Week 3 - The Social Self and Identity

Covers how self-knowledge is organised (self-schemas, self-discrepancy theory) and the two routes to self-knowledge (self-perception, social comparison). Also spans conceptions of self (Brewer & Gardner's three types, social identity), cultural differences (independent vs. interdependent self), self-motives and self-esteem, and self-presentation strategies (self-monitoring, impression management).

Self-schema

An organised cognitive structure representing knowledge about the self that guides attention, perception, and memory

Schematic dimensions

Traits/categories that you believe apply to you AND that matter to you

Aschematic dimensions

Traits you believe don't apply to you, or don't matter to you either way

Self-reference effect (Kihlstrom et al., 2008)

Information is remembered better when we can relate it to ourselves

Self-complexity (Linville)

Having many independent self-schemas buffers against negative life events ("don't put all your eggs in one cognitive basket")

Self-Discrepancy Theory (Higgins, 1987)

Proposes three selves (actual, ought, ideal); discrepancies between actual self and self-guides motivate behaviour and can cause distress

Actual self

How we currently are

Ought self

How we think we should be

Ideal self

How we would like to be

Self-guides

The ought self and ideal self together - the possible selves we strive to attain

Actual-Ideal discrepancy

Produces dejection-related emotions (disappointment, dissatisfaction, shame)

Actual-Ought discrepancy

Produces agitation-related emotions (anxiety, guilt, inadequacy)

Six self-state representations

3 domains (Actual, Ought, Ideal) x 2 standpoints (Own, Other) = 6 combinations

Regulatory focus theory (Higgins)

Promotion system (pursuit of hopes/ideals, sensitive to gains, approach-oriented) vs Prevention system (pursuit of duties/oughts, sensitive to losses, avoidance-oriented)

Self-perception theory (Bem, 1972)

We form impressions of ourselves by inferring from our own thoughts, feelings, and behaviours - like an outside observer would

When is self-perception theory most likely to occur?

When attitudes are uncertain/ambiguous, or when behaviour can't be attributed to an obvious external cause

Over-justification effect

Intrinsic motivation can be undermined once a behaviour becomes associated with extrinsic rewards

Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954)

We have a drive to evaluate our own opinions, feelings, abilities, and actions, especially in the absence of objective cues, by comparing with similar others

Upward comparison

Comparing with someone better off; goal is self-improvement; can be motivating/inspiring or demoralising/discouraging

Downward comparison

Comparing with someone worse off; goal is to feel better about oneself; can be ego-boosting or raise awareness of vulnerabilities

Song, Cramer & Park (2019) finding

US and Korean students didn't differ in HOW MUCH social comparison occurred, but differed in WHY - US higher on self-enhancement, Korea higher on evaluation and common bond motives

Facebook natural experiment (banned vs permitted users)

Facebook users engaged in more social comparison than non-users; despite not being "fooled" by curated posts, comparison still lowered happiness, especially in younger users

Individual self (Brewer & Gardner, 1996)

Defined by personal traits that differentiate you from others (e.g., extroverted, intelligent)

Relational self (Brewer & Gardner, 1996)

Defined by dyadic relationships (e.g., partner of X, father of Y)

Collective self (Brewer & Gardner, 1996)

Defined by group membership (e.g., Australian, engineer)

Relational social identities (Brewer, 2001)

Self in relation to specific others within a group context

Person-based social identities (Brewer, 2001)

Group properties that have been internalised as part of one's individual self-concept

Collective identities (Brewer, 2001)

The shared image group members construct of what the group stands for and how it wants to be seen

Group-based social identities (Brewer, 2001)

Perceiving yourself as an integral, interchangeable part of the group

Structural fit

Whether a social category meaningfully separates/accounts for similarities and differences between people in a context

Normative fit

Whether the group's behaviour matches the stereotype/expectation for that category

Strategies for self-coherence

Restrict contexts; attribute changes to context; revise and integrate new information; rely on self-schemas

Independent self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991)

Identity derived from inner attributes (traits, feelings, thoughts, abilities) that regulate behaviour; associated with individualistic/Western cultures

Interdependent self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991)

Identity defined by social relationships and roles; behaviour regulated relationally; associated with collectivist/Eastern cultures

Independent self - self-structure

Unitary and stable - constant across situations/relationships

Interdependent self - self-structure

Fluid and variable - changes across situations/relationships

Independent self - self-activities

Being unique/self-expressive, directive, self-assertive, promoting own goals

Interdependent self - self-activities

Belonging, fitting in, acting appropriately to roles/norms, indirect, promoting group harmony

Bochner (1994) study

Malaysian, Australian & British participants gave 10 "I am ___" descriptors coded as idiocentric or group; Malaysians scored higher on group descriptors, Australians/British higher on idiocentric

Purdie & McCrindle (2004) study

Indigenous Australian students scored higher on interdependent dimensions (family, peer, school); non-Indigenous scored higher on independent dimensions (self-acceptance, achievement, career)

What does Purdie & McCrindle (2004) demonstrate?

The independent/interdependent distinction applies WITHIN a single nation, not just between countries

Kağıtçıbaşı (2005) critique

Argues autonomy and relatedness are two SEPARATE dimensions rather than opposite ends of one - a self high in both is possible

Self-assessment motive

Desire for accurate self-knowledge, even if unflattering; reflect more on peripheral traits

Self-verification motive

Desire for information consistent with existing self-view; reflect more on central traits

Self-enhancement motive

Desire for information that makes us look good/feel good; reflect more on positive traits

Sedikides (1993) finding

Self-enhancement dominates, self-verification is a distant second, self-assessment a remote third

Sedikides, Gaertner & Toguchi (2003) - Pancultural Self-Enhancement

No overall difference in self-enhancement between Americans/Japanese, but Americans enhanced more on individualistic traits, Japanese more on collectivist traits

Self-esteem

Feelings about, and evaluations of, the self; derived from personal experience and feedback from others; varies in level and stability; does NOT imply accuracy

High self-esteem characteristics

Favourable self-view, resilient to failure, emotionally stable, thorough/consistent self-concept, self-enhancement orientation

Low self-esteem characteristics

Unfavourable self-view, vulnerable to failure, wide mood swings, sketchy/unstable self-concept, self-protectional orientation

Narcissism (Baumeister, Smart & Boden, 1996)

Unrealistically high self-esteem; becomes maladaptive when an inflated self-appraisal collides with an unfavourable external appraisal, provoking anger/aggression

Threatened egotism model

It's high, unstable self-esteem meeting a challenge (not low self-esteem) that predicts aggression

Culture and self-discrepancy

Larger actual-ideal discrepancies occur in collectivist cultures, but are LESS distressing there because self-criticism is valued as a route to improvement

Individual mobility (Social Identity Theory)

Strategy of attempting to move from a lower-status group to a higher-status group

Social creativity (Social Identity Theory)

Strategy of changing the terms of comparison (emphasising positive in-group dimensions or switching comparison groups)

Social competition (Social Identity Theory)

Strategy of directly attempting to change the relative status of the in-group (e.g., political lobbying)

Self-monitoring (Snyder, 1974)

Sensitivity to others' expressive behaviours combined with the ability to adjust self-presentation in response to social cues

High self-monitors

"Social chameleons"; more concerned with impression management; use a "public self"; more influenced by situation

Low self-monitors

Consistent across situations; less concerned with impression management; use a "private self"; less influenced by situation

Strategic self-presentation

Impression management aimed at influencing others and gaining rewards

Expressive self-presentation

Impression management aimed at presenting oneself consistently with one's self-image

Ingratiation

Strategy seeking a likeable impression via compliments/favours; risk: seen as insincere/deceitful

Self-promotion

Strategy seeking a competent impression via boasting/showing off; risk: seen as conceited/fraudulent

Intimidation (self-presentation)

Strategy seeking a dangerous/powerful impression via threats; risk: reviled/ineffectual

Exemplification

Strategy seeking a virtuous/moral impression via self-denial/martyrdom; risk: seen as hypocritical

Supplication

Strategy seeking a helpless impression via self-deprecation; risk: seen as manipulative/demanding

Culture & self-presentation in job interviews

Individualists use more self-promotion and ingratiation than collectivists

Culture & self-presentation on social media

Individualists use more ingratiation; collectivists use more self-promotion and supplication (a reversal from job interviews)

Twenty Statements Test (Kuhn & McPartland, 1954)

Asks respondents to write up to 20 responses to "WHO AM I?"/"I AM..." - descriptive, not transitory feelings

Self-Perception Profile (College Student version)

Self-report measure with subscales across competencies/abilities, social relationships, and global self-worth

Self-affirmation theory (Steele) - Mormon women study

Women whose self-esteem was threatened were more likely to help a food co-op (95%) than those given positive reinforcement (65%) or baseline (50%)

Above-average effect (Kruger & Dunning)

Bottom 12% of achieving students rated themselves in the top 38% - illustrates pervasive self-enhancement bias

Doll studies (Clark & Clark)

Found Black American children preferred white dolls and showed lower self-esteem; pivotal evidence in Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

BIRGing (Cialdini et al.)

"Basking in reflected glory" - people with lowered self-esteem were more likely to claim "we" won and "they" lost

Self-evaluation maintenance model (Tesser)

To protect self-evaluation we downplay similarity to superior others or withdraw; e.g., Olympic silver medallists less satisfied than bronze (unfavourable vs favourable comparison)

Michelangelo phenomenon

In close relationships, partners' positive expectations guide each person toward their ideal self