THE SELF (CONTINUE……….):SELF-SCHEMAS, SELF-COMPLEXITY

<< THE SELF (CONTINUE…….):Journal Activity, POSSIBLE HISTORICAL EFFECTS

PERSON PERCEPTION:Impression Formation, Facial Expressions >>

Social Psychology (PSY403)

Lesson 12

THE SELF (CONTINUE..........)

Aims

Introducing to students that how people know the self.

Objectives

1. Describing how individuals reflect on individual characteristics

Self schemas

Complexity of selves

Possible selves

Self discrepancies

2. Understanding the social context in the understanding of self

Social comparisons

Self distinctiveness

Introduction

People in western culture may have greater difficulty in knowing who they are today them they did in the

past.

That knowing the self has become progressively more difficult. In earlier times, identity was fixed at birth

by the family's recognized place in society. Today, people in many western cultures have so much freedom

and mobility that they have to "discover" who they are. People may no longer know which of many

possible selves is "the real me".

Ways of achieving self-fulfillment have changed along with ways of defining the self. In the Late Medieval

period, for instance, Christians who observed the church's strictures were guaranteed fulfillment in heaven.

Some psychologists believe that people in the modern era, in contrast, lead empty lives that they try to

fill with meaningless consumption of material goods.

Modern people have a vague idea that they would like to achieve a goal called "self-actualization," but

they are not certain what self-actualization is (Baumeister, 1987). In the "self and society" column, we

see that the relationship between self and society has become progressively worse. People in the late

medieval era derived both their identity and their fulfillment from their recognized place in what they

regarded as a "great chain of being" in which all God's creatures had assigned places. By the early

twentieth century, however, people came to believe that society was standing in the way of their

personal fulfillment, so they became hostile and critical. In the late twentieth century, people know that

society does little to help them in their voyage of self-discovery. People have both a personal identity

and a "collective" or social identity. Personal identity is independent of other people; social identity

consists of being identified with groups or categories. A social identity is more than just a cognitive

category. It is also a network of social relationships (Abrams, 1992; Ethier & Deaux, 1994). People in

modern Western cultures may emphasize the personal identity over the social identity.

However, in traditional cultures generally social identity is emphasized over personal identity.

Two frequently used methods for arriving at a personal identity are: reflecting on individual characteristics

and using the social context.

REFLECTING ON INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS

The first four processes involve primarily private knowledge. They are ways of thinking about a personal

identity that can occur without reference to other people.

Even a hermit who has lived alone in the woods for many years could sit beneath a tree in solitude and

reflect on his or her self-schemas, self-complexity, possible selves, and self-discrepancies.

Social Psychology (PSY403)

SELF-SCHEMAS

A schema is a set of beliefs that provides an organizing framework for understanding a topic, an event, or a

person. A schema for physiques, for example, might help us to tell the difference between being "fat and

being muscular.

Self-schemas, then, are beliefs that provide an organizing framework to help us understand ourselves. Self-

schemas summarize the personality traits, attitudes, values, interests, and other characteristics that we

attribute to our-"selves. They also include actions and interpersonal relationships.

In one study of self-schemas, the investigator asked college students how independent they were and

whether being independent was important to them-- in other words, whether they had a schema for being

independent (Markus, 1977). Some students, "schematics," claimed that they were fiercely and consistently

independent. Other students, "aschematics," claimed to be independent only part of the time and said that

the trait did not matter to them. The aschematics had self-schemas for other characteristics, but not for

being independent.

Other studies have shown that similar results apply to people who use self-schemas about being introverted

versus outgoing, being masculine versus feminine, or being fat versus thin (Catrambone & Markus, 1987;

Crane & Markus, 1982; Fong & Markus, 1982; Markus, Hamill, & Sends, 1987).

SELF-COMPLEXITY

Some people think of themselves along only one or two dimensions. Children may react extremely to

failure because they have relatively simple self-schemas that include only a "good me" and a "bad me".

Anorexics may become so preoccupied with weighing themselves, examining their bodies in the mirror,

and watching what they eat, that they think of themselves along only the one dimension of being fat versus

thin.

It may be dangerous to have too simple a self-schema. A college woman whose self-schema includes the

traits necessary for success in athletics, courses, making female friends, and-maintaining a satisfactory

relationship with a man, for instance, may have a healthier self-schema than another woman whose self-

schema centers on only body weight and grades.

Students who had simple self-schemas had less positive moods after they learned that they failed than after

they learned that they had succeeded. Students who had complex self-schemas were less influenced by

whether they succeeded or failed. Self-schema complexity (having more than one dimension to the self-

schema) is an effective buffer against stress-related illness and depression (Linville, 1987). The graph given

below describes the research more clearly:

POSSIBLE SELVES

Possible selves are projections of future possibilities for the expected, desired; and feared future self.

Students may have a "graduate" possible self. Anorexics may have a "thin" possible self. Visitors to a

doctor's office may have a "seriously ill" possible self. Possible selves are "the selves we could become,

and the selves we are afraid of becoming" (Markus & Nurius, 1986, p. 954). The present or "now" self

overlaps with but is not the same as the many possible future selves.

Possible selves can also affect the way people behave. People who desire a good possible self and fear a

bad possible self, for instance, may be more motivated to take constructive actions than are people who fear

a bad possible self but cannot imagine a good alternative.

In one study of how to change possible selves, the researchers instilled successful and unsuccessful

possible selves in college students (Ruvolo & Markus, 1992). After they imagined successful or

Social Psychology (PSY403)

unsuccessful future selves, all students participated in two tasks. One task required much persistence. The

other required intense concentration. Students who imagined themselves succeeding persisted longer at the

task that required sheer persistence and worked more accurately at the task that required concentration than

did students who imagined themselves failing. The researchers concluded that our possible future selves are

at least as important as are our present self-schemas, because they can motivate and guide us to success.

Present self-schemas differ in complexity. So do future possible selves. The two "tenses" of the self, how-

ever, are not always identical, nor are their Consequences. A person soon to enter prison might have many

present selves arid few future selves. A soon-to-be-divorced person might have just the opposite.

SELF-DISCREPANCIES

Even within present selves, however, people can reflect on their individual characteristics from different

perspectives. The self might be different when seen from different ones of these perspectives (Higgins,

1987). Present selves can be divided into three types: the actual self, the ideal self, and the ought self.

You can view each of these three types of self from two perspectives: the self as seen by the individual and

as seen by important other people like a parent, a best friend, or a spouse.

The ideal and ought selves derive from early interaction between the child and his or her caretaker

(Higgins, 1989). By giving or withholding their affection, the parents convey the message "this is the type

of person we wish you were," from which the children internalize an ideal self. When children actively

violate norms of acceptable behavior, parents react with criticism or physical punishment. Punishment

conveys the message "this is the way you ought to behave if you knew right from wrong," from which die

children internalize an ought self.

Problems arise when the individual perceives self-discrepancies, which are discrepancies between the

actual self and either the ideal self or the ought self, whether from the individual's perspective or from other

people's perspective. Both children and adults become depressed when other people withhold positive

regard or when they are disappointed in themselves.

When their actual self is discrepant from or fails to live up to their own ideal self they feel dejected. When

their actual self is discrepant from an important other person's ideal for them they feel ashamed.

The two major types of self-discrepancy thus elicit different types of emotional reaction. Discrepancies

between the actual self and the ideal self make people feel sad; discrepancies between the actual self and

the ought self make people feel anxious and agitated (Higgins, 1989).

USING THE SOCIAL CONTEXT

Linville's study (1987)

To arrive at a personal identity, then, people

usually find it necessary to use the social context.

Two processes (social comparison and self-

distinctiveness) that use other people in the social

context to decide "Who am I?"

Success experience

SOCIAL COMPARISON

Failure experience

The self concept depends importantly on the

attributes of others who are either selected or

available for comparison (Pelham, 1991;

Simple self-

Complex self-

schema

Rosenberg, 1993).

Social comparison occurs when people use others as standards of comparison against which to

evaluate their own opinions, attributes, and abilities (Festinger, 1954). For some characteristics, no

objective standard exists (Kruglanski & Mayseless, 1990). Am I thin enough to be attractive and suc-

cessful? Do I have many friends? Such questions are difficult to People arrive at a personal identity by

using the social context. They would not know how they compared to other people answer in absolute

terms.

Social Psychology (PSY403)

Lacking objective standards, people draw inferences by comparing themselves, to others. But which

others? Sometimes we get to choose from many possible others the specific people with whom we want

to compare ourselves. At other times, we have no choice (Wood, 1989). Sometimes we assume our

personal identity and compare the self with other individuals. At other times we assume our social

identity and compare ourselves with members of our own or rival groups (Brewer & Weber, 1994). In

either case, the result of social comparison has an important influence on who we think we are.

People sometimes prefer to learn about people who are similar to them. At other times, they prefer to

learn about people who are a little better or a little worse. Comparing yourself with someone who is a

little better is called upward comparison. Comparing yourself with someone who is a little worse is called

downward comparison. Which makes people feel better about them? It depends. Upward comparison can

lower people's self-esteem by suggesting that they are not performing as well as they might. It can also

raise self-esteem by suggesting that improvement is possible (Testa & Major, 1990). Conversely,

downward comparison can raise people's self-esteem by suggesting that they are doing very well.

The impact of either upward or downward social comparison on a person's self-concept depends on the

reasonfor making the comparison (Kruglanski & Mayseless, 1987, 1988). If the goal is to derive inspiration

that "I can improve," then upward comparison has a positive impact on the self. If people want reassurance

that "things could be worse," then downward comparison is a better strategy for retaining a positive

self-image. People tend to prefer whichever type of comparison protects their self-esteem and gives them

hope for the future

People do not always have a choice, however, about the others who are available for social comparison.

The goal of social comparison and self-reflection, then, is not so much to attain self-knowledge as to make

people feel better about themselves. They are happier when they can selectively remember more positive

than negative life events. If tragedy "makes sense," emotions and stress-related health problems may be

moderated. The ultimate threat to self is death. To avoid debilitating anxiety over their own eventual

demise, people rely on reassuring "cultural worldviews" such as patriotism or religion

SELF DISTINCTIVENESS

Logically, people can only be aware of their own attributes by contrast with other people. Adults would not

think of themselves as adult if people were born mature and were never children. Men would not find it

important to identify themselves as men if there were no women. To a large degree, then, the self-concept

consists of ways in which we are distinctive or different from other people (Johnson & Boyd, 1995).

People of all ages are more likely to include a characteristic as part of their self-schema if they are

surrounded by other people who do not share the characteristic {McGuire & McGuire, 1988). College

students of nontraditional age, for instance, are more likely than traditional age students to mention their

age when they describe themselves (Kite, 1992). The spontaneous self-concept, then, depends importantly

on ways in which we are different from the particular set of other people with whom we happen to have

contact.

Readings

Franzoi, S.L. (2006). Social Psychology. New York: McGraw Hill. Chapter 3.

Lord, C.G. (1997). Social Psychology. Orlando: Harcourt Brace and Company. Chapter 5.

Table of Contents: