PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT Knowing Oneself

ABSORB
Learning Packet 2: Knowing Oneself

Pretest
INSTRUCTIONS: Before continuing your reading of your textbook and learning packet contents, which of
the following statements do you believe to be true and which do you believe to be false?

STATEMENTS T F
1. The self is viewed as a gestalt or whole.
2. People with high self-esteem are less likely to be bullies.
3. Your perceived self is the one others see.
4. Positive expectations have no impact on performance.
5. High self-esteem leads to good school performance.
6. High self-esteem does not prevent children from smoking, drinking, taking drugs, or
engaging in early sex.
7. Self-concept and self-esteem are products of learning, and therefore devoid of biological
influence.
8. High self-esteem prevents adolescents from smoking, drinking, taking drugs, or
engaging in
early sex.
9. People who are extremely high self-disclosers are regarded as more socially skilled.
10. Self-concept shifts over time and between situations

SELF-CONCEPT

Self-concept
A relatively stable set of perceptions one holds to oneself (Adler, 2019; Gamble & Gamble, 2014).

How are the self and self-concept related?

The self-concept is a “map” that we create to chart the “territory” that is the self (Hayakawa & Hayakawa,
1990 in Gamble & Gamble, 2014).

(Note that some texts do not treat these concepts separately but use one term to refer to both).

Table 1

Self vs. self-concept

Self Self-concept
Very fluid and in a state of constant change More highly structured and difficult to change
There is more to self than is included within the A portion may not actually be included in the self
self-
concept
Area that represents our untapped potential Area that represents the part of ourselves we invent

FCD. 16 August 2020A 1

Figure 1

Relationship between the self and self-concept

Source: Gamble & Gamble (2014)

Importance of Studying Self-Concept (Lane, 2010)

 Healthy self-concepts can result in realistic acknowledgment of our strengths and weaknesses, so we
may accept praise and defend viewpoints when opposed by others. Unhealthy self-concepts can result
in exaggerated and unrealistic perceptions of our strengths and weaknesses, and we may:
o Downplay our strengths
o Exaggerate our accomplishments
o Fail to value our successes
o Expect others to perceive us negatively
 We tend to perceive ourselves subjectively and often negatively.

Sources of Self-Concept

1. Biology and genetics

- Research suggests that biologically influenced personality traits are a major component of
self- concept. Five general clusters of traits labeled the “Big Five” can influence self-concept.
Within the clusters are specific personality traits for which people may be “hardwired” which
may include sociability, spontaneity, selflessness, selfishness, independence, curiosity,
vulnerability, and carelessness. (McCrae & Costa, 1987).

2. Self-evaluations
- Self-reflexive act – a behavior that provides us insight about our own state of mind
- Our reactions to our own behavior, and our interpretation and evaluation help to form our
self- concept

3. Social roles
- Refer to the positions that we hold with respect to other people
- e.g. In the role of a student, you have learned the value you place on learning, working
hard, and meeting deadlines

What new things did you discover about yourself when you first became a high school student?

4. Social comparison
- Process of comparing ourselves to others to gain insight into our own traits and abilities
- Although subject to bias, it provides us insight into ourselves, relative to other people in our
lives
- e.g. we may be dissatisfied when we receive a “B” on an important test because we know that
classmates received an “A.” However, it’s probable that we’ll also compare ourselves with
classmates who receive a “C” and decide that we really performed much better on the test
than those who received the average scores
 To whom do you compare yourself when you evaluate your own academic ability? Would your
self- perceptions change if you picked different people to compare yourself to?

5. Feedback from others.

- the image of you that others have and that they reveal to you (DeVito, 2016)
- Looking-glass self – the process wherein people base their sense of self on how they believe
others view them; the social interaction is the “mirror,” and people use feedback from others
to measure their own self-concept
- Generalized other – a mental representation of the combined viewpoints of all other people
- Subject to the following biases (Kenny, 1994 in Solomon & Theiss, 2013):
o We place higher value on information from people who are close to us
 Pygmalion effect – illustrates the way our significant others (i.e., people
who are important to us) influence our self-concept e.g. teachers influenced
the students’ self-concepts (see Rosenthal & Jacobson, 2001)
o We are more attentive to the perceptions of others when we are experiencing changes
and uncertainty
o We overestimate how much different people agree in their perceptions of us
o We base our self-concept more on what we believe people think about us rather than
how they actually perceive us
- Despite of subjective biases, our self-perceptions are strengthened by the belief that they are
shared by others

6. Cultural teachings
- Teachings from parents, teachers, and the media instills a variety of beliefs, values, and
attitudes about how we define success and how we should achieve it
- e.g. Badjao adolescents get married as early as 13 to 18 years old following their tradition of
parents arranging it for them. A fundamental reason behind the tradition is the fear that no
one would like to marry them at an older age (Mangarun et al., 2018)

Components of Self-Concept

(Note that some texts do not treat these concepts separately but use one term to refer to both).

1. SELF-IMAGE
- mental picture we have of ourselves – it sums up the kind of person we think we are; composite
of roles we claim and attitudes and beliefs we use to describe who and what we are to others, and
our understanding of how others see us

2. SELF-ESTEEM
- self-evaluation; estimation of self-worth
- include the value or importance we place on our perceived characteristics; indication of how
much you like and value yourself, including your feelings, abilities, and character
e.g. Based on your performance of yoga poses, you may perceive that your flexibility is poor.
However, this perceived weakness may be an inconsequential component of your self-concept
because it is less important to you compared to your arithmetic ability.
- Low self-esteem is learned (Lancer, 2013); hence, it is also possible to unlearn it (Gross, 2006).

DO
Learning Packet 2: Knowing Oneself
Activity 1: Self-Esteem Self-Rating Scale
Components of Self-Esteem (Reasoner, 2010)

1. Cognitive self-esteem refers to thinking about our strengths and weaknesses, about who we
are (actual self) vs. who we’d like to be (ideal self). What is your ideal self? How close are
you to achieving this ideal self?

2. Affective self-esteem refers to feelings about ourselves in reference to our analysis of our
strengths and weaknesses. Does your analysis lead you to feel dissatisfied and perhaps
depressed?

3. Behavioral self-esteem refers to verbal and nonverbal behaviors such as disclosures,

assertiveness, conflict strategies, and gestures. Do you assert ourselves in group situations?
Are we confident to disclose who we really are?

Low Self-Esteem vs. High Self-Esteem

Self-esteem occurs on a continuum. The difference between people who have higher self-esteem
and people who have lower self-esteem only becomes apparent only through comparison of their
thoughts and feelings about their self-worth.

The American Psychological Society (APS) task force found only two consistent findings
concerning the benefits of high self-esteem: people with high self-esteem are significantly happier
and more satisfied with their lives than people with low to moderate levels of self-esteem, and
people with high self-esteem are persistent and resilient (Baumeister et al., 2003).

Proportionality of Self-Esteem

Some people who base their level of self-esteem on a series of actual accomplishments give
themselves credit for being able to meet new challenges because they were able to overcome
previous ones. However, there are people with under-inflated self-esteem despite of having
overcome challenges and having basis to feel good about themselves. Similarly, people whose
high self-esteem is disproportionate to their actual accomplishments and actions is unhealthy.
They cannot point to anything that would justify their entitled self-opinion to an objective
observer.

Academic Performance (Baumeister et al., 2003)

The APS task force found that artificially inflating students’ self-esteem can decrease
grades. One study reviewed by the task force revealed that attempts to bolster self-esteem
among struggling college students can backfire. When at-risk students received messages
that instructed them to boost their self-esteem (e.g., students were told to think, “I can be
proud of myself,” “I can do this,” and “I am satisfied with myself ”), the result was an
average failing grade. On the other hand, when at-risk students received messages
designed to instill a sense of responsibility for their grades (e.g., students were told to
think, “I need to work harder,” “I can learn this material if I apply myself,” and “I can
control what happens to me in this class”), the result was an average passing grade.

In the academic setting, receiving passing grades that don’t actually reflect academic
performance in K–12 classes can cause college students to become offended,
demoralized, or angry when they don’t achieve the grades they believe they deserve.
 Interpersonal Relationships

In school programs designed to “enhance positive self-perceptions” result of such

programs
is that children fail to learn respect for others (McMillan et al., 2001 in Lane, 2010).

People with inflated self-esteem also tend to become defensive and seek reassurance
when others criticize or correct them. Adults with inflated self-esteem believe that they
get along well with others, communicate support to partners, and manage conflicts well.
However, when rated by others, such individuals are labeled antagonistic, rude,
unfriendly, and overall less likable than people with less self-esteem. In fact, in ego-
threatening situations, people with inflated self-esteem are liked significantly less than
people with lower self-esteem (Vohs & Heatherton, 2001).

People with high self-esteem may think they make better impressions on others and have
better friendships and romantic lives, but neither impartial observers nor objective tests
verify these beliefs. Indiscriminate praise might just as easily promote narcissism, with its
less desirable consequences. (Baumeister et al., 2003).

Overemphasizing the importance of self-esteem in those who possess an unrealistically

inflated self-appraisal can precipitate a culture of bullying characterized by persistent
teasing, name-calling, or social exclusion. These findings have led some to argue that
there needs to be a balance in the amount of praise given, to prevent inflated perceptions
of self-importance in already self-centered individuals (Baumeister et al., 1996).

Educators are now encouraging “earned self-esteem” that results from meeting standards
at home and in schools. Similarly, we can “refine” our self-esteem by focusing on setting
goals that mutually benefit self and other (Lane, 2010).

Baumeister and colleagues (2003) recommend using praise to boost self-esteem as a

reward for socially desirable behavior and self-improvement.

Contexts and Self-Concept

How do contexts influence self-concept?

1. Culture context
- Dominant individualist culture: individual identity is paramount, value uniqueness and personal
identity; they tend to believe in themselves, seek to do their own thing, and shun conformity
(Gamble & Gamble, 2014)
e.g. Japanese parents believe that lavishing praises on their children would them to become self-
centered and neglectful on the group’s needs.
- Dominant collectivist culture: the group is the primary social unit, value group cohesion and
loyalty
e.g. “I” in the Chinese written language
looks very much like the word for “selfish.”
- Co-cultures within a culture influence self-concept and interpersonal relationship e.g. ethnic
groups, LGBT community
- Media: help shape our opinions about how our bodies should look, how males and females should
interact, and the meaning of success

2. Relationship context
 - Friends and family: contribute to who we think we are and how we evaluate ourselves e.g.
positive labeling (Yerby, 1990 in Lane,2010)
- Coworkers: perceived self-efficacy or ability to manage prospective situations; role models
(Wender, 2004); autonomy, creativity, and individual decision making continually influence the
development of adult personality and significantly enhance the self-concept over time (Mortimer
& Lorence, 1979)

3. Gender context
- When asked to describe themselves, women typically mention characteristics such as generosity,
sensitivity, and having care and concern for others. They are also more concerned about their
body image and physical appearance than are men. On the other hand, men don’t tend to
comment about their physiques. Instead, they typically mention characteristics such as ambition,
energy, power, and control (Spence, 1978 in Lane, 2010)
- Both men and women have an equal sense of self-esteem based on their relational group
memberships (Foels & Tomcho, 2005), however, adolescent males report higher self-esteem than
girls. Boys are more likely to be in situations that encourage competition, conflict, power, and
excitement, whereas girls are more likely to encounter situations of intimacy, self-disclosure,
support, and co-rumination (Agam et al., 2015)

4. Individual context
- Self-fulfilling prophecies – prediction or expectation that comes true simply because one acts as
if it were true
o Galatea effect – positive expectations for oneself
- Automatic negative thoughts - automatic thoughts that stem from beliefs people hold about
themselves and the world (Soflau & David, 2017) e.g. “I’ve failed at this before and I’ll fail at
this again.”

Characteristics of Self-Concept

1. It is inherently subjective.
- We are who we think we are. It reflects how we see ourselves, which may or may not reflect
the perceptions of ourselves.
- It is also subject to biases:
o Tendency to interpret new information in ways that are consistent with how we
already see ourselves. e.g. A student who receive an exam score that was much lower
than usual conclude that the exam was especially unfair.
o Tendency to support our self-perceptions as more valid and important can affect
interpersonal relationship. e.g. A study of married couples showed that people are
most satisfied when their spouses sees them the way they see themselves (Burke et
al., 2005)
o Tendency to compare ourselves to others of the same gender and age (Knoblock-
Westerwick & Hastall, 2006)
o When our self-esteem has been recently threatened, there is a tendency to compare
ourselves to less talented or accomplished people (Beauregard & Dunning, 1998)
o Tendency to respond negatively when others perform better than we do on a
consequential task, even when we receive positive feedback about our above-average
performance. We compensate by comparing ourselves with people who perform with
average ability and subsequently evaluate ourselves much higher than we evaluate
the average performers (Seta et al., 2006)
o When we encounter someone who clearly outranks us on some quality, we have the
tendency to exaggerate their accomplishments as extraordinary, amazing, or genius,
so that our own less fabulous performance still looks good (Alicke, LoSchiavo,
Zerbst, & Zhang, 1997)
2. It is multifaced, the facets of which are either visible or invisible.
- There are several sides to our self-concept that reflect the roles and relationships that we have
in different aspects of our lives.
e.g. Mark is a child of Filipino Chinese family, a SHS student, and an athlete. In his role as a
student,
Mark’s academic goals, strengths, and limitations are primary facets of her self-concept.
- People with a complex self-concept tend to experience less depression following stressful life
events, perhaps because a negative experience is less likely to undermine all their different
facets of self (Constantino et al., 2006).
- When facets of self-concept are incompatible, a person is more likely to experience
depression, loneliness, and low self-esteem (Lutz & Ross, 2003).
- The different aspects of our self-concept can be more or less compatible or incompatible with
each other.
e.g. Karmeena might skip classes to fit in an additional workout.
- It can be simultaneously perceived as mental and physical and as private and public (Neisser,
1988)
a. Mental self – composed of perceptions of how intelligent we are and what we assume our
strengths be
b. Physical self – include perceptions of our body and how physically attractive we think we are
c. Private self – include perceptions of self that we do not readily disclose to others
d. Public self – include those aspects of the self that we desire others to perceive

3. It is dynamic.
- Self-concept shifts over time and between situations
- Only a facet relevant at a particular moment is active or operational
- Working self-concept – information that dominates a person’s sense of self at a particular
point
in time
e.g. Movement between selves is as fluid as changing between online profiles, but
when a particular self is active, it dominates that moment. Facebook vs LinkedIn vs
Tiktok
- Both our internal state and external circumstances which self will be active (Mark & Wurk,
1986), but it is also possible to consciously activate a particular facet of self by tailoring our
self-concept to our circumstances based on our internal states, external circumstances, and
our desired image (Solomon & Theiss, 2013)
o Internal states that cue particular facets of self-concept e.g. thoughts, goals,
motivations, and feelings at a particular moment that make a particular aspect of the
self more salient
o External circumstances e.g. social situation, physical environment, and external
demands

4. It is influenced by self-disclosure.
- Self-disclosure refers to the act of willingly sharing information about ourselves to others.
- The reactions to our self-disclosure can influence how we perceive ourselves and inform us about
aspects of our self-concept and increase self-awareness.
- A study by Holmes (2005) concluded that people use personal stories to showcase traits or
qualities that might otherwise be unexpressed at work

What do your personal stories, room decorations, Facebook page, and voicemail recording say
about you?
Guidelines for Enriching the Self (DeVito, 2016; Wood, 2015; Gamble & Gamble, 2014)

1. Gain and use knowledge to support personal development.

a. Identify the sources of self-concept and understand how the self develops you can think
critically about which social perspectives to accept and which to reject.
 b. Aside from what we can learn from the subject, there are other resources such as books
and websites that focus on personal growth. Talking with others and feedback from them
are ways to learn about relationships and to develop interpersonal skills. Other people can
also serve as models whom you can observe to identify, imitate, and tailor desired skills.

c. Actively seek information about yourself and improve your self-awareness – represents
the extent to which you know yourself, your strengths and your weaknesses, your
thoughts and feelings, and your personality tendencies (DeVito, 2016)
i. Ask yourself about yourself. “Who Am I?” test (Bugental & Zelen, 1950; Grace &
Cramer, 2003)
ii. Listen to feedbacks from others. Both verbal and nonverbal information may be
garnered from face-to-face or online interpersonal interactions.
iii. Use everyday situations to gain self-information to reduce the blind self.
iv. See your different selves. Each person with whom you have interpersonal
relationship views you differently, but you are really all these selves.
v. Increase your open self. When you reveal yourself to others and increase your
open self, you bring into a clearer focus what you may have buried within and
gain more insight with the aid of feedback from others. An increased in the
likelihood of a meaningful and intimate dialogue brought about by an open self
also enables you to get to know yourself better.

DO
Learning Packet 2: Knowing Oneself
Activity 2: Johari Window

2. Make a firm commitment to personal growth. Changing our self-perception is a long-term process
so there will be setbacks that can derail our resolution to change. Also, the self resists change so
we must realize in advance that we may struggle against change so we can be better prepared for
the tension that accompanies personal development.
a. Update pictures. Changing a mental image of oneself is difficult. Pictures reveal a
somewhat different you.

b. Take lots of pictures. Watch yourself in action. Review your self-snapshots, periodically
taking time to reassess the roles you perform, the statements you use to describe yourself,
and the extent to which you approve of your own values and behavior. Are you satisfied
as you scroll through them? Do you have realistic goals? It takes courage and open-
mindedness to do this.

c. Explore others’ pictures of you. The people you interact with regularly see the strengths
or weaknesses you tend to overlook or underplay. While you need not become what
others think we are or should be, you could at least be open to the possibility of change.

d. Picture possibilities. Ask yourself “Who am I now?” instead of “Who am I always?”

e. Seek out situations that activate important facets of yourself. Identify qualities that you
value but you don’t draw upon very often, then try to think of specific situations that
would pull that part of you into your working self-concept.
e.g. Karmeena volunteered to join the church choir to integrate aspects of herself as a
singer that has been overshadowed by her role as a full-time law student.
 f. Behave in ways that reflect who you want to be. Set goals for yourself, then try to behave
in ways that are consistent that view of yourself.

3. Set goals that are realistic and fair. It is more reasonable and constructive to establish a series of
realistic small goals that we can meet and to judge our abilities with reference to fair standards.

4. Enhance your self-esteem.

a. Take an inventory of your strengths and weaknesses and remind yourself of your
successes and strengths. To counteract the tendency to recall failures, remind yourself of
your successes intellectually and emotionally. Only when you intend to correct your
failures when focusing on failures can have some positive value. Witnesses to your
failures give them less importance (Savitsky, et al., 2001).

Talents
- nonmoral characteristics that are usually innate and automatic
- genetically influenced and associated with concrete consequences such as wealth
- may be augmented, but improvements are typically small
- e.g. athletic ability

Personal Strengths
- moral built-in capacities for particular ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving
- we cannot “choose” to have a perfect pitch, but we can choose to be courageous

Personal Weaknesses
- personal strengths that are low, rather than a full deficit of a strength in particular

DO
Learning Packet 2: Knowing Oneself
Activity 3: Survey of Character Strengths

DO
Learning Packet 2: Knowing Oneself
Activity 4: My Big 5 Personality Profile

b. Change self-destructive beliefs – ideas about oneself that are unproductive or that make
it more difficult to achieve goals) and automatic negative thoughts (DeVito, 2016).

c. Survey your environment and seek out people who are “nourishing” and people who you
identify yourself with. Consider people who makes you feel bad about yourself and find
ways to distance yourself from them if they diminish your self-esteem or resolve not to
let them have a negative effect on you (Solomon & Theiss, 2013). Noxious people
criticize and find fault with just about everything. Nourishing people, on the other hand,
are positive and optimistic. Most important, they reward us, they stroke us, they make us
feel good about ourselves (DeVito, 2016).
e.g. Deaf people who identified with the larger deaf community had greater self-esteem
than
those who didn’t so identify (Jambor & Elliott, 2005).
Identification with your cultural group also seems helpful in fostering positive self-esteem
(McDonald, McCabe, Yeh, Lau, Garland, & Hough, 2005).
 d. Act confidently. Even if you feel otherwise, people will begin to respond to you as
someone who embodies those traits, and the positive reinforcement from others will help
you see yourself as a confident person.

e. Beware the impostor phenomenon – a subjective experience of perceived intellectual

phoniness that is held by high-achieving individuals who, despite of their objective
successes, fail to internalize these successes (Kolligian & Sternberg, 1991).

f. Work on projects that will result in success and learn to put failure in perspective.
Often, people select projects that result in failure simply because these projects are
impossible to complete. Failure is something that happens to you; it’s not something
you’ve created, and it’s not something inside you. Failing once does not mean that you
will fail the next time.

g. Secure affirmation. Affirmation refers to positive statements about yourself, statements

asserting that something good or positive is true. The way you talk influences what you
think of yourself. However, some critics contend that self-affirmations may not believe
their own affirmations because they have low opinions of themselves to begin with (Paul,
2001).

5. Self-disclose when appropriate.

Self-disclosure is intentionally revealing information about ourselves to another person that she
or he is unlikely to discover in other ways (Wood, 2015). There is disagreement about the exact
meaning of self-disclosure. Some definitions also include intentional or unintentional nonverbal
disclosures about our emotional state (Hargie, 2011).

Telling a close friend your name would not be a self-disclosure since this information would
already be known, whereas telling a complete stranger your name would be a self-disclosure.

Purposes of self-disclosure
The top two reasons for self-disclosure with friends are: a) relationship maintenance and
enhancement;
b) self-clarification – to learn more about one’s thoughts and feelings. With strangers, the top two
reasons are: a) reciprocity – to facilitate social interchange; b) impression formation – to present
oneself in the best light (Rosenfeld, 2000 in Hargie, 2011).

Benefits of self-disclosure (McKay et al., 2018; Wood, 2015)

1. Increased self-knowledge. Self-disclosure allows us to learn about ourselves. Our thoughts
and feelings become clearer to us in the process of disclosing them to others. It also helps us
gain insights about ourselves by seeing how we handle feedbacks from others (i.e., do we
self-reflect and use it as a chart for personal growth?).
2. Self-disclosure can be cathartic (Vilhauer, 2009).
3. Self-disclosure may provide affirmation and new perspectives on who we are and what we
have done. For instance, others may see a fear we have as rational.
4. Self-disclosure can be ethical. We may feel obligated to disclose information to maintain self-
respect.
5. Self-disclosure often results in reciprocal and improved communication. The process of
mutual self-disclosure generally increases positive feelings between people, and it can
enhance
 interpersonal relationships. What you disclose to a friend, the friend discloses something to
you in return.

Risks of Self-Disclosure (Wood, 2015)

1. Others may not accept what we reveal or may like us less or reject us.
2. Others might use information we have disclosed against us.
3. Self-disclosure can hurt others.
4. Online disclosures lack security; hence, they may be read by others, and there is no
guarantee of what they will do with information you divulge.

Guidelines for Self-Disclosure (Adler, 2019)

 Is the other person important to you? Either you have an ongoing deep relationship with
the person that justifies the disclosure, or you have been wanting to grow close to that
person.
 Is the risk of disclosing reasonable? You must consider both the risks and benefits in both
personal and professional relationships.
 Is self-disclosure appropriate? Frisby and Sidelinger (2103) held it to be unwise to
divulge personal secrets with strangers, on public social media postings, or in classroom
discussions. Recognize that there is a time and a place for engaging in and refraining
from self-disclosure.
 Is the disclosure reciprocated? Unequal self-disclosure creates an unbalanced relationship with
potential problems.
 Will the effect be constructive? Some disclosures may resolve past business but they also
can be devastating to the listener, to the relationship, and to your self-esteem.

Characteristics of Appropriate Self-Disclosure

While there are no definite rules about the exact appropriateness of self-disclosure, the following
are some general indicators:

 From low-status to high-status individuals but not vice versa. Research findings suggest
that self-disclosures are most often employed between people of equal status (Tardy &
Dindia, 2006), but people disclose certain information to reduce existing status difference
(Phillips et al., 2009).
 When the receiver of the message is not overwhelmed with the disclosures. People who
are extremely high or low disclosers are regarded as less socially skilled.
 When disclosures are compatible with the roles of the interactors. Teenagers may
disclose information to their close friends that they would not disclose to their parents.
 When disclosures are acceptable in the particular social context.

CONNECT
Learning Packet 2: Knowing Oneself
Think-Group-Share

CYBERSELF

Creating a Cyberself
Social network sites (SNS) like Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Twitter have created new outlets for
people to create an online extension of themselves.
 DO
Learning Packet 2: Knowing Oneself
Activity 5: Online and Offline Self-Disclosure Self-Rating Inventory

Self-esteem
People with low self-esteem tend to post more negative information, and people are less likely to respond
to downbeat messages (Forest & Wood, 2012).

Self-disclosure
Every status update and tweet we post is a disclosure that provides information about who we are, what
we value, how we are feeling, and where we are going (Solomon & Theiss, 2013).
Adolescents with a preference for offline self-disclosure showed a high probability of being resilients,
while adolescents with a preference for online self-disclosure showed a high probability to be
undercontrollers and overcontrollers (Chen et al., 2017).

Social comparisons
- Social media are key sources for social comparison. People emphasize what is positive in
their lives and downplay or omit mention of what is not so positive (Wood, 2015).
- Social media have provided us with tools that make it easy for us to do self-comparison
(DeVito, 2016):
o Search engine reports. Typing in our name Google let is see websites with our name
and similarly named others.
o Network spread. Our number of Facebook friends or Twitter or Instagram followers
is in some ways a measure of our potential influence, a practice that seems to
encourage friend-collecting behavior. Looking at a friend’s profile provides social
comparison.
o Online influence. Network sites such as Klout and Peer Index provide you with a
score (from 0 to 100) of your online influence. Your Klout score, for example, is a
combination of your “true reach”—the number of people you influence,
“amplification”—the degree to which you influence them, and “network”—the
influence of your network. Postrank Analytics, on the other hand, provides you with a
measure of engagement—the degree to which people interact with, pay attention to,
read, or comment on what you write.
o Twitter activities. The number of times we tweet might be one point of comparison
but more important is the number of times we are tweeted about or our tweets are
retweeted. Twitalyzer provides as a three-part score (an impact score, a Klout score,
and a Peer Index score) and can also enable you to search the “twitter elite” for the
world as well as for any specific area (you can search by zip code).
o Blog/vlog presence. The blog presence is readily available from “stats” tab, where we
can see how many people visited the site since inception or over the past year, month,
week, or day. A map of the world indicating where people who are visiting your blog
come from. To analyze your channel's statistics for vlogs, go to Creative Studio (click
your avatar in the upper right corner). You'll see the link to YouTube Analytics in the
left column.
o References to written works. Google Scholar, for example, enables you to see how
many other writers have cited your works (and how many cited the works of the
person you’re comparing) and the works in which you were cited. Amazon and other
online book dealers provide rankings of your books along with a star system based on
reviewers’ comments.
- Women use social media sites to compare themselves to others. Men, on the other hand, use
social media more to look at the profiles of others and to search for additional friends
(Haferkamp et al., 2012)
 - Girls and women are more likely than boys to use social media as a venue for self-
development. Teen girls use their blogs and pages on social networking sites to talk about
issues such as pressures to be skinny, drink (or not), have sex (or not), and dress particular
ways (Bodey & Wood, 2009).
- People do not feel inferior when comparing themselves to people they know well because
they were not fooled by their self-portrayals, but they are more prone to believe that strangers
do live better lives and comparisons with them are more depressing (Lup & Rosenthal, 2015).
- Self-Esteem and Facebook: the tendency towards social comparison on Facebook seems to be
especially important for females, mediating the effects of self-esteem (Bergagna & Tartaglia,
2018)
o Young women with low self-esteem have a high tendency to social comparison
express themselves on Facebook to improve their self-esteem.
o Young women with a positive self-esteem use Facebook as an additional means to
maintain their social network.

Big Five personality factors (characteristics)

- most often used in research that considers any aspect of personality
- OCEAN Model consists of openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and
neuroticism (McCrae & Costa, 1987)
- Each of the dimensions included in the model exist along a continuum
- A brief overview of the five overarching categories of traits and some of their associated
markers now follows:
o Openness: Open individuals have been shown to be more likely to post personal
information on SNSs than less open people (Amichai-Hamburger & Vinitzky, 2010).
o Conscientiousness: Conscientious individuals have been shown to be more cautious
online and to present themselves in a more agreeable and compliant manner to the
medium in which they are presenting themselves. They have also been shown to be
more consistent in their online self-presentations, which are often in line with their
actual self (e.g., Leary & Allen, 2011).
o Extraversion: There are however conflicting demonstrations, with Bibby (2008)
showing higher levels of sharing self-relevant information by extraverts while Amichai-
Hamburger and Vinitzky (2010) observed the opposite: Extraverts shared less
personal information on SNSs. There may be a number of reasons for this
discrepancy, including that the two studies may have differentially assessed levels of
sharing (see Atrill, 2015).
o Agreeableness: Leary and Allen (2011) found that agreeable individuals were more
likely to present their actual self on SNSs.
o Neuroticism: There is some evidence to suggest that neurotic individuals may seek a
connection with others via the Internet that they may not experience in their offline
world (Forest and Wood, 2012).

DO
Learning Packet 2: Knowing Oneself
Activity 4: My Big 5 Personality Profile
References

Books
Adler, R. B., Proctor, R.F., & Rosenfeld, L.B. (2019). Interplay: The process of interpersonal communication. Oxford
University Press.
Atrill, A. (2015). The manipulation of online self-presentation. Palgrave
Macmillan. DeVito, J.A. (2016). The interpersonal communication book,
14th ed. Pearson.
Gamble, T.K. & Gamble, M.W. (2014). Interpersonal communication: Building connections together. Sage
Publications, Inc.
Hargie, O. (2011). Skilled interpersonal communication: Research, theory, and practice, 5th ed.
Routledge. Lane, S. D. (2010). Interpersonal communication: Competence and contexts, 2nd ed. Pearson
Education, Inc.
McKay, M., Davis, M., & Fanning, P. (2018). Messages: The communication skills. New Harbinger
Publications, Inc. Solomon, D., & Theiss, J. (2013). Interpersonal communication: Putting theory into
practice. Taylor & Francis.
Wood, J.T. (2015). Interpersonal communication: Everyday encounters. Cengage Learning.

Journal Articles

Agam, R., Tamir, S., & Golan, M. (2015). Gender differences in respect to self-esteem and body image as
well as response to adolescent's school-based prevention programs. J Psychol Clin Psychiatry, 2(5):
00092. DOI: 10.15406/jpcpy.2015.02.00092
Alicke, M. D., LoSchiavo, R. M., Zerbst, J., & Zhang, S. (1997). The person who outperforms me is a
genius: Maintaining perceived competence in upward social comparison. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 73, 781–789.
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Vinitzky, G. (2010). Social network use and personality. Computers in Human
Behavior, 26(6), 1289–1295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.018
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause
better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in
the Public Interest, 4(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.01431
Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and
aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103(1), 5–33.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033- 295X.103.1.5
Beauregard, K. S., & Dunning, D. (1998). Turning up the contrast: Self-enhancement motives prompt
egocentric contrast effects in social judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,
606–621
Bergagna, E. & Tartaglia, S. (2018). Self-esteem, social comparison, and Facebook use. Eur J Psychol, 14(4),
831- 845.
Bibby, P. A. (2008). Dispositional factors in the use of social networking sites: Findings and implications
for social computing research. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5075, 392–400.
Bodey, K., & Wood, J. T. (2009). Grrrl power: Whose voices count and who does the counting? Southern
Communication Journal, 74, 325–337.
Burke, P.J., & Harrod, M.M. (2005). Too much of a good thing? School Psychology Quarterly, 68(4), 359-
374.
Chen, W., Xie, X., Ping, F., & Wan, M. (2016). Personality differences in online and offline self-
disclosure preference among adolescents: A person-oriented approach. Personality and Individual
Differences, 105, 175-178.
Constantino, M. J., Wilson, K. R., Horowitz, L. M., & Pinel, E. C. (2006). The direct and stress-buffering
effects of self-organization on psychological adjustment. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(3),
333–360. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2006.25.3.333
Foels, R., & T. J. Tomcho. (2005). Gender, interdependent self-construals, and collective self-esteem:
Women and men are mostly the same. Self and Identity, 4, 213–225.
Forest, A. L., & Wood, J. V. (2012). When social networking is not working: Individuals with low self-
esteem recognize but do not repeat the benefits of self-disclosure on Facebook. Psychological Science,
23, 295– 302.
Frisby, B. N., & Sidelinger, R. J. (2013). Violating student expectations: Student disclosures and student
reactions in the college classroom. Communication Studies, 64, 241–258.
Holmes, J. (2005). Story-telling at work: A complex discursive resource for integrating personal,
professional and social identities. Discourse Studies, 7, 671–700
Jambor, E., & Elliott, M. (2005). Self-esteem and coping strategies among deaf students. Journal of Deaf
Studies and Deaf Education, 10(1), 63–81. doi: 10.1093/deafed/eni004.
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Hastall, M. R. (2006). Social comparisons with news personae: Selective
exposure to news portrayals of same-sex and same-age characters. Communication Research, 33,
262–284.
Kolligian, J., Jr, & Sternberg, R. J. (1991). Perceived fraudulence in young adults: is there an "imposter
syndrome"?. Journal of personality assessment, 56(2), 308–326.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5602_10
Leary, M. R., & Allen, A. B. (2011). Personality and persona: Personality processes in self‐presentation.
Journal of Personality, 79(6), 889–916. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00704.x
Lup, K., Trub, L., & Rosenthal, L. (2015). Instagram #instasad?: Exploring associations among Instagram
use, depressive symptoms, negative social comparison, and strangers followed. Cyberpsychology, Behavior,
and Social Networking, 18, 247–252.
Lutz, C.J., & Ross, S.R. (2003). Elaboration versus fragmentation: Distinguishing between self-complex
and self-concept differentiation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 22(5), 537-559.
Mangarun, A.J.S., Agao-agao, L.A.A., Gimena, D.R.A., & Tumanda, A.T. (2018). Lived experiences of Badjao
female who entered early marriage: A phenomenological study. Malaysian Journal of Medical Research,
2(4). doi: 10.31674/mjmr.2018.v02i04.005
Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1986). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. American
Review of Psychology, 38, 299–337.
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across
instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81–90.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.52.1.81
McDonald, E. J., McCabe, K., Yeh, M., Lau, A., Garland, A., & Hough, R. L. (2005). Cultural affiliation
and self-esteem as predictors of internalizing symptoms among Mexican American adolescents.
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34(1), 163–171.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3401_15
Mortimer, J. T., & Lorence, J. (1979). Occupational experience and the self-concept: A longitudinal study.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 42(4), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033802
Neisser, U. (1988). Five Kinds of Self-Knowledge. Philosophical Psychology, 1, 35–59.
Savitsky, K., Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2001). Do others judge us as harshly as we think? Overestimating
the impact of our failures, shortcomings, and mishaps. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1),
44– 56. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.44
Seta, J. J., C. E. Seta, & T. McElroy. (2006). Better Than Better Than-Average (or Not): Elevated and
Depressed Self-Evaluations Following Unfavorable Social Comparisons. Self and Identity, 5, 51–
72.
Soflau, R., & David, D.O. (2017). A Meta-Analytical Approach of the Relationships Between the
Irrationality of Beliefs and the Functionality of Automatic Thoughts. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 41(2), 178-192. doi:10.1007/s10608-016-9812-y
Vilhauer, R. (2009). Perceived benefits of online support groups for women with metastic breast cancer.
Women & Health, 49, 381–404.
Vohs, K. D., & Heatherton, T. F. (2001). Self-esteem and threats to self: Implications for self-construals
and interpersonal perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1103–1118.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1103
Wender, I. (2004). Relation of Technology, Science, Self-Concept, Interest, and Gender. Journal of
Technology Studies, 30 (3), 43–51.

Weblinks
Dove US. (2013, April 15). Dove Real Beauty Sketches | You’re more beautiful than you think. Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=litXW91UauE
Gross, S. J. (2006). How to raise your self-esteem. Psych Central. http://psychcentral.com/lib/how-to-
raise- your-self-esteem/000737
Lancer, D. (2013). Low self-esteem is learned. Psych Central. http://psychcentral.com/lib/low-self-
esteem-is- learned/00018092
Paul, A. M. (2001). Self-help: Shattering the myths. Psychology Today.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/200103/self-help-shattering-the-myths
Reasoner, R. (2010). The true meaning of self-esteem. National Association for Self Esteem.
http://www.self- esteem-nase.org/what.php

Extended Reading(s)

Rosenthal, R., and L. Jacobson. (2001). Pygmalion in the Classroom. In Editor J. A. O’Brien & P.
Kollock (ED). The Production of Reality: Essays and Readings on Social Interaction (3rd ed., pp. 35–60).
Pine Forge Press/Sage. https://archive.org/details/productionofreal00obri

Prepared by:

FRITZIE CRISTINA B. DIAZ, RPsy, CSAP, CSCLP, DAAETS 16/08/2020

Faculty, Personal Development Learning Area Date

Noted by:

MARVIN EINSTEIN S. MEJARO, MA

SALT, Personal Development Learning Area Date

Approved by:

ASSOC. PROF. RODRIGO A. LITAO, Ph.D.

Assistant Principal for Curriculum and Instruction Date