Organization of self-knowledge
When we are self aware we access knowledge about ourselves,
stored as schemas, cognitive structures that represent the knowledge
about a certain stimulus, its built up through experiences. A Self-Schema reflects
how we expect ourselves to think, feel and behave in situations. Some are important while some are not at all.
Each self-schema consists of our perception of our self and incorporates our
experience on this dimension-if we match the idea od a student and think we are
they will be self schematic and vice versa. Self concepts are made up of
a number of self-schemas; the SS are likely to be more complex and varied than
other schemas in memory because we have more information about ourselves.
Markus and Sentis- we also have a future self schema-who we want to be in the
future. Complex and varied is beneficial because if one is having a negative
impact on us there are others which will help us see in a positive light. SS
become active in relevant situations; if we know our beliefs in who we are etc
we will know how to respond.
Theories of self concept maintenance
How do SS develop-There are three types of comparative
theory which focus on a different target of comparison. The self can be
compared to perceptions on how the self should be, to other individuals or to
other groups.
Theories of self comparison
Many believe we form a sense of self from a comparison
process. The first class of these comparison theories focus on comparing the
self with the self e.g. who they are now and who they want to be.
Control theory of self
Carver and Scheier proposed that through
self-awareness we are able to assess whether or not we are meeting our goals.
The central element of this theory is a cognitive feedback loop which has 4
steps- test, operate, test, and exit. In 1st test people compare the
self against 1 of 2 standards. Privately aware people compare with a private
standard for example values we believe to be important and opposite for public
who is the values held by our friends and family. If they believe they are
failing this standard they put into operation a change in behaviour in
order to meet this standard. When they are next self reflect on that issue they
will re test, if failure again the feedback loop will repeat however if the
self and the standard or in line the individual will leave the loop. On first
glance this is a optimistic theory on how we improve our self through self
awareness and self regulation howver there can be problems as studies provided
there is a limited amount of resources and if we use them all in one domain
there will be less to use in another.
Self-Discrepancy theory
doesn’t just focus on awareness of problems between self and
ideal but on emotional responses. Higgins argued we have three types of
self-schemas, actual, ideal and ought (who we should be). Greater the discrepancy between actual and
self guide bigger emotional problems. Each of the two discrepancy two unique emotion
responses.actual-ideal- lack of positive outcomes so dejection related emotions such as disappointment and sadness eg working in supermarket when want to be a artist.
Actual-ought-presence of negative outcomes which result in
agitation issues such as anger and hate e.g. failing parent’s expectations.
Self-discrepancy theory implies that be generating negative
arousal, discrepancies will motive people to reduce the discomfort they are
experiencing by making changes that reduce discrepancies. Not always case, negative
emotions often hinder successful self-regulation because they may give in
instead of working to a distant goal.
Theories of individual comparison
Comparing to other individuals
Social comparison theory
we learn to define the self by comparing ourselves with
those around us, this theory argues that beliefs, feelings and behaviours are
subjective and there is no objective benchmark against we can compare them so comparing
our self to ideal or ought can lead to changes in self concept, the resulting
self-definition is still subjectively defined; without any feeling of external
validation however comparing ourselves with others gives a objective benchmark
where we can compare our thoughts etc giving people a sense of validation for
the way they are.
Upward comparison (comparing with people believed to
be better)
Downward comparison (comparing with people
believed to be worse than them)
people who want a accurate self evaluation may do both as
both are useful for making the most precise estimate of, for instance, academic
ability.
Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model
What we do when faced with someone whose success has implications
for our own self esteem, respond in 2 ways. social reflection is when we derive our self-esteem from the
accomplishments of those who are close to use without considering our own
achievement in that domain e.g. parents being so proud of their children
achievements. Can also evoke an upward social comparison, comparing own
achievements to them, what determines which engaging thing we do.
We are only likely to engage in social reflection if the
success of someone else does not threaten our self-concept in any way-adds to
our abilities not challenging them and we must be certain about our abilities
in that particular domain. if we know we are successful in that domain someone else’s
success will not challenge it. If the success of the other person is on a
dimension that is important to how we see the self, this will challenge our
view as being successful on this domain and will have a neg impact on our self
esteem. Also when we compare ourselves to a successful person on a domain that
is relevant to our self-concept but on which we are uncertain about our own
abilities we are making a upward comparison which can have a bad effect on self
esteem.
To keep a positive self-concept we have four strategies
1. Exaggerate the ability of the person outperforming
us-clever to genius therefore in a different league so the person is still good
compared to an average.
2. Switch the target of comparison to someone less
successful than us creating a downward comparison
3. We can downplay our similarity to the target of
comparison or physically and emotionally distance ourselves from them.
4. To maintain a positive self esteem by devaluing the dimension
of comparison e.g. saying academic success is no longer important to you.
theories of
group comparison
The individual self consists of attributes and personality
traits that differentiate us from other individuals. The relational self is
defined by our relationships with significant others e.g. sister. and the
collective self reflects our membership in social groups e.g. British. These
focuses on collective self and our membership in social groups contributes
towards our self-concept
social identity theory
our sense of self at any particular point in time depends
upon which of our many personal or social identities is psychologically salient
(which we are most aware of)-this depends on context e.g. best friend-personal
experiences and that is different if you were at a football match and these
social identities are also associated with group norms.
Self categorization theory
This is a extension of other theory and focuses on the set
of group norms that define collective identities. When an individual social
identity becomes salient, their perceptions of themselves and others becomes de
personalized, they perceive themselves more in terms of the shared features
that define the group and behaving more in line with the norms of the group. Group
members will also obey what is referred to the Meta contrast principle where
they exaggerate similarities within the group and differences with other
groups.
Being part of a group can be a way of asserting ones sense
of individuality e.g. a mechanic own sense of identity is interest in car
mechanics.
No comments:
Post a Comment