MODULE 3

The Psychology of the Self

With human behavior and thinking process as their focus, psychologists have always had a profound
interest in the concept of self, which is undeniably at the center of their inquiry. Whereas
philosophers view the self at the level of consciousness, their ideas usually expressed in the first
person (Gaynesford, 2006); sociologists and anthropologists believe that the self is socially
constructed. By way of contrast, the nature of self from the psychological viewpoint is both
cognitively and socially constructed. The person actively processes the internal ideas of self and
meaningfully assimilates the self in the social environment.
The Nature of Self
The origins of the concept of self in psychology can be traced back to the ideas of the American
philosopher and psychologist William James (1842–1910). His philosophical take on the nature of the
self reflects a dual structure: the I and Me. The I refer to the aspect of the self that actively perceives
and thinks, that is aware of one’s experience, and that organizes and interprets these experiences; in
other words, it is the subjective part of the self. 
On the other hand, the Me is the objective part of the self, the one that is being perceived, the object
of one’s attention, thought, and perception (Harter, 1996). The Me refers to “people’s ideas about
who they are and what they are like” (Brown, 1998, p. 2). In William James’s own words, it is the “sum
total of all of what the person considers his or her own” (In Harter, 1996, p. 2).
Since the Me can be of different qualities, it can be subdivided into three components. First,
the material self refers to the physical body of the self, including all other physical materials owned by
the self, such as how one looks, with all the physical aspects (short, tall, thin, skin color, shape of face
and body). It even includes the clothes and the accessories that one wears, which are part of the
material self since it is an expression of who one is.
Second, the social self refers to the attributes of the self as ascribed by others (e.g., “she is kind” and
“he is generous”). Since different people can describe one person quite differently, there can be “as
many social selves as there are individuals who recognize him and carry an image of him in their mind”
(James, 1892, p. 190). Each self does not even have to be in consonant with each other all the time. It
is possible that the selves areharmonious, like when you are the same person with the same qualities
shown to others. Also, there is a potentialfor the different social selves to be contradictory, like when
one is rough with others but kind to selected ones. The multiplicity of the social selves may result in
conflicts between the different Mes because of the possible different roles that a person may want to
adopt during adulthood (James, 1890). These distinct roles could not possibly coexist at the same time,
so it is important that the person can selectively choose which role is active and dominant,suppressing
other alternatives.
The spiritual self, on the other hand, comprises the inner thoughts and dispositions or generally the
internal frame of mind of a person. It includes one’s consciousness, personality, core values, and
conscience. It is the subjectivepart of the self; it is something that cannot be easily perceived by
others.
 
Real vs Ideal Self
William James’s distinction between the different elements of the self demonstrates
multidimensionality,meaning there is no one version of a self, and there can be several dimensions of
it. In consonance with this, the American psychologist Carl Rogers (1902–1987) proposed the notions
of real self and ideal self. The real selfusually refers to a person’s self-perception; it is what the person
really is. On the other hand, the ideal self is what the person aspires to be. It is commonly considered
an idealized version of the self. It is influenced by the person’ssignificant others, such as parents,
friends, and loved ones, and the society in general. It is created out ofexperiences that include what
the person admires in others and what society expects.
There can be discrepancies between the real and ideal selves, and the differentiation is
developmentallyinfluenced (Harter, 1983, 1996). Individuals at the higher developmental levels can
maintain various categories of selves. Their ability to make finer distinctions and be able to regulate
each version of the self differentiates themfrom those at the lower developmental level. How adults
manage the selves compared to adolescents and children is a concrete example. Adults may fully
recognize the real self and its qualities; at the same time, they are aware of the qualities of the ideal
self. In the contrary, adolescents may mix up the elements of both.
Similar to the concept of real self versus ideal self is the distinction between the real self and possible
selves(Markus & Nurius, 1986; Markus & Oyserman, 1987). In contrast to the ideal self, possible selves
include not only the other selves that one hopes for (e.g., being accepted and loved by others, being
able to achieve one’s goals) but also those that one does not wish to become (e.g., unemployed,
socially ignored). The function of theopposing selves is to motivate the person to act towards
achieving the desired self and to avoid the undesirable one. In dealing with others, the person leans
towards the desired selves and away from undesired ones as part ofimpression management scheme.
Impression management is a conscious effort to influence how people perceive or view you. Certainly,
most individuals would like to convey an image of their self that is positive and one that is socially
acceptable (Leary & Kowalski, 1990).
Multiple Selves vs Unified Self
While a number of psychologists have recognized the multiplicity nature of the self, others like the
American psychologist Gordon Allport (1897–1967) and the academic psychologist Prescott Lecky
(1892–1941) believed in aconcept of a self that is integrated and unified. Allport (1955) defines the
self as one that “… includes all aspects of personality that make for a sense of inward unity” (p. 38).
Likewise, Lecky (1945) presupposes a theory that revolves around the concept of self-consistency
wherein people are motivated to maintain the integrity of the self by exerting an effort to preserve the
consistency and unity of the self.
In contrast, several social psychologists have argued for a concept of self that takes into account the
multiple social roles that one individual may play (Gergen, 1968; Mischel, 1973; Vallacher, 1980).
People have different roles depending on the nature of the interpersonal interaction. These different
selves vary as a function of the differentsocial roles in various social contexts. People act differently as
they interact with diverse groups.
 

The Self as Agent

From the psychological perspective of self, cognitive processes, as well as the social environment,
construct theattributes of what one calls the self. The self is not a passive entity, but rather an active
agent as it adapts flexibly to certain situations and social interactions. Cognitively, it has the capability
to control and balance the differentadaptations of the self. Its active role is reflected in the way the
self actively chooses, selects, and controls(Baumeister, 1999). It often “seeks to exert control over the
environment, to initiate action, and to pursue its variousgoals” (p. 2).
The agent or the executive function is the active aspect of the self. This is essential since it is
responsible for exerting control over one’s actions, feelings, and thinking. With an active self, one can
survive the day-to-day demands of the social world and adapt to different social contexts. These self-
regulation processes are considered a centralfunction of the psychological self (Baumeister, 1999).
In conclusion, the psychological view features a self that is multifaceted in nature. One defines the self
accordingto how one constructs an idea of who one is and how one interacts with one’s own
environment. How one defines the self then reflects its various aspects.
As you can see in your statements about yourself, the qualities and attributes reflect the different
aspects of self. The qualities can be personal traits and abilities (e.g., intelligent, smart). Also, the
descriptions may reflect the qualities ascribed by others (e.g., kind, generous) and characteristics that
are anchored on social roles (e.g., sister, good student). There can be various versions of the self as
well. For instance, the real self is currently experienced and observed, and the ideal self is what one
aspires to be.
Amidst the aggregated nature of self, psychologists believe that one distinct quality of the self is its
capacity for choice and control. The self has the ability to regulate itself, and it can make conscious
choices as it adapts to itsown surrounding environment.
 

Eastern-Western Views of Self

 

Culture has greatly influenced the way individuals behave and view themselves. This is primarily the
reason why across cultures, people have different takes on various things.
 
Cultural Variations of Self
At the beginning of the 20th century, cultural psychologists began to question the universality of
many psychological constructs (Fiske et. al., 1998). Markus and Kitayama (1991) observed that
Western cultures (i.e.,America) define the self differently from the way Eastern cultures do (i.e., Asian
countries).
 
When it comes to value endorsement, some cultures value groups and relationships (i.e., family and
friends),while other cultures give more emphasis on individual attributes like personal qualities and
characteristics (Triandis, 1989). Cultures who value groups and relationships are collectivistic, and they
are common in Eastern countries like in Asia (Japan, China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Korea, and
Indonesia). On the other hand, cultures who value individual characteristics more are individualistic like
most of the Western countries (USA and Europeancountries).
 
Another way of looking at cultural differences is through the social content of the self, the self-
concept in particular. One may construe the self in relation to others, whether as separate from or
connected to others. The self-construal can be independent or interdependent (Markus & Kitayama,
1991). In the independent self, theindividual is the primary unit of consciousness; its goal is to become
independent from others and express one’s unique attributes. The definition of self, therefore, is
anchored on the individual’s personal abilities and characteristics. This is evident among individualistic
cultures. On the other hand, the interdependent self seesoneself as being connected with others. It is
defined according to how one is socially connected with other people, with important groups, and with
social obligations. Relationships with others are very important for those having an interdependent
self-construal, and it is best that one maintains good and meaningful relationships with these
significant others. Moreover, the interdependent self is characterized according to one’s relationship
with closeothers, like family, friends, or a social group. This kind of self-concept is commonly observed
in Eastern societieswhose culture is collectivistic in nature.
The independent/interdependent self- construal concept simply demonstrates how the self actively
responds to the surrounding culture where the self is positioned. Also, it exhibits the adaptability of
the self and the dynamicprocess in which the self constructs itself.
Some Cultural Differences
Way of life
Westerners assert a lot more independence and individualism; they mainly focus on themselves. In
contrast, easterners are more community-oriented.
Punctuality
Westerners are particularly and extremely focused on time. On the other hand, easterners are more
relaxed in comparison
Making Contacts
Westerners tend to have very linear relationships with a few people , whereas Easterners tend to have
more circular relationships in complex, branched-out relationships that reach across many people
Anger/Displeasure
When Westerners are unhappy, their emotions can be easily perceived through body language, facial
expression , and tone. In Easterners , it's a little more difficult to tell how someone is feelking. The
norm is to hide displeasure, especially in front of superiors. Two people may be arguing when in
reality, they are just chatting loudly. In western societies, this loudness is seen as anger.
View of Myself
Westerners think in terms of themselves most importantly. Most Easterners think of themselves as
part of a larger sum
Perception of Beauty
In China and even in the Philippines, the whiter your skin, the more beautiful you are. In Western
countries, the darker your skin, you are deemed beautiful. In Asia, most beauty products contain a
whitening agent for the skin, and women are more likely to cover up on the beach. Meanwhile, in
western countries, skin products produce a golden tan, and they are more likely to sun bath at the
beach.
 
Handling Problems
Westerns tend to take the most direct approach. Problem solving in the East is a bit more complex,
and it may involve an indirect approach.
Life of the Elderly
Senior in Eastern Societies tend to stay at home to raise the grandchildren. In Western societies, there
is more emphasis on independence on how they live their lives.  Majority in the Western community
are often on their own by their own choice. It is uncommon to hear of parents living with their
children.
The Boss
In the East , bosses have greater authority. Subordinates are quick to defer to superiors. A different
view prevails in the West. Subordinates & superiors emphasize interdependence and former can
contradict the latter.