1. Social Psychology Lecture 6
Self-Esteem and Social Identity
The notion of differing levels of analysis has periodically cropped throughout the course so far in the context of person perception and facial expressions of emotion. For example, in the developmentalist approach discussed in the last lecture we concidered the how the recognition of expressed emotion might be biased as to whether the emotion was positive (ie happy face) or negative (angry face, disgusted face, fearful face or sad face). I mentioned how positive and negative emotions could be considered at a higher level of analysis (positive or negative) or broken down into lower levels (the actual emotion being expressed). This forms the basis of the hierarchical approach. These levels of analysis are particularly pertinant to today’s lecture and will be expanded upon in the discussion of self-esteem.
Jane Clarbour
(Spring 2003)
Room PS/B007
psych.york.ac.uk

2. Objectives
Understand the difference between the ‘subjective self’ and the ‘objective self’
Demonstrate an understanding of the role of social identity in relation to the self concept
Describe the hierarchical model of the self-concept
Explain the role of defensive self-esteem

3. Who am I? I am………………………………………
Measurement of Self-Concept: Twenty Statements Test (Kuhn & McPartland, 1954)
This is a shortened version of the Twenty Statements Test – here I want you to think of 10 different ways of describing yourself – AS A PRIVATE EXERCISE - WRITE FOR YOU (no-one else to see).
Typically, responses fit into one of 4 categories:
Physical self-descriptions - qualities that DON’T involve social interactions (e.g. I am a female, I am a brunette, I am fat)
Social self-descriptions – identify self in terms of social roles, membership or status (e.g. I am a student, I am a daughter, I am a catholic, I am English)
Attributive self-descriptions – identify self in terms of physiological or psychological states or traits (e.g. I am intelligent, I am bossy, I am tired)
Global self-descriptions – identify self using vague or comprehensive descriptors that do NOT distinguish between self or others (e.g. I am human, I am me)
Further activity: How might your statements change if you were thinking of differing audiences?
Perhaps try this again later in your own time, as if describing yourself to
A stranger
For a friend
For your boss

4. Early self theorists James (1982) Cooley (1902)
Cognitive appraisal of how successful (the ‘I’) is of areas important to the self (the ‘me’).
Cooley (1902)
Looking glass self
Role of ‘significant others’ (parents/peers)

5. Critical components of the self (James, 1892)
Subjective self (the ‘I’)
Self as ‘knower’
Objective self (the ‘me’)
Self as ‘known’
Whenever I think about something, “I” am always the subject of consciousness, and one of the things I may be consciously attending to is “me” (Franzoi, 2000, p. 39).
James (1892) – Cognitive appraisal
“ME”
James considered the “me” comprises what can be known about the self (physical descriptions of one’s body, clothes, possessions, ones values, roles, social identity, reputation.
“I” = the basic capacity for awareness
The active process of experiencing, as opposed to the content of that experience.

6. Types of self and identity
Social identity
Self in terms of group membership
Personal identity
Self in terms of idiosyncratic personal relationships and traits
(Hogg & Vaughn, 2002)
Individual self- in terms of traits that differentiate the self from all others

7. 3 forms of self (Brewer & Gardner, 1996)
Individual Self
Personal traits that differentiate the self from all others
Relational Self
Defined by dyadic relationships that assimilate the self to significant others
Collective Self
Defined by group membership
(Hogg & Vaughn, 2002)

8. Symbolic Interactionism
“The self is something which has a development; it is not initially there, at birth, but arises in the process of social experience and activity… The self… is essentially a social structure, and it arises in social experience”
(George Herbert Mead, 1934, p. 135).
(Cited in Franzoi)
Building on the work of James…
Symbolic interactionism considers that the self-concept develops out of social experience and symbolic interactions
Symbolic Interactionism arose from the work of both Cooley (1902) and Mead (1934). Cooley emphasised the role of the significant others in what he termed the ‘looking glass self’ – emphasising how we evaluate the ‘self-concept’ based on our perceptions of how we feel that other people view us.
Mead also considered that Symbolic Interactionism is reflexive – but he suggested we experience and reflect on ourselves in the same way that we experience and reflect on other people around us. To be able to do this we must be able to ROLE TAKE, and anticipate the responses of others and how we appear to them. This skill is developmental, learned through PLAY, where children through social interaction internalize the viewpoint of the ‘generalized other’ which changes aspects of the “me” component of the self.
Symbolic interactionism is directly in opposition with that of trait theorists, many of whom consider that the self-concept is a component of personality, and as such is largely predetermined by temperament.

9. “I” – vs. – “Me” Social construction Self construction Self-as-subject
Active process of experience
Self-reflexiveness
Self-awareness of ability to act & react
Unique individuality
Self construction
Self-as-object
What know about self
Self-descriptors
Influenced by perceptions of other’s attitudes
Internalised attitudes & values
Social construction

10. Coopersmith (1967) Aggregate model of the self
Based on James (1892) cognitive self-appraisal
Problems of definition
Problems of measurement
Acknowledges self concept includes school, friends, family, & self-confidence
Assumption that each domain equally weighted
Scores summed to give single aggregate score
Weak predictive reliability
A good example of an aggregate model of the self is provided by Coopersmith (1967) who, although acknowledging that perceptions of global self-worth can be multifaceted, assumed that each domain carried equal importance in one’s self-concept – suggested these all add up to comprised global self concept

11. I’ve got good qualities
Rosenberg (1979)
Hierarchical model of the self
James (cognitive appraisal)
Cooley (social evaluation or ‘looking glass self’)
I’m great
I like my life
I’ve got good qualities
Based on both James and Cooley’s suggestion that adults possess a global self-worth resulting from a global evaluation of the self
The “I” ‘s assessment of the “me” in James’ theory
Sees the “me” as reflecting differing importance of components of the self being weighted UNCONSCIOUSLY – thus best to measure GSW as
the differing weights results in individual differences in GSW
Measures individual differences in global self-worth, NOT the components
Focus instead on the degree to which one is satisfied with life, feels has good qualities and possesses a positive attitude towards the self.

12. Harter’s hierarchical model
GSW PA SC BC SA AC
Face
Body
Hair
Skin
Math
Lang.
Arts
Sciences
Kind
Prosocial
Honest
Friends
Parents
Peers
Football
Athletics
Swim
Riding

13. Harter (1985) Hierarchical model of the self
Possibility of measuring perceptions of self-worth
Measure of general self worth PLUS
Measure of separate domains PLUS
Measure of importance of domains
Empirical testable model
Predictive capacity
(Explain using the black board)
The model is based upon a nomothetic approach (describe)
But is also useful clinically to measure individual change (describe idiographic approach)

14. Children’s ratings of vignettes: Differences in SE group for maintaining or discounting SE%
High SE more able to discount importance of domain not good at
EXPLAIN CONCEPTS OF MAINTAINING SE & DISCOUNTING SE
Children were presented with vignettes for each of 5 SPCC domains and asked to rated that another same gender child initially felt that skill at activities in the domain was important, but later learned that he or she was not very good at that activity. (I.e. for sport felt that being on the football team was important, but then realised that he isn’t good at football.
The child is asked to indicate which of 2 decisions the story child makes:
The activity isn’t important after all (discounts the importance of the domain)
Football is important, even though he isn’t very good at it (maintenance of the domain)
RESULTS:
HIGH SE
80% indicated that the story character would think football no longer important
MED SE
45% discounted and 55% maintained that still important
LOW SE
Only 30% discounted and 70% maintained
Conclusion:
The higher one’s SE the more one is able is discount the importance of the domain in which one is not competent
(Harter, 1986)

15. Discrepancy between self- and teacher-ratings of competence
Comparisons show that the self-judgments of the high SE group are 3 points higher than the teacher ratings of their competencies on a 4-point scale and that the High group see the self as slightly more competent than does the teacher in both the highest and lowest domains.
The Low SE group don’t really inflate their highest competence domain, but severely underestimate their lowest competence domain.
Plus values indicate that self-score is higher than the teacher’s;
minus values indicate that the self-score is lower than the teachers

16. Protection of self-esteem
Take credit for success but deny blame for failure
Forget failure feedback more readily than success or praise
Accept praise uncritically but receive criticism more sceptically
Persuade self that flaws are widely shared attributes but that their qualities are rare

17. Defensive self-esteem and need for approval (Napp)
Lobel & Teiber, 1994
Difference between ‘true’ and ‘defensive’ self-esteem
‘True’ self esteem high SE = low Napp
‘Defensive’
self esteem high SE = high NApp

18. Effect of success and failure on ideal performance
Thus, those with defensive SE reduce their expectancy to succeed after failure (acting similarly to the low SE group)
Those with True High SE and low need for approval expect to do equally well after both positive or negative feedback
Results
Main effect of manipulation (success/failure): All generally wanted to do better after success than failure
Interaction between manipulation and SE group: Defensive SE group behaved similarly to low self esteem group NOT high self-esteem as they indicated.
Conclusions
Those with True High SE are more motivated to do better after failure than success
In conclusion, True high SE are better able to discount failure than the other groups while the defensive group maintain the importance of the academic competence domain through their high need of approval, resulting in a lower global self-worth.
(Lobel & Teiber, 1994)

19. The dark side of self-esteem (Baumeister et al, 1996)
Benefits of high self-concept accrue mainly to the self
Negative connotations of high self-evaluation:
Arrogance, conceit, pride, narcissism, superiority
High cost of threat to self-esteem
Increased likelihood of aggression

20. Summary Theory of the self-concept Hierarchical model of the self
Global self-worth
Separate domains
Importance of discounting domains where low competence is perceived
Defensive vs ‘true’ high self-esteem
Continuity AND change
Harter’s theory is both cognitive (William James)
and social draws on work of symbolic interactionists (Mead, Cooley)
Self concept theorists from a personality perspective emphasise continuity and stability of constructs over time (although acknowledging possibility for situational change)
Self concept theorists from a symbolic interactionism perspective emphasise change according to the individual perceives and interacts with the social environment
Harter’s model incorporates BOTH through changes in the IMPORTANCE of separate domains over time for the individual.