M5 - the self

self-concepts

Self-concepts = cognitive representations of who we are: ideas or images that we have about ourself (especially in relation to others), and how/why we behave.

Self-concepts are part of our broad belief system about ourselves and cultures. They help us address our need for belonging (affiliation) and uniqueness.

Self-concept also mediates cultural values; it serves as a guiding principle for cultural values, and it’s a way of putting cultural values into practice in everyday life.

theory of the independent and dependent self-construct (Markus & Kitayama)

Markus & Kitayama proposed that people in individualistic and collectivistic cultures widely differ in how they construe their self.

• Individualistic culture: people tend to have more independent self concepts.

  • The self has clear boundaries and is separated from others.

  • The self-concept mostly relates to internal attributes that are thought to be stable, constant intrinsic to the self (e.g. abilities, goals, attitudes, etc.).

  • In individualistic cultures the normative task of a person is to be unique & expressive and to realise their inner qualities and personal goals.

• Collectivistic culture: people tend to have more interdependent self-concepts.

  • The self is unbound, flexible, and contingent on the context → you can be a different person with different people.

  • The self-concept mostly relates to relationships with others and changes with each relationship; therefore it’s inseparable from that specific social context.

  • In collectivistic cultures the normative task of a person is to focus on their interdependent relationships and to strive to meet/create duties, obligations and social responsibilities.

evidence against the theory of independent/dependent self-concept

There are a few critical notes concerning Markus & Kitayama’s theory of the independent and dependent self-concept:

• The theory used only data from the USA to describe Western cultures as more individualistic, whilst only using data from Japan to describe Asian cultures as collectivistic.

• The findings were limited by the research methodologies that they used.

• Other studies are challenging the idea that al Western cultures are individualistic and al Asian cultures are collectivistic:

  • A meta-analysis that drew on 83 studies did not find these differences.

  • In a study by Matsumoto, 70,8% from the sample of Japanese university students was individualistic; when we compare the self-constructs of American and Japanese students, there is no difference in the amount of independent self & students in the US construe themselves in a more interdependent matter than Japanese students.

    

multi-faceted self

Researchers today think that the self is multifaceted: there is no “one” guiding principle that organises the self across different contexts; there are different domains/aspects of the self.

Different aspects of the self are highlighted in different domains; e.g. the “hardworking” aspect of our self is highlighted in a work domain, but not in a leisure domain, whilst the “sociable” aspect of our self would be highlighted in the leisure domain but not at work.

This also means that independent and interdependent aspects of the self can co-exist. There are differences in how people realise their selves, but this doesn’t translate to one-on-one differences between Eastern and Western cultures.

self-esteem, self-enhancement & mutual self-enhancement and cultural differences

Self-esteem = the cognitive and affective evaluations people make about themselves.

Self-esteem has many facets → e.g. you can draw your self-esteem from your abilities, but also from your relationships, etc. The different aspects of the self have different values in different cultures (depending on individualism or collectivism).

Self-enhancement = the collection of psychological processes by which one improves their self-esteem.

Early research showed that members from individualistic cultures have higher self-esteem than members from collectivistic cultures. They suggested that this is because collectivistic individuals have the tendency to self-efface (= downplaying your virtues) and criticise themselves.

However, self-enhancement is not limited to individualistic cultures; people self-enhance in all cultures, but they do it in different ways. For example, they can engage in mutual self-enhancement = giving and receiving compliments between partners and in close relationships.

terror-management theory

Becker’s terror-management theory states that our sense of self-esteem stems from the fact that everyone dies eventually, and everyone fears their impending death → because of this, we need a buffer against this fear: this is our self-esteem.

state self-esteem & state self-esteem scale

State self-esteem = the current state of cognitive and affective evaluations people make about themselves.

The state self-esteem scale containts 3 types of self-esteem:

• Prestation.

• Social.

• looks.

better than average effect: Japan vs US

Better than average effect = when people underestimate how common desirable traits are and think they have more of these desirable traits compared to others, whilst they overestimate the consequences of these traits.

Research shows that Japanese people had a higher score on the better than average effect (they rated their own abilities higher than average), and they also had higher scores on both independent and interdependent traits.

Americans rated themselves lower than average, and they also scored significantly lower on both independent and interdependent traits.

This goes against the findings that members from individualistic cultures have higher self-esteem than members from collectivistic cultures.

personal vs relational vs collective identity

• Personal identity = the qualities and attributes that distinguish yourself from others (e.g. your favourite colour).

• Relational identity = identity based on relations with others (e.g. you identify as your mother’s child).

• Collective identity = identity based on social categories you belong to.

  • Cultural identity.

  • Ethnic identity.

  • Racial identity.

  • National identity.

It’s important to note that race and ethnicity are social constructs → racial/ethnic categories are not rooted in biology (e.g. two people with the same type of DNA can look very different and can identify with a different race). The categories of race/ethnicity are made up by us as a society.

the impact of racial identiy on different American ethnic groups

There are significant life-outcome differences for different ethnic groups in the US, depending on what race people identify with:

• Americans who identify as black have higher risk of dying as infants during birth.

• Hispanic and black Americans have a much higher chance to live in poverty as children.

• There’s a graduation gap between Black/Hispanic Americans and white Americans → this results in higher rates of unemployment for these groups and therefore a higher earnings gap compared to white Americans.

race/ethnicity are context-dependent

Racial and ethnic identity are context-dependent: contextual dissonance (e.g. you “stick out” from the rest) heightens the importance of identity. People who belong to racial/ethnic minority groups often “stick out” in some way, sometimes against their will.

identity denial

identity denial = when an individual is not recognised as a member of a group with which they identify.

E.g. if a British person with Indian features is questioned where they are from, even though they were born and raised in England and therefore fully identify as British.

experiment on identity denial with Asian-Americans

In an experiment, the “American-ness” was tested on both Asian Americans and white Americans, in two conditions: one control condition, and one condition in which the Asian-Americans faced identity denial (their American-ness was denied).

When the Asian-Americans faced identity denial, they responded with much higher rates of “American behaviour” (e.g. eating typical American food) than in the control condition.

This shows that (in the US), the common response to identity denial is to affirm even stronger with the American identity, to prove that they know American culture and participate in American cultural practices.

frame switching

Frame switching = people maintain multiple self-concepts and switch between them depending on the context. Each self-concept relates to a different network of ideas in the mind; this means that multicultural people have parallel networks in their minds that they use to navigate the world.

In multicultural societies, people have to combine their multiple identities. They can use frame-switching to organise their different identities and use the fitting identity depending on cultural context.

frame-switching experiment on internal vs external attributions (Americans vs Hong kong - Chinese)

A study tested cultural differences in interpretation of behaviour, especially whether people make internal or external attributions. American participants assigned more weight to internal attributions, whilst Chinese participants assigned more weight to external attributions. This shows that culture influences how people think / how they interpret situations.

In another experiment, researchers used cultural icons as magnets of meaning (e.g. the American flag, a Chinese building, etc.), to activate certain culture-related networks. The participants were bicultural (Hong Kong – Chinese) and were exchange students in the US. They spent at least 5 year in each of these cultures.

• In the first part of the experiment, they randomly assigned these bicultural students to different priming conditions (they showed one group American and one group Chinese cultural icons and one control group with no icons) and asked them questions about these icons to activate the cultural network.

• In the second part, they gave the students an attribution task: one fish swimming in front of the other fishes: what is the lone fish doing?

  • Internal attribution: the fish is leading the others.

  • External attribution: the fish is being chased by the others.

The results showed that students in the Chinese priming condition gave much more external attributions than the control and American priming condition.

On top of that, students in the American priming condition gave less external attributions compared to the control group and Chinese priming condition.

twenty-statement test & idiocentric vs allocentric

The twenty-statement test is used to measure independent vs dependent self-concepts; participants need to write down twenty statements starting with “I am…”

The answers are then decoded into allocentric (collectivist; dependent self) or idiocentric (individualist; independent self).

There is little empricial evidence for this method.