Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, 2nd Edition

Self-Concept

Journal: Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, 2nd Edition

Manuscript ID Draft

Wiley - Manuscript type: Entry

Date Submitted by the

n/a
Fo
Author:

Complete List of Authors: KARAKAYALI, Nedim; Bilkent University, Political Science

rR

Keywords: self, self-concept, practices of the self, Identity, social roles, self-esteem

In sociology and social psychology, self-concept refers to the thoughts,

feelings, and evaluations of individuals about themselves. Researchers
ev

distinguish between multiple types (e.g. professional or physical) and

"dimensions" (e.g. self-identity and self-esteem) of self-concept and a
wide variety of "scales" are developed to measure those dimensions. The
bulk of the studies in the literature focus on the correlation of self-
iew

concept with various sociological variables. Sociologists have also been

Abstract:
inquiring into several topics with broad theoretical significance, including
the ways in which people’s self-concepts are related to others'
conceptions about them; the mechanisms underlying the change and
stability of self-concepts; the historical changes in the content of self-
concepts; the practices that involve deliberate modifications of the self-
On

concept; and, the possibilities that new information technologies open up

for self-concept formation.
ly
Page 1 of 4 Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, 2nd Edition

Self-concept

Nedim KARAKAYALI
Bilkent University
[email protected]

[1749 words]

Abstract: In sociology and social psychology, self-concept refers to the thoughts, feelings,
and evaluations of individuals about themselves. Researchers distinguish between multiple
types (e.g. professional or physical) and “dimensions” (e.g. self-identity and self-esteem) of
self-concept and a wide variety of “scales” are developed to measure those dimensions. The
bulk of the studies in the literature focus on the correlation of self-concept with various
sociological variables. Sociologists have also been inquiring into several topics with broad
theoretical significance, including the ways in which people’s self-concepts are related to
others’ conceptions about them; the mechanisms underlying the change and stability of self-
Fo

concepts; the historical changes in the content of self-concepts; the practices that involve
deliberate modifications of the self-concept; and, the possibilities that new information
technologies open up for self-concept formation.
rR

Self-Concept
Sociologists and social psychologists use “self-concept” to refer to the thoughts, feelings, and
ev

evaluations of individuals about themselves. The most prevalent concern in the sociological
literature has been to understand the social antecedents and repercussions of the self-concepts
people hold. The range of variables associated with self-concept in these studies is very wide.
iew

In addition to key sociological parameters such as gender, class, and ethnicity, researchers
have considered the influence of a diverse number of conditions on a person’s self-concept,
including indebtedness, body mass, job loss, academic ability, parental separation, dancing,
being bullied, smartphone usage, musical creativity, migration, martial arts training,
stripping, widowhood and so on. Conversely, self-concept is viewed as having implications
On

for, among others, life satisfaction, “delinquency,” religiosity, marital happiness, protection
against Covid-19, humor style, hygiene, consumption practices, relationship style, and even
internet search strategies. These studies often use a methodological framework that is very
ly

common in psychological research, treating self-concept as a variable that can be correlated

with a myriad of other social-psychological variables.
Self-concept, however, is anything but a simple variable. In fact, many studies in this
field do not focus on self-concept as a general notion, but rather deal with specific kinds of
self-concepts such as intellectual, sexual, physical, academic, ability-based, ethnic and racial,
musical, professional, religious, and so on. More importantly, since people can express their
thoughts and feelings about themselves in numerous forms, sociologists are forced to
categorize them into a few, analytically meaningful types, which they often describe as
“dimensions” of the self-concept.
Two key “dimensions” that can be considered in this context concern whether a given
self-concept is comprised of relatively “factual” descriptions (e.g. professional identity or
sexual orientation) or self-evaluations of various kinds (e.g. “I’m a talented artist”). The
former dimension is viewed as having its roots in social roles and identities, while the latter is
often called “self-esteem,” though some researchers treat it as a separate variable with its own
sub-divisions (e.g. self-esteem based on moral or instrumental criteria). The distinction
between these two dimensions, however, is not always clear because, as many studies
indicate, ethnic, racial, or professional identity and self-esteem are closely correlated.
 Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, 2nd Edition Page 2 of 4

Nevertheless, if self-esteem is often studied as a variable on its own, this is because it is

associated with the motivation level of individuals in various social contexts. More generally,
understanding the motivational effects of self-concept constitutes a primary concern – as well
as a kind of justification – for most empirical research in this area (Gecas 1982; Ward 1996).
Self-identity and self-esteem are not the only aspects of self-concept discussed in the
literature. To cite a few examples, there are many categorical divisions (e.g. ideal versus
extant, explicit versus implicit, consensual versus subconsensual, “self-image” versus “the
real me”) as well as “dimensions” (e.g. self-efficacy, self-consistency; self-concept clarity and
awareness) attributed to self-concept, all of which have been objects of empirical inquiry. To
this list, we can also add the different “senses of self” (e.g. senses of competence, autonomy,
unity or moral worth), which system theorists view as subjective expressions of basic system
functions. In short, although it is widely agreed that self-concept has multiple dimensions,
contributors from different theoretical and methodological positions have developed different
conceptual schemes regarding those dimensions (Marsh 1990). Currently, there is also an
overabundance of “scales” designed by different researchers to “measure” various aspects of
the self-concept.
Fo

In addition to these issues concerning the conceptualization and operationalization of

the self-concept, several topics with broad theoretical significance have attracted the attention
of self-concept researchers for many generations. One such fundamental topic of inquiry is
rR

whether and to what extent people rely on others’ conceptions of themselves when they
develop their self-images. This question has theoretical significance not only for the self-
concept literature but also for the field of sociology of the self in general. In fact, some
ev

researchers see in that question an opportunity to “test” those theories of the self inspired by
Mead and Cooley’s works, which state that self-consciousness emerges (and unfolds as a
dialectical process) as human beings begin viewing themselves from the perspective of others
iew

in their group. This proposition has been widely influential in sociological literature (Owens
and Samblanet 2013). But it has also attracted some suspicion due to its almost purely
deductive nature. Beginning from the 1950s onwards, some researchers have observed that
people do not uniformly internalize the viewpoints of others in their group while forming their
self-concept; on the contrary, whether they agree with others’ views about them depends on
On

their existing self-concept (Kuhn and McPartland 1954; Shrauger and Schoeneman 1979).
These observations cast some doubt on the idea that self-concept can be seen as the outcome
of a basic self-other dialectic. In any case, social theorists continue to propose more complex
ly

models for understanding the interaction between self-relations and social relations (Silver
and Lee 2012).
A second important area of research concerns the historical changes in people’s self-
concepts. From the 1950s onwards, many scholars have argued that the self-concepts of
people in Western societies were going through significant structural changes, gaining, for
example, a more flexible, fragmented, and self-observant character in comparison to previous
generations. Among these studies, Turner’s (1976) thesis that modern self-concepts are
becoming more impulsive and less grounded in institutional roles and Lasch’s (1979)
argument that contemporary Western societies are growingly being dominated by a “culture
of narcissism” are the best-known ones. In addition to these works that focus on the changes
in the twentieth century, there are others that cover longer periods. Some of these studies aim
to uncover the cultural sources of the very notions of “self” and “self-concept” as they are
understood today (Taylor 1989), while others suggest that historical changes in self-concepts
might entail broader cultural transformations (Logan 1987). Although the changes pointed out
by different researchers do not necessarily form a unified whole, they all focus on the mutual
relationships between structural transformations in social conditions and the mental and
emotional lives of modern individuals. As such, beyond their empirical contributions, these
Page 3 of 4 Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, 2nd Edition

historical inquiries constantly offer food for theoretical reflection regarding the society – self-
concept interaction. The greatest majority of these historical-sociological works, however,
focus on the experiences of individuals in European and North American societies, which is
an important limitation. The few studies drawing on historical data from non-western
societies suggest that self-concepts in those societies might have very different meanings and
functions than in Europe and North America (Kafadar, 1989). More generally, in the recent
self-concept literature, the attention paid to cross-cultural differences has grown considerably.
A third theoretically significant issue concerns the temporality of self-concept.
Although there existed processual approaches to self-concept since the very beginning, the
temporality and dynamism of self-concepts have received relatively less attention in the
earlier literature. This was partly due to methodological difficulties and partly due to the
assumption that self-concepts, once established in early life, did not change much. It was
often taken for granted that self-concept changes in adulthood were negligible and even
irrelevant, which is only recently being challenged (Sinnott 2017). In recent decades, many
scholars have pointed out that people’s self-concepts display both some stability over time
and some dynamism. The mechanisms underlying the change and stability of self-concepts, as
Fo

well as the conditions under which people’s self-concepts go through a change during their
lifetime, are important topics of inquiry in current literature (Demo 1992).
The dynamism of the self-concept, however, is not just a matter of external conditions.
rR

We can also talk about practices that involve deliberate modifications of the self-concept
(Karakayali 2015). So far, the focus has been on “adaptive” practices such as self-
enhancement and self-consistency efforts or therapeutic attempts such as “self-concept
ev

repair.” Beyond these practices that often intend to increase self-esteem, some scholars have
also begun to pay attention to efforts that have the goal of transforming – and even undoing –
one’s present self-concept, due to ethical, spiritual, or political reasons. These latter types of
iew

practices have drawn attention in conjunction with research on new social movements and
experiments with new social identities in contemporary culture.
Finally, in the last two decades, a considerable amount of research is done on the
relationship between new information technologies and self-concept. Some researchers have
observed significant correlations between the frequency and types of internet usage, and
On

different aspects of self-concept. There are also a number of studies that focus on the new
possibilities that current information technologies open up for self-representation and self-
concept formation such as digital devices for tracking the everyday activities and choices of
ly

an individual; tools for constructing online personal profiles; privatized uses of

recommendation systems for inspecting and modifying personal tastes; and so on. The impact
of new information technologies on our ways of thinking and feeling about ourselves is
rapidly turning into a key area of inquiry in contemporary sociology.

REFERENCES

Demo, D. H. (1992) The self-concept over time: Research issues and directions. Annual
Review of sociology, 18(1), 303-326.

Gecas, V. (1982) The self-concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 8(1), 1-33.

Kafadar, C. (1989) Self and others: The diary of a dervish in seventeenth century Istanbul and
first-person narratives in Ottoman literature. Studia Islamica, 69, 121-150.
 Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, 2nd Edition Page 4 of 4

Karakayali, N. (2015). Adapting, defending and transforming ourselves: Conceptualizations

of self practices in the social science literature. History of the Human Sciences, 28(1), 98-117.

Kuhn, M. H. and McPartland, T. S. (1954) An empirical investigation of self-attitudes,

American Sociological Review, 19(1), 68-76.

Lasch, C. (1979) The Culture of Narcissism. Norton: New York.

Logan, R. D. (1987) Historical change in prevailing sense of self. In K. Yardley & Honess, T.
(eds.) Self and identity: Psychosocial perspectives. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 13–
26.

Marsh, H.W. (1990) A multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-concept: Theoretical and

empirical justification. Educational Psychology Review 2, 77–172.

Owens, T. J. & Samblanet, S. (2013) Self and self-concept. In DeLamater, J. and Ward, A.
Fo

(eds.) Handbook of social psychology. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 225-249

Shrauger, J. S., and Schoeneman, T. J. (1979) Symbolic interactionist view of self-concept:

rR

Through the looking glass darkly. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 549–573.

Silver, D. and Lee, M. (2012) Self-relations in social relations. Sociological Theory 30(4)
ev

207–237.

Sinnott, J. D. (ed.) (2017) Identity Flexibility During Adulthood: Perspectives in Adult

iew

Development. Springer.

Taylor, C. (1989) Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA.
On

Turner, R. H. (1976) The real self: From institution to impulse. American journal of
sociology, 81(5), 989-1016.
ly

Ward, S. (1996) Filling the world with self-esteem: A social history of truth-making. The
Canadian Journal of Sociology, 21(1), 1-23.