Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.

qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 1

CHAPTER 1

THE SELF

Contents
Self-Awareness
Development of Self-Awareness
Neurological Basis of Self-Awareness
Temporary Differences in Self-Awareness
Chronic Differences in Self-Awareness
Organization Of Self-Knowledge
Self Schema
Self-Schematic Dimensions
Organization of Self-Schema in Memory
Theories Of Self-Concept Maintenance
Theories of Self-Comparison
Theories of Individual Comparison
Theories of Group Comparison
Self-Esteem
Development of Self-Esteem
Consequences of Self-Esteem
Self-Motives
Self-Enhancement
Cultural Differences In Self And Identity
Individualist and Collectivist Cultures
Biculturalism
Summary
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 2

2 Essential Social Psychology

The Self
One characteristic that distinguishes humans from other animals is our capacity for
reflexive thought, the ability to reflect on the way in which we think. Reflexive thought allows
us to think about who we are and how we are perceived by others. Accordingly, we are
constantly defining ourselves. Ask any person who they are, and they will provide an extensive
list of characteristics and identities that represent how they perceive themselves. For instance,
one of the authors of this textbook could describe herself as a woman, a psychologist, an
academic, young, British, and liberal (amongst other things). The self is a fundamental part of
every human, a symbolic construct which reflects our consciousness of our own identity.
In this chapter, we outline the most important developments in theory and research on
the self. We first consider how self-awareness develops and how it affects how we feel and
behave. Second, we outline social-psychological theories of the self which explain how
our perception of the self is formed. These theories can be subdivided into four broad
types: those that explain our sense of self based on observations of our own behavior, and
those that explain our sense of self in terms of comparisons with personally held standards,
other individuals and other groups. Third, we discuss individual differences in self-esteem
and how these differences affect the way we deal with life events. Fourth, we consider our
motivations where self-perception is concerned, the most powerful of which is the motive
for self-enhancement. Finally, although the self is perceived by many to reflect our unique-
ness as a human being, there is considerable evidence that it is influenced by culture. We
therefore discuss cross-cultural differences in perceptions of the self, and consider how
bicultural individuals cope with holding two types of identity simultaneously.

SELF-AWARENESS
Although the self is an essential aspect of every person, we do not think about it all of the
time. Instead, our level of self-awareness varies depending on both the situation and our per-
sonality. Self-awareness is a psychological state in which people are aware of their traits,
feelings and behavior. Alternatively, it can be defined as the realization of oneself as an indi-
vidual entity. In this section, we explain how self-awareness develops in humans and discuss
the areas of the brain which are responsible for this ability. We then distinguish between two
types of self-awareness, private and public, which have diverging consequences for the self.
Each form of self-awareness can either be temporary, as a consequence of a particular situa-
tion, or chronic, reflecting a personality trait that varies from person to person.

Development of Self-Awareness

Infants are not born with self-awareness. Instead, they develop the ability over time. Lewis
and Brooks (1978) put a spot of rouge on the nose of babies and then put them in front of
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 3

The Self 3

a mirror. Babies aged between 9 and 12 months treated the mirror image as if it was
another child and showed no interest in the spot on their nose. Because they lacked
self-awareness, they were unable to identify the baby in the mirror as themselves. By
around 18 months, however, children would curiously look at themselves in the mirror and
touch the spot on their nose; they now recognized that the person they could see was them
and that they were looking different from normal.

Neurological Basis of Self-Awareness

Why do children develop self-awareness at around the age of 18 months? Research has
shown that at around this time, children show a rapid growth of spindle cells, specialized
neurones in the anterior cingulate, an area of the frontal lobe in the cerebral cortex of
the brain thought to be responsible for monitoring and controlling intentional behavior
(Allman & Hasenstaub, 1999). There is also evidence among adults that this area of the
brain is activated when people are self-aware (Kjaer et al., 2002). In sum, although it is not
likely to be the only area of the brain that contributes towards self-awareness, the anterior
cingulate appears to play an important role. To read about a study that investigates the role
of the anterior cingulate and the prefrontal cortex in how we make inferences about others
based on self-reflection, see Text Box 1.1.

TEXT BOX 1.1

Biological Correlates of Self-Perception and Perspective Taking

The prefrontal cortex area of the brain is thought to have a role in a wide range of complex social-
cognitive behaviors, including making inferences about what other people are thinking and process-
ing information about the self. At first glance, understanding other people and understanding the self
seem to be quite different mental processes, so how can the same area of the brain produce both
types of behavior? One explanation is that we might make inferences about the thoughts and feelings
of other people by imagining what our own thoughts and feelings would be if we were in the same
situation. Recent research by Mitchell, Banaji, and Macrae (2005) investigated this possibility.

METHOD
Participants underwent an fMRI (function magnetic resonance imaging) scan, an imaging technique
which shows activity in different areas of the brain by recording changes in the blood flow, while
making judgements about photographs of a series of faces. Participants either made judgments about
the mental state of the target person (how pleased they were to have their photo taken) or a non-
mental state task (how symmetrical their face was). After the fMRI scan, participants were shown each
photograph again and reported how similar they perceived themselves to be to the person in the photo.
(Continued)
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 4

4 Essential Social Psychology

TEXT BOX 1.1 (CONTINUED)

RESULTS Anterior
Cingulate
Participants showed mental activity in the
prefrontal cortex when they were making
inferences about mental state, but not Prefrontal
when they were making judgments about Cortex
the appearance of the individuals in the
photographs.
There was also a correlation between
the amount of activity in the prefrontal cor- Cerebellum
tex and perceived similarity of the partici-
pant to the individuals in the photographs.
However, this relationship emerged only Spinal Cord

when making inferences about mental Source: http://bama.ua.edu/~sprentic/672%20aggression-brain.jpg

state, not for the non-mental state task.

INTERPRETING THE FINDINGS

The fact that the prefrontal cortex was activated when making mental inferences about people but
not when making judgments about appearance suggests that the prefrontal cortex is specifically
used when trying to understand the attributes that other people possess, but not for making more
general judgments about others.
In sum, when participants believed they were similar to the individual about whom they were
making inferences – and therefore were better able to predict the behavior of that individual on the
basis of how they themselves would feel in the same situation – their prefrontal cortex showed
greater activation.

Temporary Differences in Self-Awareness

Social psychologists have distinguished between private and public self-awareness.

Private self-awareness refers to when an individual temporarily becomes aware of
private, personal aspects of the self. People become privately self-aware when they see
their face in a mirror, or experience physiological arousal which may lead them to reflect
on their emotional state, for example whether they are happy, excited, or angry. Private
self-awareness has three important consequences for how people act. First, it results in an
intensified emotional response. If an individual already feels positive, reflecting on those
feelings of happiness will lead them to feel even happier. In contrast, a sad individual who
is privately self-aware may come to feel worse because they dwell on their negative state
of mind. Scheier and Carver (1977) had participants read aloud a series of positive state-
ments (e.g. “I feel light-hearted”) or a series of negative statements (e.g. “Everything
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 5

The Self 5

10

Happiness
7

4
No mirror Mirror

Elation Depression

Figure 1.1 The effect of self-awareness on emotional response following a mood manip-
ulation task. Data from Scheier and Carver (1977)

seems empty and futile”), tasks previously shown to elicit elation and depression. They
found that participants who looked at themselves in a mirror during the task – and were
thus made privately self-aware – become more extreme in their emotional responses than
participants who had not been looking in a mirror during the task (see Figure 1.1).
Second, privately self-aware people are likely to experience clarification of know-
ledge; by focusing on internal events individuals are able to report them with greater
accuracy. Gibbons, Carver, Scheier, and Hormuth (1979) gave participants a placebo
which they were told was a drug that would induce arousal and a number of other side-
effects. Participants with mirror-induced self-awareness reported less arousal and fewer
side-effects than participants in a control condition who could not see themselves in a mir-
ror. While people who were not self-aware based their self-knowledge on their perceptions
of the drug they believed they had taken, self-aware individuals ignored the placebo and
focused on how they were really feeling, resulting in more accurate self-perceptions.
Third, people who are privately self-aware are more likely to adhere to personal
standards of behavior. As they are more aware of their true beliefs, they will act in line with
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 6

6 Essential Social Psychology

those beliefs rather than being influenced by normative pressures (see Chapter 5). Scheier and
Carver (1980) had participants write a counter-attitudinal essay. According to the theory
of cognitive dissonance (see Chapter 3), people feel negative arousal if their attitudes and
behavior are inconsistent, and often deal with this by changing their attitudes in line with their
behavior. However, participants who wrote the essay in front of a mirror showed less attitude
change than participants who wrote the essay without the presence of a mirror.
Public self-awareness arises when a person is aware of public aspects of themselves
that can be seen and evaluated by others. People are publicly self-aware when they are
being watched by others, for example giving a presentation, talking in a seminar, being
photographed or being filmed. Public self-awareness is associated with evaluation
apprehension. When people are the focus of other’s attention, they realize they are being
appraised by those observers (see also Chapter 4). The fear of a negative evaluation can
lead to nervousness and a loss of self-esteem, particularly if a person’s perceived actual
public image does not match their desired public image. Finally, in contrast to the effects
of private self-awareness, public self-awareness leads to adherence to social standards of
behavior; people who are aware of the perceptions of others, for example their social
group, are more likely to conform to group norms, even if this does not match their private
point of view (see Chapter 5).

Chronic Differences in Self-Awareness

In addition to temporary heightening of self-awareness that people experience from time

to time as a result of the situation, some people are chronically more likely to experience
self-awareness. Such individuals can be described as possessing the personality trait
of self-consciousness. Mirroring temporary differences in self-awareness, people can be
either publicly or privately self-conscious. A simple way to think about self-consciousness
is that it is the same as public or private self-awareness, but refers to chronic (i.e. general
tendencies) to be one or the other. Public and private self-consciousness are not mutually
exclusive; an individual can be high in one of these traits, both of these traits, or neither.
People who are high in private self-consciousness experience chronically heightened
private self-awareness; they therefore experience more intense emotions, are more likely
to remain true to their personal beliefs and have more accurate self-perceptions. Being
privately self-conscious has both positive and negative implications for the individual. On
the plus side, such individuals are less likely to suffer from ill health as a result of stress
because they pay more attention to their physiological state and so notice earlier if there is
a problem (Mullen & Suls, 1982). However, the down side of being high in private self-
consciousness is a greater tendency to suffer from depression and neuroticism; such
individuals are more likely to pay attention to and ruminate about any feelings of unhap-
piness or discomfort they are experiencing.
People who are high in public self-consciousness are particularly concerned with how
they are perceived by those around them. As a result they are more likely to adhere to
group norms, more likely to avoid embarrassing situations (Froming et al., 1990), more
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 7

The Self 7

Public Self- Private Self-

Awareness Awareness

Temporary
Differences
Developmental Public Self-
Basis Consciousness
SELF- Chronic
AWARENESS Differences
Neurological Private Self-
Basis Consciousness

THE SELF

Figure 1.2 Memory Map

concerned with their own physical appearance and more likely to judge others based on
their physical appearance.

Summary

Self-awareness is a psychological state in which people are aware of their traits, feelings
and behavior. The ability to be self-aware develops during early childhood, as the anterior
cingulate, an area of the frontal lobe in the cerebral cortex of the brain develops. In adult-
hood, this area of the brain is only activated when people are self-aware. We have both
temporary and chronic differences in self-awareness. Individuals who are temporarily
privately self-aware experience intensified emotional response and clarification of
knowledge, and are more likely to adhere to personal standards of behavior. When an
individual is temporarily publicly self-aware, on the other hand, they may experience eval-
uation apprehension and a loss of self-esteem, and they are more likely to adhere to social
standards of behavior. The effects of private and public self-consciousness, or chronic
self-awareness, parallel the impact of being temporarily privately or publicly self-aware.

ORGANIZATION OF SELF-KNOWLEDGE
When we are self-aware, we access the information we have about ourselves. But how is
this information organized in our minds? The knowledge that we have about the world is
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 8

8 Essential Social Psychology

stored as schemas, cognitive structures that represent the knowledge we have about a
particular concept or type of stimulus (see also Chapter 2). Each schema is developed
through our experiences with a stimulus, and holds all the information we have about it.
A self-schema reflects how we expect ourselves to think, feel and behave in a particular
situation. Each self-schema consists of our perception of our self (for example, ‘shy’) and
incorporates our experience on this dimension (for example, we know that we are likely
to be shy when at a party, or when asked to talk about our opinions during a seminar).
For each of us, some self-schemas are particularly important whilst others are less
important or even irrelevant. Markus (1977) argued that if a particular aspect of the self
is perceived as particularly important, if the person thinks they are extreme on that dimen-
sion (high or low on it), and if they are certain that the opposite is not true for them, then
an individual can be described as self-schematic on that dimension. If, for example, you
are a student, you are likely to be self-schematic on that dimension if being a student is
very important to you, you think you are a highly typical example of a student, and you
think you are very different from someone who is not a student. In contrast, you would
be self-aschematic on a particular dimension if it is not important to you and does not
reflect who you are.
Each of us holds a complex self-concept made up of a number of discrete self-
schemas. Our self-schemas are likely to be more complex and varied than other
schemas represented in memory, given that we acquire more information about the self
than about anything else. Markus and Sentis (1982) proposed that as well as current
self-schema, we also hold possible future self-schema, for example self-schemas that
reflect how we would like to be in the future, and self-schemas that reflect how we
think (or fear) we will actually turn out (we will look at this distinction between how
we perceive ourselves to be, and how we would ideally like to be, later on in this chap-
ter). Having complex and varied self-schemas is beneficial for us, buffering us from
negative events or failures in our life. This is because if one self-schema is having a
negative impact on us, there will be other self-schemas from which we derive satisfac-
tion, or that allow us to see ourselves in a positive light. To give you an example of
how self-schemas might be organized, Figure 1.3 shows some of the self-schemas that
represent one of the authors.
We now know how our self-knowledge is organized in memory. But how does the orga-
nization of self-schemas affect how we think, feel and behave? Self-schemas become
active in relevant situations and provide us with information regarding how – based on our
beliefs of who we are – we should respond. Dimensions on which we are self-schematic
are particularly likely to be activated in relevant domains, as a study conducted by Markus
(1977) demonstrated. Participants who had either previously rated themselves as self-
schematic on the trait of dependence or independence, or aschematic on both, completed
a reaction-time task. Participants were presented on a screen with words that were associ-
ated with independence (for example, assertive) and dependence (for example, obliging)
and were asked to press a “me” button if this described them or a “not me” button if it did
not. Participants who were self-schematic on independence or dependence were much
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 9

The Self 9

Musical Creative

Insecure Single-minded
Absent-
minded

Psychologist Consceientious

RHIANNON

Organized Female

Talkative

Independent Impatient

Sporty Spiritual

Self-
Traits which are a highly important aspect of the self-concept
Schematic

Soemwhat
Traits which describe the self to some extent
Schematic

Aschematic Traits which are irrelevant to the self

Figure 1.3 An example of self-schemas

Organization Self-
in Memory Schematic

Self- ORGANIZATION OF
THE SELF
Schema SELF-KNOWLEDGE

Figure 1.4 Memory Map

faster at identifying whether a word characterized them than participants who were
aschematic on either of these characteristics. Moreover, self-schematic participants also
had better memory for incident from the past which demonstrated their dependence or
independence.
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 10

10 Essential Social Psychology

THEORIES OF SELF-CONCEPT MAINTENANCE

Having identified when and why we are likely to become self-aware, the consequences of
self-awareness, and how knowledge about the self is organized in our minds, we now turn
to how self-schemas develop. What is the content of our self-schemas, and why do we
come to view ourselves in the way that we do? In this section, we discuss six theories that
explain how our self-concept is managed and maintained. These are control theory of self-
regulation, self-discrepancy theory, social comparison theory, self-evaluation maintenance,
social identity theory and self-categorization theory. All of these theories propose that how
we define the self and how it subsequently affects our behavior depend largely upon how
the self compares to a particular point of comparison. There are three types of compara-
tive theory which each focus on a different target of comparison. The self can be compared
to perceptions of how the self should be, to other individuals, or to other groups. We
discuss each of these types of theory below.

Theories of Self-Comparison

Many social psychologists believe that people form a sense of self from a comparison
process. The first class of these comparison theories focuses on comparing the self with …
the self. This is not as strange as it might first appear. As we discussed above, people have
different versions of the self. They can, for instance, know how they actually are, but also
have an idea of what how they would like to be. Two theories fall into this category:
control theory of self-regulation and self-discrepancy theory. Both theories argue that
when people are self-aware, they can think about whether they are the sort of person they
want to be or whether there are ways in which they would like to change.

Control Theory of Self-Regulation

Carver and Scheier (1981, 1998) proposed that through self-awareness we are able to
assess whether or not we are meeting our goals. The central element of the control theory
of self-regulation is a cognitive feedback loop which illustrates four steps involved in self-
regulation; Test, Operate, Test, and Exit (see Figure 1.5). In the first test phase, people
compare the self against one of two standards. People who are privately self-aware
compare themselves against a private standard, such as the values we believe to be impor-
tant. In contrast, people who are publicly self-aware compare themselves against a public
standard, for example the values held by our friends and family (see the discussion of
private versus public self-awareness earlier in the chapter). If someone believes they are
failing to meet the relevant standard, they put into operation a change in behavior in order
to meet this standard. When they next self-reflect on that issue, they re-test themselves,
comparing their self to their values or the values of others for a second time. If the self still
falls short of the standard, the feedback loop will repeat itself. If, however, the self and the
standard are now in line with one another, the individual will exit the feedback loop.
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 11

The Self 11

TEST
Self-schema of
Am I as hard-working EXIT
hard-working YES
as other people on my
psychology course?

NO

OPERATE
Spend more time in
the library and take
more time when
writing essays

Figure 1.5 Carver and Scheier (1981, 1998)’s control theory of self-regulation. Illustration
of TEST-OPERATE-TEST-EXIT feedback loop

The control theory of self-regulation is, on first glance, an optimistic theory, illustrating
how we can improve the self through a combination of self-awareness and self-regulation.
However, an intriguing study conducted by Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, and Tice
(1998) showed that self-regulating one aspect of the self makes it subsequently more
difficult to self-regulate other aspects of the self. Participants who had signed up to take
part in a study which they were led to believe was about taste perception were instructed
to make sure they had not eaten for at least Three hours when they came to the laboratory.
On arrival, participants entered a room with a small oven in which chocolate chip cookies
had just been baked, ensuring that the delicious aroma of chocolate and baking filled the
room. They were then seated at a table which had a stack of chocolate cookies on one side
and a bowl of radishes, on the other (see Figure 1.6). In the radishes condition, participants
were asked to eat at least two or three radishes, while in the chocolate condition, partici-
pants were asked to eat at least two or three cookies. In both conditions, participants were
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 12

12 Essential Social Psychology

4
Change in Emotion

−2
Ideal Prime Ought Prime

Dejection Agitation

Figure 1.6 Evidence for self-discrepancy theory. Data from Higgins, Bond, Klein, and
Strauman (1986)

reminded that they should only eat the food assigned to them. They were left for five
minutes and observed through a one-way mirror to ensure that they had followed the
instructions given to them by the experimenter.
After completing this task, participants were asked if they minded helping out the
experimenter by taking part in an unrelated experiment on problem-solving. In actual
fact, this was part of the same study. Participants were instructed to complete a problem-
solving task, taking as much time as they wanted, and were told that they would not be
judged on how long they took, only on whether or not they managed to solve the puzzle.
In reality, the task had actually been prepared so that it was impossible to solve. The
dependent measure in the study was how long participants kept working on the task
before giving up. Participants gave up on the problem-solving task much more quickly
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 13

The Self 13

in the radishes condition, after an average of just 8 minutes, than in the chocolate
condition, where participants spent on average 19 minutes on the task. In sum, partici-
pants who had previously had to exert self-control – by eating the radishes and ignoring
the chocolate – were less able to persist on the difficult and frustrating puzzle task. On
the basis of these and similar findings, Baumeister and colleagues argued that we have
limited cognitive resources at our disposal to self-regulate. As a result, when we self-
regulate in one domain, the resources we have left to self-regulate in another domain are
temporarily depleted.

Self-Discrepancy Theory
Higgins (1987) proposed a theory which also argues that people compare the self to a
relevant standard. However, self-discrepancy theory focuses not only on the awareness
of discrepancies between actual and ideal identity, but also on people’s emotional res-
ponse to such discrepancies. Higgins argued that people possess three types of self-
schema. The actual self reflects how we are at present. The ideal self is a point of
reference which reflects how we would really like to be (this ideal self is made up of
the traits, characteristics and qualities that an individual wishes or hopes they could
possess). The ought self, in contrast, represents the traits or characteristics that an
individual believes they should possess, based on a sense of duty, responsibility or oblig-
ation. According to the theory, people are motivated to ensure that their actual self
matches their ideal and ought self; the greater the discrepancy between the actual self and
a self-guide (either ideal or ought), the greater the psychological discomfort that will be
experienced. To give a specific example of this, imagine that you work in a supermarket,
but you are an aspiring artist. Your parents, however, are keen for you to pursue a med-
ical career. In this case, your actual self (supermarket employee) differs from both your
ideal self (artist) and your ought self (doctor).
The two types of self-discrepancy are thought to be related to unique emotional
responses. An actual-ideal discrepancy is associated with the absence of positive outcomes,
which results in dejection-related emotions like disappointment and sadness. Thus, if you
are doing a painting on your day off from work, causing you to think about the fact that
although you are a checkout assistant you would rather be a professional artist, you may feel
somewhat depressed. Actual-ought discrepancies, on the other hand, are associated with the
presence of negative outcomes, which results in agitation-related emotions like anger, fear,
and nervousness. So, if you visit your parents on your day off from work, this may remind
you that you are failing to meet their high expectations for you to become a doctor, making
you feel anxious or annoyed. Higgins, Bond, Klein, and Strauman (1986) identified
participants who had previously reported either a low or a high discrepancy between their
ideal and their actual and ought selves. Several weeks later, these participants completed a
task in which they either had to focus on and describe the difference between their ideal or
ought self, and their actual self. Their findings are reported in Figure 1.7. Participants with
a high level of discrepancy showed an increase in dejection-related emotions after thinking
about their actual-ideal discrepancies, and an increase in agitation-related emotions after
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 14

14 Essential Social Psychology

STRATEGY EXAMPLE

1 Exaggerate the ability of successful target “They are more successful than me because they are a
genius. But I am still really clever”

2 Change the target of comparison “I am much more clever and successful than many
other people on my psychology course”

3 Distance the self from successful target “We are very different people with different interests,
so I no longer sit with her in class”

4 Devalue the dimension of comparison “She may get better grades than me, but I have a better
social life – and being popular is more important.”

Figure 1.7 Strategies used to maintain self-esteem in the face of upward comparison

thinking about their actual-ought discrepancies. In contrast, participants with low discrep-
ancies showed no significant changes in either emotion.
Self-discrepancy theory implies that by generating negative arousal, discrepancies will
motivate people to reduce the discomfort they are experiencing by making changes that
reduce discrepancies (see the discussion of cognitive dissonance in Chapter 3 for a similar
idea). However, this may not always be the case. Negative emotions often hinder success-
ful self-regulation because if people feel upset they are more likely to give in to their
immediate impulses to make themselves feel better rather than working towards a more
distant goal. For instance, if we ideally want to be slimmer than we actually are, we may
reduce our calorie intake in an attempt to reduce this actual-ideal discrepancy. However, if
we look in the mirror one day and are reminded of the difference that still remains between
our actual self and our ideal self, we may give in to our impulses, providing ourselves with
instant comfort by eating a large piece of cake. This will reduce unhappiness and discom-
fort in the short term, but makes our overall goal a more distant prospect.

Theories of Individual Comparison

In the previous section we saw how people can develop a sense of who they are from
observing their own behavior and from comparing themselves to “better” versions of the
self. Social comparison theory and self-evaluation maintenance theory argue, in contrast,
that we learn about the self by comparing ourselves with other individuals.

Social Comparison Theory

According to social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954), we learn how to define the self
by comparing ourselves with those around us. Although comparing ourselves with
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 15

The Self 15

different ideal and ought version of ourselves, and comparing ourselves with other people,
are not mutually exclusive processes, there is one crucial difference. Social comparison
theory argues that beliefs, feelings, and behaviors are subjective; they are, in isolation,
simply the product of our own ruminations. In other words, there is no objective bench-
mark against which we can compare them. As such, while comparing ourselves with
notions of how we should be or how we would like to be can lead to changes in the
self-concept, the resulting self-definition remains subjectively defined: that is, without
any feeling of external validation. In contrast, comparing ourselves with others provides
an external, objective benchmark against which to compare our thoughts, feelings and
behaviors – providing people with a sense of validation for the way they are.
Where behavior is concerned (e.g. academic performance), rather than always compar-
ing the self to someone who is very similar, people may sometimes make upward com-
parisons (comparing themselves to someone who they believe to be better than them) or
downward comparisons (comparing themselves to someone who they believe to be worse
than them. People who are motivated by a desire for an accurate self-evaluation may make
both upward and downward comparisons as both types of comparison are useful for deriving
the most precise estimate of, for instance, academic ability. However, as we discuss in more
detail in the later section in this chapter on self-motives, people are typically motivated to see
themselves in a positive light. The self-evaluation maintenance model tries to explain how we
maintain a positive self-esteem when comparing ourselves to others.

Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model

Imagine an acquaintance on your psychology course who always seems to get a higher
grade than you on essays and projects. How would you deal with this situation? Tesser’s
(1988) self-evaluation maintenance model explains what we do when we are faced with
someone whose success has implications for our own self-esteem. People respond to the
success of someone else in one of two ways. Social reflection is when we derive our self-
esteem from the accomplishments of those who are close to us, without considering our
own achievement in that domain. This may help to explain why parents are often so proud
of their children’s achievements. However, knowing someone who is successful can also
evoke an upward social comparison, comparing our own achievements with the achieve-
ments of the target person. When someone we know is doing very well in a particular
domain, what determines whether we engage in social reflection or social comparison?
We are only likely to engage in social reflection with the successful individual under two
conditions. First, the domain on which the individual is successful must be irrelevant to
us. When this is the case, the success of someone else does not threaten our self-concept
in any way. As such, we can enjoy their success because it adds to our abilities rather than
challenging them. Second, we must be certain about our abilities in that particular domain.
If we are confident that we are also very successful, the success of someone else should
pose no threat to us. Instead, their success should actually add to our perception of
success. If, for example, you are certain that you are excellent at psychology, the success
of another student is unlikely to concern you. Instead, knowing that someone else is also
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 16

16 Essential Social Psychology

very good should lead you to reflect on the fact that you are on a top psychology course
where the students tend to be excellent, enhancing rather than threatening your self-concept.
When the domain on which another person is successful is relevant, however, this
evokes an upward comparison. 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 of the self as being
successful on this domain and will have a negative impact on our self-esteem. Uncertainty
about our own abilities will also evoke an upward comparison. If we are uncertain about
our own abilities and we are then confronted by someone who is very able on a particular
domain, this is likely to further increase our uncertainty in our own abilities. Again, this is
likely to have a negative impact on our self-esteem. In sum, 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 an upward comparison which can have a
detrimental effect on our self-esteem. But how can we maintain a positive self-concept in
such circumstances?
According to the self-evaluation maintenance model, we have four strategies at our
disposal (see Figure 1.8). First, we can exaggerate the ability of the person who is outper-
forming us. In the case of the clever psychology student, if you reclassify that student as
“a genius”, the comparison is no longer relevant – the student is essentially in a different
league from you – and you can still classify yourself as above average in psychology
ability. Second, we can switch the target of comparison to someone who we know to be
less successful than us, creating a downward comparison that is good for self-esteem. So,
you might compare yourself to someone else on your psychology course who generally
does less well on essays and exams than you do. By making this new and different com-
parison, it is now you who is the success. Third, we can downplay our similarity to the tar-
get of comparison or physically and emotionally distance ourselves from them. You might,
for example, stop sitting with or talking to the clever student. Fourth and finally, we can
maintain positive self-esteem by devaluing the dimension of comparison. You might, for
example, argue that academic success is not important to you, but that having a good social
life is much more important.

Theories of Group Comparison

Although early researchers investigating the self (e.g. Freud, 1921) perceived the self to be
a unique identity which we share with no-one else, social psychologists now have a more
flexible notion of the self. The self-concept is thought to be made up of many self-
schemas, some of which reflect individual aspects of the self, such as personality, but
others which reflect our relationships with family, friends, and social groups. Although in
combination these self-schemas make us unique because no other person is likely to have
exactly the same configuration, we certainly share aspects of our identity with others.
“Social psychologist”, for example, is an important self-schema held by both authors of
this book, and many thousands of other people (believe it or not). More broadly, being
either female or male is part of all of our self-concepts, but it is a part that we share with
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 17

The Self 17

60

Percentage of Points Assigned to Own Group

58

56

54

52

50
Group Norm: Group Norm:
Fairness Discrimination

Other group norm: Other group norm:

Fairness Discrimination

Figure 1.8 The effect of group norms on behavior when social identity is salient. Data
from Jetten, Spears, and Manstead (1996)

millions of other people. Brewer and Gardner (1996) proposed three types of self that
reflect these shared and non-shared aspects. The individual self consists of attributes and
personality traits that differentiate us from other individuals (for example, “introverted”).
The relational self is defined by our relationships with significant others (for example,
“sister”). Finally, the collective self reflects our membership in social groups (for example,
“British”). In this section we focus on the collective self, and how our membership in
social groups contributes towards the definition of our self-concept.
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 18

18 Essential Social Psychology

Social Identity Approach

Aspects of the self, according to social identity theory, (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tafjel &
Turner, 1979) can be divided into those that reflect our personal identity and those that
reflect our social identity. Personal identities are those that reflect idiosyncratic aspects of
the self, such as personality traits. In contrast, our social identity reflects the broader social
groups to which we belong. The organization of our self-schemas means that each identity
we hold is associated with a range of associated concepts that guide our thoughts, feelings
and behavior. However, given that we hold many different identities it would be impossible,
and indeed impractical, for us to use every identity to guide our behavior. Instead, our
sense of self at any particular point in time depends upon which of our many personal or
social identities is psychological salient (i.e. which identity we are most aware of).
Which identity is salient at any given time depends on the context. Imagine, for exam-
ple, that you are chatting to a close friend on your college campus. At this point in time,
it is your personal identity that is likely to be salient, as you talk about your personal
experiences with another individual. Imagine now that you arrive at the college soccer
pitch to watch a match between your college and a rival college. Because you are here to
support your college team, your social identity as a member of that college will now be
salient. Each social identity is associated with a range of attributes that characterize the
prototypical group member. They are also associated with a set of group norms a collec-
tion of shared beliefs about how group members should think and behave.
Self-categorization theory is an extension of social identity theory that focuses on the
set of group norms that define collective identities. According to this theory, when an
individual’s social identity becomes salient, their perceptions of themselves and others
become depersonalized. In other words, rather than seeing themselves as a unique indi-
vidual, they will perceive themselves more in terms of the shared features that define group
membership, thinking and behaving more in line with the norms of that group. Group
members also obey what is referred to as the meta-contrast principle, which means that
they exaggerate similarities within the group and differences with other groups.
Jetten, Spears, and Manstead (1996) illustrated the effect of social identity on adherence
to group norms. Participants first had their social identity made salient by being told they
were being assigned to one of two groups, based on the technique they had used during an
initial task in which they were required to estimate the number of dots on a computer
screen. To increase identification with their group, they then took part in what they
believed was a “group task”, although in actual fact there were no other group members
(see Chapter 6 to learn more about this type of “minimal group” paradigm). In this task,
they estimated the number of black squares appearing on a screen and were given false
feedback about the estimates of three other group members. They were then asked to
distribute money between members of their own group and members of another group. To
manipulate the group norm, participants learned that 10 out of 15 members of their group
who had already taken part in the study had either distributed money equally between
the two groups (a “fairness” strategy), or had given more money to their own group (a
“discrimination” strategy). The norm of the other group was also manipulated, so that
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 19

The Self 19

THE SELF

THEORIES OF
SELF-CONCEPT
MAINTENANCE

Theories Theories of Theories

of Self- Individual of Group
Comparison Comparison Comparison

Social Self-Evaluation
Self-Regulation Self-Discrepancy Social Identity
Comparison Maintenance
Theory Theory Approach
Theory Model

Figure 1.9 Memory Map

participants believed that the other group tended to distribute money equally or fairly. As
Figure 1.9 illustrates, participants were strongly influenced by the norms of their own
group, giving a greater proportion of money to members of their own group when there
was a norm of discrimination but distributing money more equally between the two groups
when there was a group norm of fairness. In contrast, they paid somewhat less attention to
the norms of the other group.
There are many real-life examples of how group norms can affect our attitudes and behav-
ior. People who are normally perfectly reasonable and non-violent sometimes become
aggressive and anti-social when they act as a group member rather than as an individual.
A clear example of this is the fights and riots that sometimes erupt at football matches
between the supporters of different teams (see our discussion of collective aggression
in Chapter 7). Similarly, research has shown that women perform more poorly on maths
tests than men when their gender identity is made salient because they conform to
the negative stereotypes associated with their group membership (Steele, 1997; see the
discussion of stereotype threat in Chapter 2).
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 20

20 Essential Social Psychology

Summary

Three types of theory explain how our self-concept is formed, differing on the basis of
whether the self is compared to a self-standard, to other individuals, or to other groups.
Two theories propose that the self is often compared to an ideal version of the self. Control
theory of self-regulation argues that depending on whether we are privately or publicly
self-aware, we compare the self against a private or a public self-standard, and when there
is a mismatch between the self and the self-standard, we are motivated to change our
behavior to eliminate this mismatch. Similarly, self-discrepancy theory proposes that the
actual self is compared to one of two self-guides, the ideal self and the ought self. A
discrepancy between the actual and ideal self generates dejection-related emotions,
whereas a discrepancy between the actual-ought self generates agitation-related emotions.
In both cases, the psychological discomfort motivates a change to reduce the discrepancy.
Social comparison theory and self-evaluation maintenance model both propose that
our self-concept can be derived from comparisons with other individuals. According to
social comparison theory, because there is no objectively “correct” self, we compare our-
selves to similar others to validate our attitudes and behavior.The self-evaluation mainte-
nance model proposes that we maintain a positive self-image through two processes: social
reflection (deriving self-esteem from the accomplishments of others) and social
comparison (comparing our achievements with the achievements of others). Finally,

2
Aggression

−1

−2
0 10 20 30 40
Narcissism

Ego Threat Praise

Figure 1.10 The effect of narcissism on aggression. Data from Bushman and
Baumeister (1998)
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 21

The Self 21

according to the social identity approach, we can also derive a sense of self from the social
groups to which we belong. When a particular group membership is salient, we define our-
selves in terms of our social identity rather than our personal identity, and think and behave
in accordance with the set of social norms associated with that particular group.

SELF-ESTEEM
It is clear from the theories described above that we devote much time to working out who
exactly we are, often by making comparisons with self-standards, other individuals and
other groups. Given the amount of time we spend thinking about the self and comparing it
to others it is not surprising that the self has an important evaluative component. We
touched on this briefly above in our discussion of self-evaluative maintenance theory; we
not only think about what our self-concept is, but also whether aspects of our self-concept
are positive or negative. An individual’s self-esteem is their subjective appraisal of them-
selves as intrinsically positive or negative (Sedikides & Gregg, 2002), and can have
significant implications for psychological functioning.
Our level of self-esteem inevitably varies from time to time, depending on the context we
find ourselves in. Getting a good mark for your psychology coursework is likely to elevate
your self-esteem; getting a poor mark is likely to depress it. However, it is quite easy to bring
to mind some people who always seem to be self-confident and others who display more
self-doubt and pessimism about their lives. In this section, we talk about such chronic
individual differences in self-esteem, how they develop and what consequences they have.

Development of Self-Esteem

How positive our self-concept is in later life appears to depend, at least to some extent, on
the parenting style of our primary caregivers (Baumrind, 1991). There are three parenting
styles which differ on two dimensions: how demanding (controlling, imposing rules and
punishments) and how responsive (warm and supportive) the parent is towards the child.
Children with the highest self-esteem are typically brought up by authoritative parents.
This type of parent has a style high on both of these dimensions. They place a lot of
demands on their child, imposing rules on them and disciplining them for disobedience.
However, they are also responsive, supportive and warm. Children with lower self-esteem
and less confidence in their abilities are often brought up with one of two less effective
styles of parenting. Authoritarian parents are overly strict and demanding, failing to be
responsive to the child’s needs (see also Chapter 6, on the authoritarian personality). At the
opposite end of the spectrum, permissive parents are responsive, but not strict enough,
indulging their child’s every desire.
Although the level of chronic self-esteem people have may be determined during
childhood, a meta-analysis of 50 self-esteem studies conducted by Robins and colleagues
(2002) showed that over the course of people’s lifespan general tendencies to have either
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 22

22 Essential Social Psychology

high or low self-esteem can vary. They found that self-esteem among children aged bet-
ween 6 and 11 was relatively unstable. This may be because young children are still in
the process of developing their self-concept. Self-esteem was most stable among people
in their 20s and remained relatively stable until mid-adulthood, probably because by this
point in time, people have a fully developed sense of self and are less affected by tem-
porary life changes. By the age of 60, however, self-esteem stability declines.
Trzesniewski and colleagues explained that this might reflect the life changes that occur
later in life, for example retirement, declining health and the death of others from their
generation.

Consequences of Self-Esteem

Many researchers have investigated the consequences of having low or high self-esteem.
However, before we go any further, it is important to note that a review by Baumeister and
colleagues (1989) showed that the “low self-esteem” individuals in most studies do not
have low levels of self-esteem in absolute terms. Instead, they simply have lower self-
esteem, in relative terms, compared to high self-esteem individuals. Nevertheless, as we
shall see, there is evidence that people with lower self-esteem deal with life events quite
differently from individuals with higher self-esteem.

Mood Regulation
There is a general assumption that everyone wants to feel positive about themselves and
their lives and, to this end, do everything possible to maintain a positive outlook. However,
recent research by Joanne Wood and her colleague indicates that people with lower self-
esteem are less likely to make the effort to feel good than people with higher self-esteem.
Two studies succinctly demonstrate how people with higher and lower self-esteem differ
in their reactions to positive and negative life events. Wood, Heimpel, and Michela (2003)
recorded participants’ memories of positive events. They found that people with lower self-
esteem were more likely to “dampen” the good feelings they experienced, by distracting
themselves, trying to make themselves feel less good, and trying to calm themselves, than
were people with higher self-esteem. Heimpel, Wood, Marshall, and Brown (2002) got
participants who had reported a failure in their everyday life to list their immediate plans
and reasons for those plans. Participants with lower self-esteem were less likely to express
goals to improve their mood than were participants higher in self-esteem. Heimpel and
colleagues also found that having a goal to improve one’s mood was associated with a
greater improvement in mood the following day.
Together, these findings indicate that people with lower self-esteem make less effort to reg-
ulate their mood; they do not try and maintain a good mood after a positive life event, neither
are they motivated to elevate their mood after a negative life event. These findings demonstrate
that having lower self-esteem can be maladaptive, and explain why people with lower self-
esteem tend to feel worse than those with higher self-esteem after a negative event (e.g.
Brown & Dutton, 1995).
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 23

The Self 23

Narcissism
One of the major criticisms of the study of self-esteem has been the over-emphasis on the
negative consequences of lower self-esteem. Clearly, having lower self-esteem can be
maladaptive for that individual, as the findings of Wood and colleagues discussed above
show. However, lower self-esteem is also frequently cited as an antecedent of anti-social
behavior, including the violent behavior of youth gangs (Anderson, 1994), perpetrators
of domestic violence (Renzetti, 1992), armed robbers (MacDonald, 1975), murderers
(Kirschner, 1992) and terrorists (Long, 1990). Despite these claims, there is actually very
little supportive evidence for this.
Baumeister, Smart, and Boden (1996) put forward the alternative argument that it is in
fact higher self-esteem that is associated with higher levels of aggression and violence (see
Chapter 7 for a more detailed discussion of the antecedents of aggression), although only
under certain circumstances. Specifically, they proposed that people with higher self-
esteem who have their ego threatened in some way, for example someone contradicting
their viewpoint or their positive self-appraisal, will react aggressively to defend their
higher self-esteem. Clearly, not all people with higher self-esteem behave aggressively
when they feel threatened, so what determines who becomes aggressive? It seems that
individuals who respond with aggression to an ego-threat are narcissistic. In other words,
they tend to have extremely high self-esteem, believing that they are somehow special and
superior to others, but at the same time, their self-esteem is unstable. As a result, they are
reliant on validation from others in order to maintain their fragile positive self-concept
(Kernis & Paradise, 2002). This may explain why criticism may generate such an explo-
sive response from these individuals. In contrast, people with normal, stable higher levels
of self-esteem are typically no more aggressive than individuals with lower self-esteem.
Bushman and Baumeister (1998) illustrated the relationship between narcissism and the
tendency to be aggressive. Participants were told they were taking part in a study on how
people respond to feedback from others and that they would be working with another
participant. They then wrote a one paragraph essay which was subsequently taken away to
be shown to the other participant (although there was, in fact, no second participant).
Participants marked and gave feedback on the essay of the “other participant” and were
then given feedback on their own essay, supposedly from that other participant. In the
praise condition, participants were given positive ratings and the comment “Great essay!”,
whilst in the threat condition, they were given negative ratings and the comment “This is
one of the worst essays I have read!” Finally, participants were told that they would take
part in a competitive reaction time task with the other participant, in which they would
have to press a button as fast as possible on each trial. Whoever failed the trial would
then receive a blast of noise from the other participant, which could be varied in intensity,
and which therefore determined how much discomfort it would cause the recipient. The
results are shown in Figure 1.11. There was a positive relationship between narcissism
and aggression (measured by the intensity of noise delivered to the other participant), but
this relationship was particularly strong when there was an ego threat. In other words,
individuals higher in narcissism were even more aggressive than individuals lower in
narcissism when they felt their ego was threatened.
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 24

24 Essential Social Psychology

Development

SELF-
THE SELF
ESTEEM

Consequences

Figure 1.11 Memory Map

Summary

An individual’s self-esteem reflects how positively or negatively they evaluate their

self-concept. Although self-esteem inevitably varies depending on the situation, there are
also chronic individual differences in self-esteem. Whether we view ourselves positively
or negatively as an adult depends in part on how we were brought up; people who have
controlling but responsive, authoritarian parents tend to have higher self-esteem than
children whose parents were authoritarian or permissive. Many researchers have inves-
tigated the consequences of self-esteem for the individual. People with high self-esteem
are better at mood regulation, and therefore better able to react constructively to life
events, than people with low self-esteem, who tend to dampen positive feelings but dwell
on the negative feelings that they experience. Having high self-esteem can have negative
consequences, however; research has shown that narcissistic individuals, who have a high
but fragile self-esteem, are more likely to be aggressive than people with lower self-
esteem, particularly if their self-esteem is threatened in some way.

SELF-MOTIVES
Give that the self-concept is central to every individual, guiding attitudes and behavior and
determining whether people feel positive or negative about themselves, we might expect it
to be a key guiding principle in motivating our behavior. In this next section, we discuss
three of these motivations.
First, we hold a motive for self-assessment, a desire to know who we truly are, regard-
less of whether the truth is positive or negative. We are motivated to have an accurate
self-perception to reduce uncertainty about our abilities or personal characteristics. For
this reason, people like to complete diagnostic tests, which evaluate the performance of
an individual and distinguish their performance from the performance of others, when
evaluating the self (Trope, 1983).
Second, we are motivated to seek information that enables self-verification (Swann,
1997). Put another way, we want to confirm what we already believe to be true about our
self-concept, even if we see ourselves in a negative light. If our search for information
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 25

The Self 25

0.7

0.6

Index of Apparel Wearing

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2
Match Won Match Not Won

Own University Apparel Other University Apparel

Figure 1.12 Basking in reflected glory. Data from Cialdini and colleagues (1976)

confirms what we already believe, this reassures us that we have an accurate self-
perception and provides us with a sense of security and stability. To demonstrate the self-
verification motivation, Swann, Stein-Seroussi, and Giesler (1992) asked people who had
either a positive or a negative self-concept whether they would prefer to interact with eval-
uators who had a favorable impression of them, or an unfavorable impression of them.
They found that people with a positive self-concept were more likely to choose the evalu-
ator who viewed them positively, but people with a negative self-concept tended to choose
the evaluator who viewed them negatively.
Third, we have a motivation for self-enhancement, a desire to seek out information
about ourselves that allows us to see the self in a positive light. We discuss self-
enhancement in more detail in the following section, but before we do that it is important
to think about which of these three motives are the most important for guiding people’s
behavior. This is not such an easy question, because the three can be somewhat contradic-
tory, particularly for people with lower self-esteem. Self-enhancement would involve look-
ing for positive self-knowledge whereas self-verification would involve seeking out
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 26

26 Essential Social Psychology

negative self-knowledge. However, some research has suggested that individuals with
lower self-esteem seek a compromise between these two motives, seeking out individuals
who make them feel better about themselves without completely disconfirming their
existing negative self-concept (Morling & Epstein, 1997).
Despite some inventive compromises to enable people to satisfy all three motives,
ultimately one appears to come out on top. Sedikides (1993) conducted a series of studies
in which the motives of self-assessment, self-verification and self-enhancement were
pitted against each other. Participants completed a self-reflection task in which they could
pick questions to ask themselves in order to learn what sort of person they were.
Participants’ strongest tendency was to ask themselves questions that focused on positive
rather than negative aspects of the self. They were much less likely to ask themselves ques-
tions that focused on core aspects of themselves that they already know a lot about (self-
verification) or peripheral aspects of themselves that they didn’t know much about
(self-assessment). In sum, self-enhancement appears to be the most powerful self-motive.
As such, it has received most of the attention of researchers seeking to understand how
self-motives shape our behaviors. It is this research we turn to in the next section.

Self-Enhancement

Why is self-enhancement so important to us? It is clear from the work on self-esteem

discussed earlier that it is adaptive to have high self-esteem, provided it is not too high, and
is stable rather than extreme and unstable. As we explained in the previous section, we
self-regulate more effectively, and therefore cope with negative and positive life events in
a more constructive way, when we have high self-esteem. But, given its usefulness, how
can we maintain positive self-esteem? The types of strategies employed can be divided into
two broad classes, depending on whether they involve deriving a positive self-concept
from personal or social aspects of the self.

Strategies to Enhance the Personal Self

According to self-affirmation theory (Steele, 1975), when self-esteem has been damaged
or threatened in some way, people often compensate by focusing on and publicly affirm-
ing positive aspects of themselves, thereby allowing them to maintain a positive self-
concept. Steele demonstrated this effect in a study conducted among Mormon women, for
whom community cooperation is an important ethic. These participants were first rung by
a researcher who claimed she was conducting a poll. In the self-concept threat condition,
the researcher commented that Mormons were typically uncooperative with community
projects, whilst in the self-concept irrelevant threat condition they were told that Mormons
were typically unconcerned with driver safety and care. Finally, in a self-concept affirma-
tion condition participants were told that Mormons were typically cooperative with
community projects. Two days later, participants received an apparently unrelated phone
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 27

The Self 27

call from a researcher posing as a member of the local community asking them if they
would be willing to list the contents of their kitchen as part of some research to help
develop a community food cooperative. Steele found that compared to 65 per cent who
agreed to help in the self-concept affirmation condition, approximately 95 per cent of par-
ticipants in both threat conditions agreed to help. Presumably participants who felt threat-
ened (even on an unrelated domain) wanted to reaffirm a positive aspect of their
self-concept, and did so by publicly demonstrating their community spirit.
Another phenomenon that highlights people’s tendency to self-enhance is the self-
serving attribution bias (see also Chapter 2). There is considerable evidence that when
people are making attributions about themselves on the basis of their behavior, they
show self-serving biases. When we are successful, we tend to show a self-enhancing bias,
attributing our success to internal characteristics; for example, we might think “I got
an A grade in the examination because I am clever”. When we fail, however, we tend to
show a self-protecting bias, attributing our failure to external characteristics. We might,
for example, think “I got a D grade because I wasn’t feeling well on the day of the exam-
ination”. People also have a memory bias in favour of self-enhancing information.
Mischel, Ebbesen, and Zeiss (1976) exposed participants to an equal amount of positive
and negative information about their personality and then tested their memory of that
information. They found that participants had better memory for the positive information
than for the negative information. Other research suggests that people are more critical
of information that criticises them than information that praises them. Wyer and Frey
(1983) had participants complete an intelligence test and then gave them either positive
or negative feedback. Participants were then given the opportunity to read a report on
the validity of intelligence tests which contained a mix of supportive and critical
information. Participants who had been told they had performed poorly subsequently
judged intelligence tests to be less valid than did participants who had received positive
feedback.

Strategies to Enhance the Social Self

In addition to these individual self-enhancement strategies, people also derive a positive
self-image from their group memberships. According to the social identity approach
(Tajfel & Turner, 1979), when people’s social self is salient, they incorporate in their self-
concept any traits that are thought to be part of the group, regardless of whether those traits
are positive or negative. It is therefore understandably important to group members that
their group is evaluated positively. In the same way that people try to maintain a positive
personal identity by comparing themselves favorably to other individuals (see the discus-
sion of social comparison theory earlier in this chapter), group members are also motivated
to hold a positive social or collective identity. They do so by comparing themselves favor-
ably with members of other groups.
The desire to maintain a positive social identity can explain why group members show
ingroup bias, a preference for their own group over outgroups, groups to which they do not
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 28

28 Essential Social Psychology

belong (see Chapter 6 for more on the role of social identity in intergroup relations). By
expressing how good your group is compared to others, by implication, the self as a group
member reaps the benefits of this positive intergroup comparison (Hogg & Abrams, 1988).
Given the importance of the link between the self and the ingroup, but not the outgroup,
in promoting disharmony between groups, some researchers have focused on the self as a
way of improving intergroup relations. In particular, if it is the absence of a link between
the self and outgroup that is partly responsible for intergroup bias (including prejudice and
discrimination), then perhaps forging such links can reduce such bias. We describe one of
these approaches in more detail in Text Box 1.2.

TEXT BOX 1.2

Reducing Prejudice by Including the other in the Self

People are generally motivated to see themselves in a positive light; for example, we take pride
in our success and attribute it to personal characteristics, while blaming failures on external
characteristics beyond our control. Although these self-serving tendencies sound selfish and
biased, they actually have benefits for our relationships with other individuals and other social
groups. Research in the past decade has shown that our self-concept cognitively overlaps with
the self-concept of close friends and romantic partners, a process which Aron and colleagues
(1992) refer to as including other in the self. This has a number of benefits for interpersonal rela-
tionships because the positive feelings and treatment we usually reserve for the self can then be
extended to others. Indeed, Agnew et al. (1998) found that greater inclusion of other in the self
among dating couples was associated with greater satisfaction, commitment and investment in
the relationship.
Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, and Ropp (1997) investigated the role of inclusion of other in the
self in the extended contact effect, the finding that just knowing members of the ingroup (the group
to which you belong) who have friends in an outgroup (a group to which you do not belong) reduces
prejudice. Wright and colleagues argued that we spontaneously incorporate close others in the
self, including ingroup members (Smith & Henry, 1996). Moreover, we have a tendency to group
together people who we perceive to be friends; for example, partners in a close relationship are
treated by observers as a single cognitive unit (Sedikides, Olsen, & Reis, 1993). Thus, when
participants observe an ingroup member in a close relationship with an outgroup member, they will
perceive there to be a considerable overlap between the two. Consequently, they come to see
the outgroup member, and eventually the outgroup in general, as part of the self as well. In this
situation, the outgroup will enjoy the same benefits bestowed upon ingroup members, including
showing positive biases in attribution, feeling pain at their trouble, generously sharing resources
and taking pride in their successes.
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 29

The Self 29

TEXT BOX 1.2 (CONTINUED)

METHOD 7

Wright and colleagues (1997) led participants to believe

they had been assigned to one of two groups based on
their performance on an initial task. Participants then

Attitude towards Outgroup

observed an ingroup and an outgroup member (actually 6
two confederates) interact on a problem-solving task.
The relationship between the individuals was either one
of close friends, strangers, or disliked acquaintances.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5

The outgroup was evaluated more positively when the

observed interaction was friendly than when it was
neutral or hostile.
This is because the participant only perceived there 4
to be self-other overlap when the observed ingroup and Hostile Neutral Friend
outgroup member were friends; only friends are per-
ceived to have overlapping self-concepts.

So the groups to which we belong can provide an important source of self-esteem, and
we are motivated to create a positive image of them because this then reflects well on us.
But our ingroups can sometimes be seen as either positive or negative, depending upon
factors beyond our control. Under these circumstances, group members use a number of
strategies to both maintain a positive social identity and buffer themselves from the poten-
tially damaging self-esteem implications of being a member of a low status group. It is
easy for high status groups to maintain a positive social identity because they can compare
themselves favorably with low status groups (see our earlier discussion of intergroup social
comparisons). However, low status group members have to resort to other strategies, par-
ticularly if they are not willing or able to leave their group to join a higher status group
(Tajfel & Turner, 1979). They may attempt a social change strategy, where they compete
with the high status group to improve their status relative to that group. Alternatively, they
may attempt a social creativity strategy, finding new dimensions on which they compare
more favorably. Members of a college that is academically poor, for example, may main-
tain a positive social identity when being compared to a top academic college by saying
that they are better at sport, or throw better parties. Finally, members of low status groups
may simply dis-identify with the group, disregarding that membership as an important
part of their identity.
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 30

30 Essential Social Psychology

SELF- Self-
THE SELF
MOTIVES Enhancement

Personal Social
Strategies Strategies

Figure 1.13 Memory Map

Robert Cialdini and colleagues (1976) illustrated this dis-identification strategy when
they investigated the behavior of fans of college American football teams. During the 1973
collegiate football season, students at seven universities were covertly monitored every
Monday during an introductory psychology class. The proportion of students at the class
wearing apparel that identified their university name, insignia or emblem (for example,
jackets, sweatshirts, scarfs and caps) was recorded. Researchers then considered whether
students’ apparel differed depending on whether their university’s football team had won
or not won at the weekend. Figure 1.13 demonstrates what they found. Students wore more
apparel that displayed the name or insignia of their university when their university foot-
ball team had been recently successful than when their team had not been successful.
Cialdini et al. (1976) called this phenomenon basking in reflected glory Essentially,
people derive a positive self-concept from the achievements of other group members even
if they were not personally instrumental in those achievements. When one’s group is per-
forming poorly, however, group members often use a very different strategy, which is illus-
trated by the lack of apparel seen in Cialdini’s study when the team had lost. Illustrating
this in more detail, Snyder, Lassegard, and Ford (1986) found that compared to groups of
college students who performed adequately on a group task, groups who failed on the task
were more likely to distance themselves from other members of their group. They reported
a desire to avoid the group, and took off and discarding their group name badges. This ten-
dency is referred to as cutting off reflected failure.

Summary

Given how central it is to us, we do not perceive the self in a passive way. Instead, we are
influenced by three key motives. First, we hold a motive for self-assessment, to hold an
accurate self-perception in order reduce uncertainty about the self. Second, we have a
motive for self-verification; we want to confirm what we already believe to be true about
the self. However, the most powerful self-motive we hold is for self-enhancement.
We hold several strategies that enable us to maintain positive self-esteem. First, according
to self-affirmation theory, when self-esteem has been damaged or threatened in some
way, people maintain a positive self-concept by focusing on and publicly affirming posi-
tive aspects of themselves. Second, people have a self-serving attribution bias, attribut-
ing successes to internal characteristics and failures to factors outside their control.
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 31

The Self 31

5.75

5.5

5.25

5
Personal Self Collective Self
Primed Primed

Individualist Values Collectivist Values

Figure 1.14 The effect of priming the personal versus the collective self on endorsement
of individualistic and collectivist values. Data from Gardner, Gabriel and Lee (1999)

According to the social identity approach we also derive a positive self-image from our
group memberships, which explains why we often show ingroup favouritism. Although
it can be difficult for low status groups to maintain a positive social identity, they do so by
competing with the high status group to improve their social standing, comparing them-
selves on different dimensions, or by dis-identifying with a group. People also maintain a
positive social identity by basking in reflected glory when their group has been success-
ful but cutting off reflected failure when their group has not done so well.

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN SELF AND IDENTITY

Although everyone has a unique sense of self, there are also some broad cultural differ-
ences in people’s self-concept, depending on the society in which they were brought up.
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 32

32 Essential Social Psychology

A growing number of people also belong to more than one culture and therefore have two
quite different self-concepts that exist alongside one another. In this section, we discuss
some of the effects that culture can have on the self.

Individualist and Collectivist Culture

As we have discussed earlier, social psychologists recognize that there are both individual
aspects of the self, including traits, states and personal behaviors, and collective aspects of
the self, which reflect our relationships with other individuals and groups (Triandis, 1989).
Although it is highly likely that most people, regardless of their culture, have both
individual and collective self-schemas, there are some broad cultural trends. In individu-
alist cultures such as the United States and Europe, from an early age children are encour-
aged to think of themselves as unique individuals. In collectivist cultures, on the other
hand, children are encouraged to be obedient and respectful of their family and to conform
to societal norms. Given these differences in emphasis, you will probably not be surprised
to learn that people in collectivist societies have a more collective sense of self, whereas
people in an individualist culture have a more individual sense of self.
To illustrate this difference, Trafimow, Triandis, and Goto (1991) had North American
and Chinese participants write down 20 self-descriptions. They found that North American
students wrote down a significantly greater proportion of individual self descriptions than
Chinese students, for example “I am intelligent”. In contrast, Chinese students wrote down
significantly more collective self descriptions, for example “I am a Roman Catholic”, than
North American students.
These cultural differences in self-conception help to explain the different values held by
people from individualist and collectivist cultures. Gardner, Gabriel, and Lee (1999) demon-
strated the relationship between self-construal and values by priming American students to
temporarily have either a more individualist or a more collectivist self-concept. Participants
read a story about a trip to the city. The story either used independent pronouns (e.g. I, mine)
or interdependent pronouns (e.g. we, ours), a technique which has previously been shown to
prime the personal and cultural self-concept respectively. Participants then wrote down 20
self-descriptions and completed a questionnaire in which they reported the values which were
most important to them. The findings to this study are illustrated in Figure 1.15. Participants
primed to hold a personal self-concept wrote more individual self-descriptions and more
strongly endorsed individualist values, such as freedom and independence, whereas partici-
pants primed to hold a collective self-concept wrote more collective self-descriptions and
more strongly endorsed collectivist values, such as friendship and family safety.

Biculturalism

Many countries are now multicultural, made up of not only the original inhabitants of a
country but of a diverse body of immigrants from all over the world, generated by increasing
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 33

The Self 33

Individual vs.
Collective

CULTURAL
DIFFERENCES THE SELF

Biculturalism

Figure 1.15 Memory Map

geographic mobility, wars and humanitarian crises. In the US in 2000, for example, 26.4
million people – approximately 10 per cent of the population – were born overseas.
Immigrants often find themselves in a position where they have to deal with multiple identi-
ties, derived from their original culture and that of the majority or ‘host’ society (Phinney,
Lochner, & Murphy, 1990). Given the diversity of different cultures, this may mean
incorporating into the self-concept two cultures that are likely to differ in terms of values,
attitudes, customs and styles of interaction (Berry & Annis, 1974). Some individuals strug-
gle to deal with the presence of two different identities, either assimilating to the identity of
the host society or retaining their original immigrant identity, but others maintain their orig-
inal sense of identity while also sharing an identity with the host society. People who are
adept at dealing with both cultures are known as bicultural (Ramirez, 1983).
The alternation model suggests that it is possible for an individual to deal with multi-
ple identities by understanding the cultural assumptions that guide behavior and using this
knowledge to think and behave appropriately in each (Yamada & Singelis, 1999). The
model argues that by alternating one’s cultural orientation depending on the situation,
it is possible for an individual to have a sense of belonging in two cultures without com-
promising his or her sense of cultural identity. Hong, Morris, Chiu and Benet-Martinez
(2000), for example, found that Chinese American bicultural individuals primed with
Western or East Asian cues changed their behavior in line with the cued culture.
The ability to hold two identities simultaneously has a number of benefits. Buriel and
colleagues (1998) found that bicultural individuals felt more at ease interacting with individu-
als from outside their ethnic minority, and had better problem solving strategies and interper-
sonal skills. Similarly, Schwarzer, Bowler, and Rauch (1985) found that minority
students who were proficient at communicating with the majority culture had not only higher
levels of self-esteem than less bicultural individuals but also reported having less experience
with racial tension and interethnic conflict. Bicultural individuals who alternate are also
thought to have higher cognitive functioning, better mental health (Rogler, Cortes, & Malgady,
1991) and higher self-esteem (Martinez, 1987) than those who are monocultural.
It is worth noting, however, that not everyone is so optimistic about people who simul-
taneously hold two different cultural identities. Lorenzo-Hernandez (1998) argued that
those who alternate will be neither committed to their group of origin or the dominant
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 34

34 Essential Social Psychology

group, potentially leading to negative reactions from both. LaFromboise and colleagues
(1993) suggested that for bicultural individuals to successfully alternate between two identi-
ties, they must hold positive attitudes towards both cultures and the ability to communicate
effectively. It is also important that their culture of origin is strongly represented in the host
society to provide a support system and to buffer the bicultural individual from stress.

Summary

There are some broad cultural differences in people’s self-concept, depending on whether
someone has been brought up in an individualist or a collectivist culture. In individualist
cultures, people tend to hold a stronger individual self, thinking of themselves in terms of
uniquely personal traits, and holding values of freedom and independence, whereas in col-
lectivist cultures, people tend to see themselves in terms of a collective self, describing
themselves in terms of group memberships and their relations with others and strongly
endorsing values like friendship and family safety.
A growing number of people, particularly immigrants, now have to juggle two identi-
ties, one derived from their original culture and another from their host society.
Someindividuals struggle to deal with two very different identities and their associated
norms and values, but other individuals are bicultural, adept at dealing with both cultures.
According to the alternation model, bicultural individuals are able to alternate their cul-
tural orientation when the situation calls for it and derive a number of benefits from this
ability, including better problem-solving and interpersonal skills.

SUMMARY
The way in which we can look inwards, to think about who we are and why we think, act,
and behave as we do, is a uniquely human ability, and something that affects every aspect
of our lives. Research on the self has largely focused on how our self-perceptions affect
our thoughts, feelings, and actions. These effects only occur when we are self-aware. We
are not born with self-awareness, but develop the ability to be introspective during early
childhood. Self-awareness appears to be connected to a particular area of the brain, the
anterior cingulate in the frontal lobe. Self-awareness varies depending on the situation
and our personality, and can be public or private in nature. When we are privately self-
aware, we tend to experience intensified emotional reactions, behave in accordance with
our true beliefs, and have a more accurate self-perception. In contrast, when we are
publicly self-aware, we are more likely to suffer from evaluation apprehension and behave in
accordance with social norms regardless of our true beliefs. The information about the self that
we access when we are self-aware is stored in self-schemas, cognitive structures that
hold knowledge about different aspects of the self. Self-schemas vary on a continuum, from
self-schematic schemas that are central to our self-concept, to aschematic schemas that are
irrelevant to us.
 Public Self- Private Self-
Awareness Awareness
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd

Public Self-
Temporary Consciousness
Differences
Chronic
Developmental Differences
Basis Private Self-
Organization Self- SELF-
10/12/2006

in Memory Schematic AWARENESS Consciousness

Neurological
Basis
8:44 PM

Development
Self- ORGANIZATION OF SELF-
Schema SELF-KNOWLEDGE ESTEEM
THE SELF Consequences
Page 35

Individual vs. SELF-

Collective MOTIVES
CULTURAL
Self-Enhancement
DIFFERENCES
THEORIES OF SELF-CONCEPT
Biculturalism
MAINTENANCE
Personal Social
Strategies Strategies

Theories of Theories of Individual Theories of Group

Self-Comparison Comparison Comparison

Self-Regulation Self-Discrepancy Social Comparison Self- Evaluation Social Identity

Theory Theory Theory Maintenance Model Approach

Figure 1.16 Memory Map

Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 36

36 Essential Social Psychology

Numerous theories have been offered to explain how we perceive the self and how this
perception affects our thoughts, feelings, and behavior. Two theories propose that the self
is often compared to an ideal version of the self and that discrepancies have certain con-
sequences for the individual. Control theory of self-regulation argues that depending on
whether we are privately or publicly self-aware, we compare the self against a private or a
public self-standard. When there is a mismatch between the two, we attempt to change our
behavior to increase their congruence. According to self-discrepancy theory, the actual
self is compared to one of two self-guides, the ideal self and the ought self. A discrepancy
between the self and a self-guide causes psychological discomfort which motivates change
to reduce the discrepancy. However, the two types of self-discrepancy are thought to be
related to unique responses; actual-ideal discrepancy with dejection related emotions and
actual-ought discrepancy with agitation related emotions.
Social comparison theory and self-evaluation maintenance model both propose that
our self-concept can be derived from comparisons with other individuals. According to
social comparison theory, because there is no objectively “correct” self, we compare our-
selves to similar others to validate our attitudes and behavior. The self-evaluation main-
tenance model proposes that we maintain a positive self-image through two processes:
social reflection and social comparison. Finally, according to the social identity
approach, we can also derive a sense of self from the social groups to which we belong.
It is clear from these theories that we do not think about the self in a detached way.
Instead, we are keen to determine whether we should evaluate the many aspects of the self
in a positive or a negative light. Although our level of self-esteem inevitably varies
depending on the situation, there are also chronic differences in self-esteem which may
in part reflect the way in which we were brought up. Self-esteem has far-reaching
consequences for how we deal with life events. In contrast to people with lower self-
esteem, those with higher self-esteem are better able to regulate their moods, buffering
themselves from the negative impact of unpleasant events and deriving pleasure from pos-
itive events. It is worth noting, however, that high self-esteem is not always a good thing;
narcissistic individuals with very high but unstable self-esteem tend to have aggressive
tendencies, particularly if their ego has been threatened.
Given the importance of a positive self-esteem, it is unsurprising that we have a strong
motivation for self-enhancement, which appears to override our motives for self-
assessment and self-verification. We use a number of strategies to enhance our personal
and social self. According to self-affirmation theory, if our self-esteem has been threat-
ened on one dimension, we maintain a positive self-concept by publicly affirming an
aspect of ourselves that we know to be positive. We also maintain a positive self-concept
through self-serving attribution biases, by paying more attention to positive information
about the self than negative information, and by being more critical of negative informa-
tion about the self than positive information. When our group membership is salient, we
use group-based strategies to maintain a positive social identity, for example basking in
the reflected glory of successful group members, but cutting off the reflected failure of
unsuccessful group members.
Crisp-3485-Chapter-01.qxd 10/12/2006 8:44 PM Page 37

The Self 37

Finally, there are some broad cultural differences in people’s self-concept, depending
on the society in which they were brought up. People from individualist cultures like
Europe and the United States have a stronger individual sense of self, whereas people from
collectivist cultures like China and India are more likely to see themselves in terms of their
relationships with family members and social groups. There is also a growing minority of
bicultural individuals who have two sets of cultural identities because they have been
brought up in one culture and have then migrated to a country with a sharply diverging
culture. Although it can be difficult to juggle two different self-concepts, people that
successfully alternate between the values and attitudes of two cultures develop excellent
problem-solving strategies and interpersonal skills, and have higher cognitive functioning,
better mental health and higher self-esteem than monocultural individuals.

SUGGESTED FURTHER READINGS

Abrams, D. & Hogg, M.A. (2001). Collective identity: Group membership and self-conception.
In M.A. Hogg & R.S. Tindale (eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group
processes (pp. 425–460). Oxford: Blackwell.
Baumeister, R.F. (1998). The self. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (eds.), Handbook
of social psychology (4th edn, Vol. 1, pp. 680–740). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sedikides, C. & Gregg, A.P. (2003). Portraits of the self. In M.A. Hogg & J. Cooper (eds.), The
Sage handbook of social psychology (pp. 110–138). London: Sage.

Key Questions

What factors determine whether or not we are self-aware?

What information do we use to form an impression of the self?

How accurate are we in our search for knowledge about the self?

How do our self-perceptions affect our attitudes and behavior?