LESSON 3: The Self as Cognitive Construct

ABSTRACTION

In confidence or in an attempt to avoid further analytical discussions, a lot of

people say, “I am who I am.” Yet, this statement still begs the question “if you are
who you are, then who are you that makes you who you are?”

As mentioned earlier, there are various definitions of the “self” and other
similar or interchangeable concepts in psychology. Simply put, “self” is “the sense of
personal identity and of who we are as individuals (Jhangiani and Tarry 2014).”

William James (1890) was one of the earliest psychologists to study the self
and conceptualized the self as having two aspects the “I” and the “me.” The “I” is the
thinking, acting, and feeling of self (Gleitman, Gross, and Reisberg 2011; Hogg and
Vaughan 2010). The “me” on the other hand, is the physical characteristics as well
as psychological capabilities that make who you are (Gleitman, Gross, and Reisberg
2011; Hogg and Vaughan 2010). Carl Rogers’s (1959) theory of personality also
used the same terms, the “I” as the one who acts and decides while the “me” is what
you think or feel about yourself as an object (Gleitman, Gross, and Reisberg 2011).

Other concepts similar to self are identity and self-concept. Identity is

composed of personal characteristics, social roles, and responsibilities, as well as
affiliations that define who one is (Oyserman, Elmore, and Smith 2012). Self-
concept is what basically comes to your mind when you are asked about who you
are (Oyserman, Elmore, and Smith 2012).

Self, identity, and self-concept are not fixed in one time frame. For example,
when you are asked about who you are, you can say “I was a varsity player in 5 th
Grade which pertains to the past, “a college student” which may be the present, and
“a future politician” which is the future. They are not also fixed for life nor are they
ever-changing at every moment. Think of a malleable metal, strong and hard but can
be bent and molded in other shapes. Think about water. It can take any shape of the
container, but at its core, it is still the same element.

Carl Rogers captured this idea in his concept of self-schema or our organized
system or collection of knowledge about who we are (Gleitman, Gross, and Reisberg
2011; Jhangiani and Tarry 2014). Imagine an organized list or a diagram similar to
the one below:

CHART

The schema is not limited to the example above. It may also include your
interests, work, course, age, name, and physical characteristics, among others. As
you grow and adapt to the changes around you, they also change. But they are not
passive receivers, they actively shape and affect how you see, think, and feel about
things (Gleitman, Gross, and Reisberg 2011; Jhangiani and Tarry 2014).

For example, when someone states your first name even if they are not
talking about you, your attention is drawn to them. If you have a provincial language
and you hear someone using it, it catches your attention. If you consider yourself a
book-lover, a bookstore may always entice you out of all the other stores in a mall.

Theories generally see the self and identity as mental constructs, created and
recreated in memory (Oyserman, Elmore, and Smith 2012). Current research points
to the frontal lobe of the brain as the specific area in the brain associated with the
processes concerning the self (Oyserman, Elmore, and Smith 2012).

Several psychologists, especially during the field’s earlier development,

followed this trend of thought, looking deeper into the mind of the person to theorize
about the self, identity, self-concept, and in turn, one’s personality. The most
influential of them is Sigmund Freud. Basically, Freud saw the self, its mental
processes, and one’s behavior as the results of the interaction between the Id, the
Ego, and the Superego.

However, as mentioned earlier, one cannot fully discount the effects of society
and culture on the formation of the self, identity, and self-concept. Even as Freud
and other theories and researchers try to understand the person by digging deeper
into the mind, they cannot fully discount the huge and important effects of the
environment. As in the abovementioned definitions of the self, social interaction
always has a part to play in who we think we are. This is not nature vs. nurture but
instead a nature-and-nurture perspective.

Under the theory of symbolic interactionism, G.H. Mead (1934) argued that
the self is created and developed through human interaction (Hogg and Vaughan
2010). Basically, there are three reasons why self and identity are social products
(Oyserman, Elmore, and Smith 2012):

1. We do not create ourselves out of nothing. Society helped in

creating the foundations of who we are and even if we make our choices, we
will still operate in our social and historical contexts in one way or the other.
You may, of course, transfer from one culture to another, but parts of who you
were will still affect you and you will also have to adapt to the new social
context. Try looking at your definition of who you are and see where society
had affected you.
2. Whether we like to admit it or not, we actually need others to
affirm and reinforce who we think we are. We also need them as reference
points about our identity. One interesting example is the social media
interactions we have. In the case of Facebook, there are those who will
consciously or unconsciously try to garner more “likes” and/or positive
“reactions” and that can and will reinforce their self-concept. It is almost like a
battle between who got more friends, more views, and trending topics. If one
says he is a good singer but his performance and the evaluation of his
audience says otherwise, that will have an effect on that person’s idea of
himself, one way or another.
 3. What we think is important to us may also have been influenced
by what is important in our social or historical context. Education might be an
important thing to your self-concept because you grew up in a family that
valued education. Money might be important to some because they may have
grown in a low-income family and realized how important money is in
addressing certain needs like medical emergencies. Being a nurse or a lawyer
can be priority in your self- schema because it is the in-demand course during
your time.

Social interaction and group affiliation, therefore, are vital factors in creating
our self-concept especially in the aspect of providing us with our social identity or our
perception of who we are based on our membership to certain groups (Jhangiani
and Tarry 2014). It is also inevitable that we can have several social identities, that
those identities can overlap, and that we automatically play the roles as we interact
with our groups. For example, you are a student who is also part of a certain group
of friends. You study because it is your role as a student but you prefer to study with
your friends and your study pattern changes when you are with your friends than
when you do it alone.

There are times, however, when we are aware of our self-concepts; this is
also called self-awareness. Carver and Scheier (1981) identified two types of self
that we can be aware of: (1) the private self or your internal standards and private
thoughts and feelings, and (2) the public self or your public image commonly geared
toward having a good presentation of yourself to others (Hogg and Vaughan 2010).

Self-awareness also presents us with at least three other self-schema: the

actual, ideal, and ought self. The “actual” self is who you are at the moment, the
“ideal” self is who you like to be, and the “ought” self is who you think you should be
(Higgins 1997 in Hogg and Vaughn 2010). An example is that you are a student
interested in basketball but is also academically challenged in most of your subject.
Your ideal self might be to practice more and play with the varsity team but ought to
pass your subjects as a responsible student. One has to find a solution to such
discrepancies to avoid agitation, dejection, or other negative emotions. In some
instances, however, all three may be in line with one another.

Self-awareness may be positive or negative depending on the circumstances

and our next course of action. Self-awareness can keep you from doing something
dangerous; it can help remind you that there is an exam tomorrow in one of your
subjects when you are about to spend time playing computer games with your
cousins, among others. In other instances, self-awareness can be too much that we
are concerned about being observed and criticized by others, also known as self-
consciousness (Jhangiani and Tarry 2014). At other times, especially with large
crowds, we may experience deindividualization or “the loss of individual self-
awareness and individual accountability in groups” (Festinger, Pepitone, and
Newcomb 1952; Zimbardo 1969 in Jhangiani and Tarry 2014). A lot of people will
attune themselves with the emotions of their group and because the large crowd also
provides some kind of anonymity, we may lessen our self-control and act in ways
that we will not do when we are alone. A common example is a mass demonstration
erupting into a riot.
 Our group identity and self-awareness also has a great impact on our self-
esteem, one of the common concepts associated with the “self.” It is defined as our
own positive or negative perception or evaluation of ourselves (Jhangiani and Tarry
2014; Gleitman, Gross, and Reisberg 2011).

One of the ways in which our social relationship affects our self-esteem is
through social comparison. According to the social comparison theory, we learn
about ourselves, the appropriateness of our behaviors, as well as our social status
by comparing aspects of ourselves with other people (Jhangiani and Tarry 2014:
Hogg and Vaughan 2010).

The downward social comparison Is the more common type of comparing

ourselves with others. As the name implies, we create a positive self-concept by
comparing ourselves with those who are worse off than us (Jhangiani and Tarry
2014). By having the advantage, we can raise our self-esteem. Another comparison
is the upward social comparison which is comparing ourselves with those who are
better off than us (Jhangiani and Tarry 2014). While it can be a form of motivation for
some, a lot of those who do this actually felt lower self-esteem as they highlight more
of their weakness or inequities.

Take note that this occurs not only between individuals but also among
groups. Thus, if a person’s group is performing better and is acknowledged more
than the other group, then his self-esteem may also be heightened.

Social comparison also entails what is called self-evaluation maintenance

theory, which states that we can feel threatened when someone out-performs us,
especially when that person is close to us (i.e., a friend or family) (Tesser 1988 in
Jhangiani and Tarry 2014). In this case, we usually react in three ways. First, we
distance ourselves from that person or redefine our relationship with them (Jhangiani
and Tarry 2014). Some will resort to the silent treatment, change of friends, while
some may also redefine by being closer to that person, hoping that some association
may give him a certain kind of acknowledgment also. Second, we may also
reconsider the importance of the aspect or skill in which you were outperformed
(Jhangiani and Tarry 2014). If you got beaten in a drawing competition, you might
think that drawing is not really for you and you will find a hobby where you could
excel, thus preserving your self-esteem. Lastly, we may also strengthen our resolve
to improve that certain aspect of ourselves (Jhangiani and Tarry 2014). Instead of
quitting drawing, you might join seminars, practice more often, read books about it,
and add some elements in your drawing that makes it unique, among others.
Achieving your goal through hard work may increase your self-esteem, too.

However, in the attempt to increase or maintain self-esteem, some people

become narcissistic. Narcissism is a “trait characterized by overly high self- esteem,
self-admiration, and self-centeredness” (Jhangiani and Tarry 2014). They are often
charismatic because of how they take care of their image. Taking care of that image
includes their interpersonal relationships thus they will try to look for better partners,
better acquaintances, as well as people who will appreciate them a lot. This makes
them a bad romantic partner or friend since they engage in relationships only to
serve themselves (Jhangiani and Tarry 2014).
 Sometimes, there is a thin line between high self-esteem and narcissism and
there are a lot of tests and measurements for self-esteem like the Rosenberg scale
but the issue is that the result can be affected by the desire of the person to portray
herself in a positive or advantageous way (Jhangiani and Tarry 2014). In case you
want to take a test and find a numerical value or level of your self- esteem, try to be
honest and objective about what you feel and see about yourself. And though self-
esteem is a very important concept related to the self, studies have shown that it
only has a correlation, not causality, to positive outputs and outlook (Jhangiani and
Tarry 2014). It can be argued that high or healthy self- esteem may result to an
overall good personality but it is not, and should not be. The only source of a
person’s healthy perspective of herself.

People with high self-esteem are commonly described as outgoing.

Adventurous, and adaptable in a lot of situations. They also initiate activities and
building relationship with people. However, they may also dismiss other activities that
do not conform to their self-concept or boost their self-esteem. They may also be
bullies and experiment on abusive behaviors with drugs, alcohol, and sex (Jhangiani
and Tarry 2014).

This duality in the behavior and attitudes only proves the above-mentioned
correlation. Baumeister, Smart, and Boden (1996) in their research on self-esteem
concluded that programs, activities, and parenting styles to boost self-esteem should
only be for rewarding good behavior and other achievements and not for the purpose
of merely trying to make children feel better about themselves or to appease them
when they get angry or sad (Jhangiani and Tarry 2014).