Social PsychologyLecture 6
Jane Clarbour (Spring 2003)
Room PS/B007
Email j.clarbour@ psych.york.ac.uk
Self-Esteem and Social Identity
Objectives
• Understand the difference between the ‘subjective self’ and the ‘objective self’
• Demonstrate an understanding of the role of social identity in relation to the self concept
• Describe the hierarchical model of the self-concept
• Explain the role of defensive self-esteem
Who am I?1. I am………………………………………
2. I am………………………………………
3. I am………………………………………
4. I am………………………………………
5. I am………………………………………
6. I am………………………………………
7. I am………………………………………
8. I am………………………………………
9. I am………………………………………
10. I am………………………………………
Early self theorists
• James (1982)– Cognitive appraisal of how successful (the
‘I’) is of areas important to the self (the ‘me’).
• Cooley (1902) – Looking glass self– Role of ‘significant others’ (parents/peers)
Critical components of the self(James, 1892)
• Subjective self (the ‘I’)– Self as ‘knower’
• Objective self (the ‘me’)– Self as ‘known’
Whenever I think about something, “I” am always the subject of consciousness, and one of the things I may be consciously attending to is “me” (Franzoi, 2000, p. 39).
Types of self and identity
• Social identity– Self in terms of group membership
• Personal identity– Self in terms of idiosyncratic personal
relationships and traits
(Hogg & Vaughn, 2002)
3 forms of self (Brewer & Gardner, 1996)
• Individual Self– Personal traits that differentiate the self from all
others
• Relational Self– Defined by dyadic relationships that assimilate the
self to significant others
• Collective Self– Defined by group membership
(Hogg & Vaughn, 2002)
Symbolic Interactionism
“The self is something which has a development; it is not initially there, at birth, but arises in the process of social experience and activity… The self… is essentially a social structure, and it arises in social experience”
(George Herbert Mead, 1934, p. 135).
(Cited in Franzoi)
“I” – vs. – “Me”• Self-as-subject• Active process of
experience• Self-reflexiveness• Self-awareness of
ability to act & react• Unique individuality
Self construction
• Self-as-object• What know about self• Self-descriptors• Influenced by
perceptions of other’s attitudes
• Internalised attitudes & values
Social construction
Coopersmith (1967)• Aggregate model of the self
– Based on James (1892) cognitive self-appraisal
– Problems of definition– Problems of measurement
• Acknowledges self concept includes school, friends, family, & self-confidence
• Assumption that each domain equally weighted• Scores summed to give single aggregate score• Weak predictive reliability
Rosenberg (1979)• Hierarchical model of the self
– James (cognitive appraisal) – Cooley (social evaluation or ‘looking glass
self’)
I’ve got good
qualities
I like my life
I’m great
Harter’s hierarchical model
GSW
PA SC BC SA AC
FaceBodyHairSkin
MathLang.Arts
Sciences
KindProsocialHonest
FriendsParentsPeers
FootballAthletics
SwimRiding
Harter (1985)• Hierarchical model of the self
– Possibility of measuring perceptions of self-worth
– Measure of general self worth PLUS– Measure of separate domains PLUS– Measure of importance of domains
• Empirical testable model• Predictive capacity
Children’s ratings of vignettes: Differences in SE group for maintaining or discounting SE
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
High SE Med SE Low SE
DiscountMaintain
(Harter, 1986)
High SE more able to discount importance of domain not good at
%
Discrepancy between self- and teacher-ratings of competence
-4-3-2-101234
High SE Med SE Low SESe
lf m
inu
s t
eac
he
r ra
tin
g
Highestcompetencedomain
Lowestcompetencedomain
Plus values indicate that self-score is higher than the teacher’s; minus values indicate that the self-score is lower than the teachers
Protection of self-esteem
• Take credit for success but deny blame for failure
• Forget failure feedback more readily than success or praise
• Accept praise uncritically but receive criticism more sceptically
• Persuade self that flaws are widely shared attributes but that their qualities are rare
Defensive self-esteem and need for approval (Napp)
Lobel & Teiber, 1994• Difference between ‘true’ and ‘defensive’ self-
esteem
– ‘True’ self esteem high SE = low Napp
– ‘Defensive’
self esteem high SE = high NApp
Effect of success and failure on ideal performance
17
17.5
18
18.5
19
19.5
20
Success Failure
Ideal performance
Nu
mb
er o
f re
sp
on
se
s
defensivetruelow
(Lobel & Teiber, 1994)
The dark side of self-esteem(Baumeister et al, 1996)
• Benefits of high self-concept accrue mainly to the self
• Negative connotations of high self-evaluation:– Arrogance, conceit, pride, narcissism,
superiority
• High cost of threat to self-esteem– Increased likelihood of aggression
Summary• Theory of the self-concept• Hierarchical model of the self• Global self-worth• Separate domains• Importance of discounting domains where low
competence is perceived• Defensive vs ‘true’ high self-esteem• Continuity AND change
