Before reading the article, I used to think that the words “self” and “identity” cannot be

distinguished from the other. After reading the article, I understand now that there are different
definitions of the term depending what perspective the individual is to take. Often, the terms are used
interchangeably and sometimes not. This difference in perspective, cause certain issues to arise like the
notion of multiple selves, identities, and self-concepts. These terms however, all converge in making up
the “me”. The terms are also used in line with the process of how one's personal view of the world or as
influenced by the ones that surround us. The terms can also just be a sense of familiarity of one’s self.

Furthermore, before reading the article, I used to think that the “me” versus “us” aspects of the self can
only be applied to individual beings. After reading the article, I now realize that there are societal
differences that can be applied to these aspects. The example in the article, Americans are described to
more likely take a “me” perspective than East Asians, really apply to this theory. I think it can also be
applied to roles in the society or maybe even between genders of a country. I also understand that
although these cultural groups have a chance on taking a certain perspective, they can also be similar
such that a shift in context influences the perspective.

I also used to think before reading the article that self-concepts are only ideas or concepts of who one is.
Although this is true, it does not fully define self-concepts. After reading the article, I now realize that
self-concepts are learning structures that is necessary in one’s reflexive capacity and is useful in
understanding the world and oneself. The article also explained that it can include content or the
“mental concepts" of who one is, was, and will become. I find it interesting that this is structured in such
a way that it influences how we process information and how we act. This is because we associate our
self-concepts around domains. Which meant that some individuals may associate themselves with
identical self-concept but would process information and act differently because they associated their
self-concepts around different domains.

Despite these significant learnings, there were a few concepts I did not understand. Referring to page
71, I understand how most theories agree on the criticality of reflexive capacity to having a self.
However, the perspectives that follow the argument in how memory sustains the self is unclear to me.
The first perspective is that “the self can be considered primarily a memory structure” and so the me
aspect of self has existence outside of contexts and social structures. While on the other hand the self is
also considered a “cognitive capacity” in a way that the me aspect of self is developed through different
situations. I do not quite understand the difference between the two. In the first idea, about the self
being a memory structure, does this mean that the self is a combination of our experiences? If so, how
does this constitute to a self "existing” outside of contexts and social structures? Or does it mean that
for every memory we have, multiple selves are created therefore at a point of time, hence a self existed
outside of the context currently experienced. If it is the prior, would it not be similar to the second point
of the argument because a self is created when combining memories?

Adding on, the article discussed identity content and identity function wherein the similarities and the
differences between the ingroup and the outgroups are focused. It is unclear to me how social identity
researchers arrived with the conclusion that these groups are likely to differ in longevity and “how
psychologically meaningful the feel across time and situations”. I do not quite understand the term
“longevity” in this context. Is it the longevity of the group’s identity? If so, what is usually the reason for
this that some groups’ identities are longer or shorter? Lastly, “The self as a Stable Essence” in page 79 is
very unclear to me. I understand that we are stable in a way that our behavior can be predicted by
realizing that our self and identity matter is what we do and what we do reflects our self and identity.
However, the next few sentences after that is blurry to me. “The assumption that deeper essences
constrain surface features or psychological essentialism is a basic cognitive schema that is at the core of
categorization”. What are the deeper essences? How do they constrain surface features? How does it
relate to categorization?

Some questions that came to mind after reading the article: How does nature and nurture play into the
concept that the self is a product of situations and a shaper of behavior in situations? Another would be,
when experiments are conducted in studying the self, how are the results criticized? I am curious as to
how researchers implement their degree of error in their findings. For example, in the documentation of
the effect of context on self-concept by affecting self-concept content (page 78). How accurate are these
findings? Lastly, what is considered an effective self? Does effective mean stability and malleability of
the self? Stability because it aids in the regulation of behavior and making sense of the world, and
malleability because we are not perfect beings hence our self are cognitive structures?