54) • Refers to our knowledge, belief, attitudes, memory about ourselves. • Determines how we think we should think, feel or act in specific situations.

I’ and ‘me’ • Suggested distinction by William James. •

‘I’: the self as conscious awareness of the world. • ‘Me’: the self as a person in the world includes autobiographical memories, relationships with others, future planning etc. Narrative coherence and continuity.

Different selves

Personal, social, relational, collective

• Personal self: Your sense of self-awareness and consciousness of your own thoughts and feelings. Incorporates personality, attitudes, beliefs etc.

• Social self: Your self as defined by the social context – how you may act in private and public; in formal and informal situations.

• Relational self: Your self that comes from your interconnected relationships with others: family, friends.

• Collective self: Your self that comes from the groups you belong to: whether formal or informal.

Self-awareness

The psychological state of being aware of one’s characteristics, feelings and behaviours

Self-knowledge: introspection

The practice of looking inward to analyze our memories, thoughts, feelings, motives and intentions.

Self-knowledge: Self-perception theory

• The theory that when internal cues are difficult to interpret, people gain self-insight by observing their own behaviour.

• Evidence that people tend to come to view themselves in ways that are consistent with their public behaviour and statements.

10. According to the Dunning-Kruger effect, self-knowledge is limited because people tend to:

  a.  pay too little attention to past successes in evaluating future prospects.

  b.  overestimate their own skills, prospects for success, and opinion accuracy.

  c.  underestimate their own skills, prospects for success, and opinion accuracy.

  d.  dwell too much on past failures in assessing present competencies.

b

we often fail to recognize our own incompetence because…

(1) The skills needed to recognize competence tend to be the same as the skills need to produce competent performance. (2) Our estimations of our performance are overly-affected by our pre-existing views of our likely competence.

Do others know us better than we know ourselves?

• Self-Other Knowledge Asymmetry (SOKA).

• We know ourselves better than others do when it comes to ‘internal’ hard-to-observe traits (e.g. self-esteem, anxiety).

• Others may know us better than we know ourselves when it comes to external, easily observable traits (talkativeness, dominance).

• Others may also know us better when it comes to traits that are important to self esteem (intelligence, creativity).

Self-knowledge recap

• Our self-concept: our beliefs about our own personal attributes • However, we are less knowledgeable about ourselves than we think! • We are particularly bad at predicting how we will behave in the future. • However, we are better at predicting how our friends will behave! • The need to preserve self-esteem can limit self-knowledge.

Theory of the Week:The Dramaturgical Self

• Goffman argues that social life is highly structured in a way that resembles a theatre, with a front-stage and a back-stage.

• As ‘performers’ in social life, we are often required to fulfil certain social roles, which come with specific behaviours, demeanours, clothing etc.: Goffman refers to this as Front.

• This is true of both our professional and our personal lives.

therefore our self that we present to other people is highly dependent on the situation.

Front stage, back stage, off stage

• Front stage: “Where the actor formally performs and adheres to conventions that have particular meaning for the audience. The actor knows he or she is being watched and acts accordingly.”

• Back stage: “Here the performer can relax; he can drop his front, forgo speaking his lines and step out of character”.

• Off stage: “Where individual actors meet the audience members independently of the team performance on the front stage”

Interaction and saving ‘face

’ • Goffman sees social life as essentially interactional – our selves are the products of our interactions.

• As such, we are highly motivated to maintain ‘face’ – “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact”

• Interactions are often characterised by ‘face saving’ work – where people will collude at potentially awkward moments in order to maintain the smooth flow of interaction, and allow the person who has committed a potential gaffe to maintain the impression of being an authentically competent person.

Types of self-presentation

• Strategic Self-Presentation– Efforts to shape others’ impressions in specific ways in order to gain influence, power, sympathy or approval.

• Self-Verification– The desire to have others perceive us the way we perceive ourselves

Self-Presentational Strategies

(Jones, 1990) Ingratiation

Self-Promotion

Intimidation

Exemplification

Supplication

Snyder (1974) self-monitoring theory:

the tendency to regulate one’s own behaviour to meet the demands of social situations.

• High self-monitors regard themselves as highly pragmatic and flexible people who strive to be the right person for every occasion.

• Low self-monitors regard themselves as highly principled people who value consistency between who they are Mark Snyder Measured using the self monitoring scale: try it yourself on p.100 of Kassin et al. and what they do.

Self-verification

• The motivation to seek out information that confirms one's views of oneself.

• This may mean choosing friends or partners whose behaviour towards you is consistent with your self-concept or self-esteem.

• This provides cognitive consistency and can be reassuring. However…

• People with very high self-esteem may seek out flattery and dismiss constructive criticism. • People with low self-esteem may seek out derision and dismiss merited praise.

Self-Esteem

Our sense of personal self-worth.

“The evaluation which the individual makes and customarily maintains with regard to himself: it expresses an attitude of approval and indicates the extent to which an individual believes himself to be capable, significant, successful and worthy.”

Where does self-esteem come from?

• Most developmental psychologists agree that self-esteem is linked to early experiences and upbringing. • Children with the highest self-esteem tend to have experienced authoritative parenting that strikes a balance between supportiveness and discipline.

Self-esteem and the life-course

• Self-esteem can vary at times in one’s life when one’s self concept is uncertain or threatened. • Self-esteem tends to be unstable during adolescence, and again people’s 60s (i.e. around retirement age).

• However, self-esteem is a relatively stable trait between people: people tend to maintain relatively high, or relatively low self-esteem compared to others of the same age throughout their lives.

Social comparison theory:

people evaluate their own abilities and opinions by comparing themselves to others. Leon Festinger

• DOWNWARD social comparisons: Comparing ourselves with people we see as inferior to us.

• UPWARD social comparisons: Comparing ourselves with people we see as superior to us.

Self-esteem and social comparison

• Social comparisons are sometimes made defensively to protect our self-esteem.

• When self-esteem is under threat, making downward social comparisons has a positive effect on mood and future outlook.

• We also make downward temporal comparisons with our past selves as a means of self enhancement.

• However, making upward social comparisons with others or with our imagined future selves can serve a useful function in encouraging personal growth and effort at improving performance.

Self-discrepancy theory

• Proposed by Higgins (1987)

• Distinguishes between:

– The actual self

• How one really is

– The ideal self

• How one would like to be

– The ‘ought’ self

• How one thinks one ought to be#

• Actual self– I am studying Psychology & English • Ideal self– I’d rather be a famous DJ • Ought self– My parents think I ought to be studying Accounting.

Self-esteem and self-discrepancy

• Discrepancies between our actual and ought/ideal selves can lower our self-esteem. • However, we all have to cope with some level of self discrepancy.

• We can attempt to change our behaviour in order to address the discrepancy between the actual and the ideal/ought self – this is known as self-regulation.

• However, negative emotions can get in the way – instead of pursuing the long-term solution of behavioural change, we look for quick fix solutions to make us feel better in the short term. •

E.g. I might feel bad because I can’t afford the car I feel I ought to have. A long-term solution might be to change my spending habits so I can save up to buy a better car. A short-term solution might be to buy something I can afford to cheer myself up

Self-esteem and self-discrepancy 3 factors

1. The amount of discrepancy • The farther off our ideal self, the worse we feel

2. The importance of discrepancy to the self • The more important the domain, the worse we feel

3. How much we focus on our self-discrepancies • The more we think about it, the worse we feel.

• Discrepancies between the actual and the ideal self can lead to dissatisfaction, sadness and disappointment.

• Discrepancies between the actual and the ought self can lead to frustration, anxiety and restlessness.

Fear of missing out (FOMO)

• FOMO is concerned with symptoms such as anxiety and depression that arise from an individual’s reflection that others are enjoying forms of social contact that they are not. (Fitzgerald et al., 2023). • Likely exacerbated by social media. Indeed, periods of social media unavailability can lead, for some people to JOMO – the Joy of Missing Out! (Eitan & Gazit, 2023).

The Dramaturgical Self

• Goffman argues that social life is highly structured in a way that resembles a theatre, with a front-stage and a back-stage. • As ‘performers’ in social life, we are often required to fulfil certain social roles, which come with specific behaviours, demeanours, clothing etc.: Goffman refers to this as Front. • This is true of both our professional and our personal lives. . • Therefore, the self that we present to other people is highly dependent on the situation

When ‘fronts’ collide?

managing fronts on social media

• We may have different ‘selves’ that we present in different social situations to different ‘audiences’.

• What happens when we have to manage two or more ‘audiences’ simultaneously?

• Which version of the self gets presented?

Scenario: when fronts clash Your new girlfriend/boyfriend from college meets your best friend from home. They don’t get on. Later, each of them accuse you of being a different person when you’re with the other…

Managing fronts on social media • Social media accounts require self-presentation to multiple audiences simultaneously.

• How do we manage this and avoid self presentation paralysis? Hogan (2010) argues we consider two groups when posting on social media: 1. Those to whom we seek to present an idealised front 2. Those who might find this front problematic i.e. a ‘hidden audience’ who are not the intended audience of the self-presentation, but will have access to it as well e.g. parents, employers, Gardaí etc.

- These form the lowest common denominator of what is acceptable on social media Self-esteem and social comparison

Social comparison theory: people evaluate their own abilities and opinions by comparing themselves to others.

Leon Festinger • DOWNWARD social comparisons: Comparing ourselves with people we see as inferior to us.

• UPWARD social comparisons: Comparing ourselves with people we see as superior to us. Self-esteem and social comparison

• Social comparisons are sometimes made defensively to protect our self esteem.

• When self-esteem is under threat, making downward social comparisons has a positive effect on mood and future outlook. • We also make downward temporal comparisons with our past selves as a means of self-enhancement. Social media, social comparison and self-esteem

• Social media allows for a carefully curated presentation of the self: we can present successful, attractive versions of ourselves.

• Frequent social media users may come to believe that other people have better lives than they do. • I.e. Being on social media involves making upward social comparisons • What effect might this have on self esteem?

Vogel, Rose, Roberts & Eckles (2014)

• “Social comparison, social media & Self-Esteem” • Published in 2014 in Psychology of Popular Media Culture Erin Vogel • Derived from Vogel’s Masters thesis at the University of Toledo. Jason Rose Vogel et al (2014) • Hypothesis: People who used Facebook most frequently would have poorer self-esteem and that this relationship would be mediated by upward social comparison on Facebook.

• Study 1: A correlational study – whether there was a relationship between a measure of Facebook use and a measure of self-esteem

• Study 2: An experimental study – manipulated upward and downward social comparisons on Facebook to examine their effect on self-esteem Study 1 • Participants: 145 students from a MidWestern US university (106 female, 39 male), median age 19. • Measures:– Rosenborg Self-Esteem Scale– Facebook Use– Social Comparisons on Facebook The most common measure of global self-esteem 1. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. 2. At times, I think I am no good at all. 3. I feel that I have a number of good qualities. 4. I am able to do things as well as most other people. 5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of. 6. I certainly feel useless at times. 7. I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others. 8. I wish I could have more respect for myself. 9. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. 10. I take a positive attitude toward myself.

THE ROSENBERG self-esteem (RSE) SCALE Measuring Facebook use Frequency of use: • How often do you use Facebook? • How often do you update your Facebook status? • How often do you comment on other’s Facebook profiles? • Approximately how many hours a week do you spend on Facebook? Social comparisons you?”

• “When comparing yourself to others on Facebook, to what extent do you focus on people who are better off than • “When comparing yourself to others on Facebook, to what extent do you focus on people who are worse off than you?” Results • Frequency of Facebook use was negatively correlated with self esteem. • Frequency of Facebook use was positively correlated with making social comparisons on Facebook. • People made more upward social comparisons on Facebook than downward social comparisons. Study 2 • Experimental conditions

• Exposed participants to fake Facebook profile designed to provoke upward or downward social comparisons– The profiles showed the person engaged in healthy or unhealthy activity (“likes”, comments etc.) • Subsequently measured: behaviour– The profiles demonstrated high or low levels of social network – self-esteem – how participants evaluated themselves in relation to the target profile with regard to being attractive, fit, healthy, likable and popular Comparisons Downward social comparisons Upward social comparisons Study 2 • Hypothesis: Exposure to target profiles with upward social comparison information would be associated with poorer self evaluations and lower self-esteem. • Independent variable: Exposure to target Facebook profiles (upward or downward) • Dependent variable: Measures of self-esteem and self evaluation Results • Found a significant association between the amount of social network activity on the target profile and participant self-esteem • However no significant association between the target health behaviour and self-esteem.

• Significant evaluation discrepancies between the participant and the ‘upward’ target. No discrepancies between the participant and the ‘downward’ target. Implications? • As people are increasingly relying on SNSs for a variety of everyday tasks, they risk overexposure to upward social comparison information that may have a cumulative detrimental impact on wellbeing. • As prior research has shown that people with low self-esteem often use SNSs to express themselves in what they perceive to be a safe environment (Forest & Wood, 2012), this may result in a vicious cycle of using SNSs to receive social support but therein exposing themselves to upward social comparison information—impairing self-esteem and restarting the cycle. Limitations? • Gender balance? • Generalisability? • Ecological validity: is this how social media actually works? • Assumes relatively passive engagement. • Reveals experimenter’s own prejudices about what constitutes unhealthy behaviour?