UNIVERSITY OF CALOOCAN CITY

Biglang Awa St., Corner Catleya St., EDSA, Caloocan City

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

UNDERSTANDING THE SELF

SUBJECT CODE: GE001
TOPIC OR LESSON 3: THE SELF AS COGNITIVE CONSTRUCT
WEEK: 4
SUB-TOPIC/S: Psychology

OVERVIEW OF THE TOPIC

This module provides an overview of the themes of psychology regarding the

concept of “self”. It establishes the association of the “self” from the philosophies of
prominent psychologists such as William James, Carl Rogers, Sigmund Freud, and Karen
Horney. Furthermore, it will give emphasis on self-esteem, self-awareness, and the weight
of social comparison in assessing oneself.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

Upon completion of this module, the student will have reliably demonstrate critical
and reflective thought in analyzing the different psychological theories in the study of
“self,” and be able to examine the self as proactive and agentic.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

At the end of the lesson, students should be able to:

a) identify the different ideas in psychology about the “self”;

b) create your own definition of the “self” based on the definitions from psychology;
and
c) analyze the effects of various factors identified in psychology in the formation of
the “self.”

ENGAGE

1|Page
Activity: “You Through Others’ Eyes”

First Part: (NOTE: You may do this part in advance.)

Draw yourself on a piece of paper (silhouette or detailed). List 10 qualities or
characteristics that others think define who you are around the human figure you have
drawn. Read and reflect on what you have written.

Second Part: (NOTE: This part will have to be done during the synchronous meeting)
Trim down the list to 5 by crossing out the qualities/characteristics that you feel and think
are not always true to you.

Process the activity by answering the following questions:

a. What aspects do you think are not really part of your personality? Why do you say
so?
b. What might have contributed or caused others to say that you possess such
quality/characteristic?

NOTE: Output should be kept properly as this will be included in your

compilation/portfolio.

EXPLORE

Accomplish the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. You may access the form using this link:
https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/RSE.php
or you may download the it using this link
https://fetzer.org/sites/default/files/images/stories/pdf/selfmeasures/Self_Measures_for_
Self-Esteem_ROSENBERG_SELF-ESTEEM.pdf

NOTE: Each one is expected to have answered the scale before the start of the
synchronous class. You will be asked to share your results and thoughts about this.
Moreover, output should be kept properly as this will be included in your
compilation/portfolio.

EXPLAIN

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?”

Cognitive Construction is a cognitive approach that focuses on the mental

processes rather than the observable behaviour. This approach will assist individuals in
assimilating new information to their existing knowledge and will enable to make the

2|Page
appropriate modification to their existing intellectual framework to accommodate their
new information.
As mentioned earlier, there are various definitions of the “self” and other similar or
interchangeable concepts in psychology. Simply put, “self” is “the sense or personal
identity and of who we are as individuals (Jhangiani and Tarry, 2014).

William James

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 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 makes you who you are (Gleitman, Gross, and Reisberg
2011; Hogg and Vaughan 2010. It consists of three components (Pajares & Schunk, 2002):

a. Material Self – consists of the things that belong to us or that we belong to. Things
like family, clothes, our body, and money are some of what make up our material selves.
b. Social Self – our social selves are who we are in a given social situation. For
James, people change how they act depending on the social situation that they are in.
James believed that people had as many social selves as they had social situations they
participated in.
c. Spiritual Self – is who we are at our core. The spiritual self is more concrete or
permanent than the other two selves. The spiritual self is our subjective and most intimate
self. Aspects of an individual’s spiritual self, include things like his/her personality, core
values, and conscience that do not typically change throughout a lifetime. 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 asked about who you are, you can say “I was a varsity player in 5th Grade” which
pertains to the past, “a college student” which may be 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

Carl Rogers captured this idea in his concept of self-schema or our organized
system of collection of knowledge about who we are (Gleitman, Gross, and Reisberg

3|Page
20011; Jhangiani and Tarry 2014). Imagine an organized list or a diagram similar to the
one below:

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 actually shape and affect how you see, think, and feel about things (Gleitman,
Gross, and Reisberg 20011; Jhangiani and Tarry 2014).

Carl Rogers with his Person-Centered Theory, establish a conception of self,

involving the Real Self (a.k.a Self- Concept) and Ideal Self. The Real Self includes all those
aspects of ones’s being and one’s experiences that are perceived in awareness (though
not always accurately) by the individual (Feist, Feist & Roberts, 2013). It is the part of
ourselves where we feel, think, look and act involving our self-image. On the other hand,
the Ideal Self revolves around goals and ambitions in life, is dynamic, the idealized image
that we have developed over time. This is what our parents have taught us considering:
what we admire in others, what our society promotes, what we think are in our best
interest.

A wide gap between the ideal self and the real self indicates incongruence and
an unhealthy personality (Feist et al., 2013). If “the way that I am” (the real self) is aligned
with the way that “I want to be” (the ideal self), then I will feel a sense of mental well-
being or peace of mind. If “the way that I am” is not aligned with “how I want to be,” the
incongruence, or lack of alignment, will result in mental distress or anxiety. The greater
the level of incongruence between the ideal self and real self, the greater is the level of
resulting distress.

Karen Horney

Karen Horney with her Feminine Psychology, established that a person has “ideal
self”, “actual self” and the “real self”. She believed that everyone experiences basic
anxiety through which we experience conflict and strive to cope and employ tension
reduction approaches. Hall, et al. (1997) mentioned that Horney believed people
develop a number of strategies to cope with basic anxiety. Because people feel inferior,
an idealized self-image – an imaginary picture of the self as the professor of unlimited
powers and superlative qualities, is developed. On the other hand, the actual self, the

4|Page
person one is in everyday life, is often despised because it fails to fulfill the requirement of
the idealized image. Underlying both the idealized self and the actual self is the real self,
which is revealed only as a person begins to shed the various techniques developed to
deal with basic anxiety and to find ways of resolving conflicts. The real self is not an entity
but a ‘force’ that impels growth and self-realization.

Sigmund Freud

Theories generally see the self and identity as mental constructs, created and
recreated in memory (Oyserman, Elmore, and Smith 2012). Current researches point 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.

According to Freud psychoanalytic

theory, the id is the primitive and instinctual
part of the mind that contains sexual and
aggressive drives and hidden memories, the
super-ego operates as a moral conscience,
and the ego is the realistic part that mediates
between the desires of the id and the super-
ego.

Multiple vs Unified Selves

Postmodern Psychology contends that man has an identity that shifts and morphs
in different social situations and in response to different stimuli, as Kenneth Gergen argues
that having a flexible sense of self in different context is more socially adaptable than
force oneself to stick to one self-concept (ctlsites.uga.edu,2016,danielcw).

Theorists believed that there is no one answer to the question, “Who am I?” as one
person can undergo several transitions in his life and create multiple versions of himself.
However, there is still the contention of the importance of mental well-being, of
maintaining a unified, centralized, coherent self.

Multiple Selves, according to K. Gergen, are the capacities we carry within us from
multiple relationships. These are not ‘discovered’ but ‘created’ in our relationships with
other people.

Unified Selves, as strongly pointed out in Traditional Psychology emphasizes that

well-being comes when our personality dynamics are congruent, cohesive and
consistent. It is understood that a person is essentially connected with selfhood and

5|Page
identity. In a healthy person the ego remains at the helm of the mind, coherent and
organized, staying at the center (ctlsites.uga.edu,2016,danielcw).

True vs False Selves

Donald W. Winnicott distinguished what he called the “true self” from the “false
self” in the human personality, considering the true self as based on a sense of being in
the experiencing body and the false self as a necessary defensive organization, a survival
kit, a caretaker self, the means by which a threatened person has managed to survive
(Klein, 1994).

True Self has a sense of integrity, of connected wholeness that harks to the early
stage. False Self is used when the person has to comply with external rules, such as being
polite or otherwise following social codes. The false self constantly seeks to anticipate
demands of others in order to maintain relationship. The Healthy False Self is functional,
can be compliant but without the feeling that is has betrayed its true self. The Unhealthy
False Self fits in but through a feeling of forced compliance rather than loving adaptation
(changingminds.org 2016). False Selves, as investigated by Heinz Kohut (1971), can lead
towards narcissistic personality, which identifies with external factors at the cost of one’s
own autonomous creativity.

The Self as Proactive and Agentic

Social Cognitive Theory takes an agentic view of personality, meaning that

humans have the capacity to exercise control over their own lives. People are self-
regulating, proactive, self-reflective, and self-organizing and that they have the power
to influence their own actions to produce desired consequences. People consciously act
on their environment in a manner that permits growth toward psychological health. An
adequate theory of personality, according to G. Allport must allow for proactive
behavior (Feist et al., 2013).

Agent self is known as the executive function that allows for actions. This is how
we, as individuals, make choices and utilize our control in situations and actions. The
agent self, resides over everything that involves decision making, self-control, taking
charge in situations, and actively responding. A person might desire to eat unhealthy
foods, however, it is his/her agent self that allows that person to choose to avoid eating
them and make a healthier food choice (Baumeister, & Bushman, 2011).

Human agency is not a thing but an active process of exploring, manipulating and
influencing the environment in order to attain desired outcomes. According to Albert
Bandura, the core features of human agency are intentionality (acts a person performs
intentionally) forethought (setting goals, anticipation of outcomes of actions, selection of
behaviors to produce desired outcomes and avoiding undesirable ones), self-
reactiveness (monitoring progress toward fulfilling choices), and self-reflectiveness
(examination of own functioning evaluation of the effect of other people’s action on
them). These lead to self-efficacy, the belief that they are capable of performing actions
that will produce a desired effect (Feist, et al., 2013).

6|Page
 Self-efficacy lies in the center of Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory. It is the
measure of one’s ability to complete goals. People with high self-efficacy often are eager
to accept challenges because they believe they can overcome them, while people with
low self-efficacy may avoid challenges, or believe experiences are more challenging
than they are actually are (appsychtextbk.wikispaces.com, 2014).
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 digging deeper into the
mind, they cannot fully discount the huge and important effects of the environment. As
in the abovementioned definitions of self, social interaction always has a part to play in
who we think we are. This 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 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 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 that 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 or 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

7|Page
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 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 Vaughan 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 your 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
deindividuation or “the loss of individual self-awareness and individual accountability in
groups” (Festinger, Pepitone, andNewcomb 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 which is comparing ourselves with those who are

8|Page
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). 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 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). 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

9|Page
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).

ELABORATE

Group Activity:

Form a group composing of 3 to 5 students. Do a research and list ten (5) things to boost
one’s self-esteem or improve one’s self-concept. Cite your sources. Analyze which of
those tips are more likely to backfire and make someone conceited or narcissistic and
revise them to make the statements both helpful to the individual as well as society in
general.

Students will have to work on this during the asynchronous time. For clarifications and
questions, feel free to send a message via Facebook messenger. Submission shall be
made through messenger/email, whichever is accessible. Due next meeting.

EVALUATE

Essay: Which among the theories on “self” best explains your personality dynamics? You
may cite instances or events in your life to support your claim and to further expound
your thoughts and feelings.

Students will have to work on this during the asynchronous time. For clarifications and
questions, feel free to send a message via Facebook messenger. Submission shall be
made through messenger/email, whichever is accessible. Due next meeting.

RUBRIC FOR ESSAY/ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS SCORE

3 – The 2 – The 1 – The 0.5 – The 0–
explanation is explanation is explanation is explanation is not Has no
RELEVANCE

directly relevant relevant to the quite relevant to clear and has a explanation
to the topic. Every topic. Most of the the topic. Only few very rough
detail points details contribute of the details transition of idea.
toward the topic. to the contribute to the The details are
development of development of not relevant to
the topic. the topic. the topic.
3 – The 2 – The 1 – The 0.5 – The 0–
ARGUMENT
EVIDENCE/

explanation shows explanation explanation shows explanation Has no

at least 9 shows at least 6 at 3 to 5 shows at most 2 explanation
correct/valid to 8 correct/valid correct/valid correct/valid
evidences to evidences to evidences to evidences to
support his/her support his/her support his/her support his/her
answer. answer. answer. answer.

10 | P a g e
 2 – The 1.5 – The 1 – The 0.5 – The 0–
CLARITY explanation is explanation is explanation is explanation is not Has no
clear, has a very clear, has a good somewhat clear clear and has a explanation
good flow of transition, most of and has a rough very rough
discussion, every the details are transition from one transition of
detail is connected to idea to another. ideas.
connected to each other.
each other.
2 – The 1.5 – The 1 – The 1.5 – The 0–
TECHNI-

explanation has explanation has 1 explanation has 3 explanation has Has no

CALITY

no error in to 2 errors in to 4 errors in at least 5 errors in explanation

grammar, spelling, grammar, grammar, spelling, grammar,
and punctuations. spelling, and and punctuations. spelling, and
punctuations. punctuations.
OVERALL SCORE:

REFERENCES

Understanding the Self 1st ed., E.J. Alata, B.N. Caslib Jr., J.P.J. Serafica, & R.A. Pawilen. Rex Book Store Inc.
Manila, Philippines. 2018

Understanding the Self. S.L. Villafuerte, A.F. Quillope, R.C. Tunac, & E.I. Borja. Nieme Publishing House Co. LTD.
2018

Psychology. 8th ed., Gleitman, Henry et al. 2011

What even is “Self-Actualization”?. Practical Psychology. Youtube 2019

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzHuKow-cns

The Psychology of Narcissism. W. Keith Campbell. TED-Ed. Youtube 2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arJLy3hX1E8

ADDITIONAL
MATERIALS

N/A

PREPARED BY:

Prof. Cielito Y. Sullivan

Instructor III, UCC North Campus

Prof. Maria Cecilia M. Saenz

Guidance Specialist/Instructor, UCC South Campus

11 | P a g e