Notes on Self, Schemas, Culture, and Social Comparison

Extra credit and exam reminder

• Extra credit opportunity: up to 2 points. One point for attending; two points for a stellar short-answer answer.
• Submit by passing the completed work face-down to the person in your row; response will be collected.
• The instructor is available to refresh on any study-guide questions or unclear items via email.

The self as social: overview and importance

• The self is often thought to provide identity, but it also serves multiple adaptive functions.
  • A cohesive, long-term self-concept is linked to better mental health; lack of cohesion can predict mental illness.
  • As a product of evolution, having a clear sense of who you are helps you navigate life more adaptively.
• The self supports a running life narrative or story about who you are and what defines you.
• The self also helps relate to others through empathy and perspective-taking (imagining how you would feel in others’ circumstances).
• Information processing role: the self filters attention and determines what we notice and remember about situations.
• Self-regulation role: helps restrain impulses and maintain focus on long-term goals; helps recalibrate when you deviate from personal standards.
• The self is not static; it is context-dependent and often described using a working self-concept.
• First-year students face learning to self-regulate in a campus environment (balancing academic duties with campus-life opportunities). A humorous anecdote highlights how routines shift from being punctual to oversleeping as schedules become busier.

Self vs. schema: foundational ideas

• Schema (plural: schemata) definition:
  • A pattern of thought that organizes categories of information and the relationships between them; an abstract construct that guides efficient processing.
  • Schemas are the basic units of self-knowledge; many schemas form a network that structures memory and behavior.
• Self-schema vs social schema (distinction):
  • Self-schema: cognitive structure comprising organized information about the self; guides perception, attention, evaluation, and retention of information about the self and the world.
  • Social schema: cognitive structures about social norms and patterns of behavior within groups; guides expectations in social contexts.
• Schemata vs construals (construals):
  • Schema: a building block or unit in the network of knowledge (a “cell” of the self).
  • Construal: the meaning or impression one personally makes of a situation; a more immediate interpretation.
• Self-schema and social schemas are shaped by prior experiences and culture; schemas help explain why we notice certain things and ignore or reinterpret others that don’t fit.
• Piaget reference: schema as a fundamental concept in cognitive development (children actively revise schemas across stages).
• The Greek root: schema derives from a word meaning “shape” or more broadly “plan,” reflecting an organized blueprint for understanding the world.

Examples of schemas and how they guide behavior

• Classroom schema: expectations about how to behave, where to sit, and what is normal in a classroom setting.
• Driving schema: different expectations if you’re used to driving in some places vs. elsewhere; variation in personal experience.
• Coffee shop schema: expectations about ambiance, seating, and duration; a place to stay vs. a quick stop.
• Cows in a pasture schema: expectations about what you should see; anything out of place signals a deviation.
• Circus schema: unusual elements (e.g., elephants on a platform) that deviate from everyday life; behavioral deviations (eating cotton candy, novelty foods) are expected.
• Stranger on the street schema: what you expect from a pedestrian – patterns of behavior (eye contact, approach, gesture) vary by culture and setting (e.g., NYC vs. a small southern town).
• When something falls outside a schema, responses may include: ignoring the information, treating it as a one-off, or interpreting it in a way that preserves the existing schema.
• Schemas tend to be resistant to change and require effortful revision when confronted with contradictory information.
• The self-concept is built from multiple schemas that form a network of associated ideas; they guide how we behave in familiar contexts and adapt in new ones.

Self and culture: context-dependence and the working self

• The self is context-dependent; different situations highlight different aspects of the self (situationism).
• Working self-concept: a subset of self-knowledge brought to mind in a given context; not always the most salient part of the self, but available when needed.
• Examples of context effects on self: a person’s behavior or presentation may change with whom they are interacting with (e.g., authority figures vs. subordinates).
• Cross-cultural variation in self-construals:
  • Independent self-construal: self as a distinct, autonomous entity; defined by individual traits, preferences, beliefs, and values.
  • Interdependent self-construal: self fundamentally connected to others; the self can be permeable to others’ identities and social roles.
• Markus & Kitayama (1991): seminal work showing cultural differences in self-construals; Western cultures tend toward independence, many non-Western cultures toward interdependence.
• Permeability of the self in interdependent cultures: close others can become part of one’s self-definition; in independent cultures, the self tends to remain more separate from others.
• Within-country and subcultural variation:
  • African American culture in the U.S. tends to be more interdependent than some white subcultures.
  • Northern U.S. tends toward more independent construals; Southern U.S. tends toward more interdependent construals.
  • The university context often emphasizes individual achievement and personal academic records, promoting more independent self-views.
• Cross-cultural dynamics and exposure to Western ideas can shift self-construals over time; proximity to Western Europe can influence body ideals and self-perception globally.
• Cross-cultural visual: the Markus & Kitayama schema of independent vs interdependent self, illustrating permeability of self in interdependent contexts.
• Important caveats:
  • Do not equate country with culture; substantial within-country variation exists.
  • Cultures can be fluid; globalization can blend construals.
• Cross-cultural self and identity in practice:
  • In some contexts (e.g., hospital settings), self-definition may emphasize age and position relative to others; age can influence how one sees oneself within a group.
  • In interdependent settings, social roles and relationships can define the self more than individual traits.

Gender differences in self-construal across cultures

• Across cultures, a robust general pattern is that men lean toward independent self-construals, whereas women tend toward interdependent self-construals.
• Within cultures, gender differences exist and are contextual:
  • Women tend to refer to relationships more often when describing themselves.
  • Women tend to be more attuned to external social cues; men more attuned to internal responses.
• The interpretation is largely socialization-driven rather than biologically fixed: various agents shape gendered self-construals.
• Subcultural and regional differences exist within a country (e.g., African American vs White Americans; Northern vs Southern U.S.).
• Folkes & Tomco (2009): proposed that gender differences in group-related self-construal may reflect cognitive representations of groups rather than value differences alone:
  • Women more likely to construe groups as dyads (two-person relationships).
  • Men more likely to construe groups as larger categorical affiliations.
• Effect sizes for gender differences are often small to moderate; Hyde (2005) documented that many gender differences have small to moderate effect sizes across domains, leading to emphasis on similarities rather than large differences.
• Practical implications:
  • Group work and social expectations may be interpreted differently by men and women due to differing self-construals.
  • Educational and workplace practices should consider these variations to optimize collaboration.
• Even in matriarchal or more interdependent societies, caregiving and social roles often still reflect robust gender norms.
• Summary: gender differences in self-construal are real and reliable as group trends but are moderated by culture, context, and socialization; they do not imply universal biological determinism.

Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954): self and others as referents

• Core idea: People compare themselves to others to learn about themselves, especially for attributes where objective judgments are unavailable.
• Why compare? Some self-knowledge cannot be obtained objectively (e.g., how good a friend you are, or how compelling a public speaker you are).
• Downward vs. upward social comparisons:
  • Downward comparison: comparing with someone perceived as worse off on a dimension; tends to boost self-esteem.
  • Upward comparison: comparing with someone perceived as better off; can motivate improvement or lead to distress depending on context.
• Examples and everyday relevance:
  • A student may feel better about an 88 on a test when comparing to the class mean or to a peer who typically does well.
  • Similarly, upward comparisons (e.g., comparing to a high achiever) can be motivating or discouraging depending on perceived attainability.
• Motivations for comparison can be strategic: downward comparisons may be used to boost self-esteem; upward comparisons may be used to learn and improve.
• Core hypotheses from Festinger (1954):
  1) Humans have a drive to evaluate aspects of their self and abilities where objective accuracy is unknown.
  2) When objective metrics do not exist, individuals compare themselves to others.
  3) The choice of comparison target is influenced by similarity; people compare with those who are similar to them.
  4) Abilities and opinions may guide comparison direction; some theories suggest more upward comparisons for improvement purposes, though this is debated.
• Additional considerations (less central for the exam, but mentioned):
  • Abilities are seen as more resistant to change than opinions, which can affect how people respond to upward vs downward comparisons.
  • Group dynamics and social context can modulate social comparison tendencies (hypotheses 5-9 discussed in the lecture, though focus here is on 1-4).
• Practical takeaway:
  • Social comparison can influence self-esteem, motivation, and self-concept, and should be understood in the context of similarity, targets, and the availability of objective metrics.

Integrating what we learned: practical and theoretical implications

• Self-concept and mental health:
  • A cohesive self-view contributes to resilience; lack of cohesion correlates with mental health risks.
  • Body image concerns may be linked to self-concept clarity; clearer self-concepts can buffer against negative body image effects.
• Self-regulation and campus life:
  • Early college experiences require developing organized routines and balancing academic and social opportunities.
  • Working self-concept helps students adapt their behavior to different social contexts and expectations.
• Cultural and global relevance:
  • Recognize that cultures vary in how they construe the self; campus communities are increasingly multicultural and may require flexible approaches to identity and group work.
  • The increasing global exchange can shift self-construals over time (e.g., Western influence on body ideals and self-definition).
• The limits of generalizations:
  • Many gender and cultural differences have small to moderate effect sizes; individual variation is substantial.
  • Avoid essentializing: within-group variation can be large, and contexts matter greatly.
• Critical perspective on theories:
  • Festinger’s social comparison theory assumes a motivation for accuracy; contemporary sociocultural contexts may prioritize self-esteem and self-enhancement as well.
  • Cross-cultural models (independent vs. interdependent selves) are powerful heuristics but must be interpreted in light of globalization and subcultural diversity.

Quick reference: key terms and figures

• Self-concept: organized, coherent sense of self across time and contexts.
• Self-schema: cognitive structure about the self; part of the self’s basic units.
• Social schema: knowledge about social norms and group behaviors.
• Working self-concept: context-driven subset of self-knowledge made salient in a given situation.
• Situationism: the idea that behavior and self-knowledge can vary across contexts.
• Independent self-construal: self as a distinct entity; defined by traits and values.
• Interdependent self-construal: self as connected to others; boundaries between self and others are more permeable.
• Markus & Kitayama (1991): foundational cross-cultural work on self-construals.
• Festinger (1954): social comparison theory; core ideas about upward/downward comparisons.
• Hyde (2005): gender similarities hypothesis; many differences are small in effect size.
• Folkes & Tomco (2009): cognitive representations of groups differ by gender (dyads vs larger groups).
• 20-item (I am) test: measures personal characteristics vs roles/group memberships (context of self-description).
• Impostor effect: feeling of being an impostor or unworthy despite qualifications; relevant to working self-concept in new contexts.

{ ext{DownwardSC}} = igl{(S, C) : ext{val}(C) < ext{val}(S)igr} { ext{UpwardSC}} = igl{(S, C) : ext{val}(C) > ext{val}(S)igr}

• These define downward and upward social comparisons in quantitative terms for clarity (conceptual only).