UNDERSTANDING THE SELF:

IDENTITY, SELF-CONCEPT,
AND SELF-ESTEEM
DIEGO A. ODCHIMAR III
 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. What is the difference between self-concept
and identity?
2. Why does it matter to distinguish self-concept
from identity?
3. How does self-esteem affect self-concept and
identity?
4. Is identity a social construct?
5. Must identity be consistent with self-concept?
 WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
SELF-CONCEPT AND IDENTITY?
In Identity, Self-Concept, and Self-Esteem:
The Self Lost and Found (1997), Roy F.
Baumeister noted, “The construction of self
is one of the major life tasks to confront the
modern individual. “

Defining the self is likely to continue to be

a great source of challenge and satisfaction,
as well as a great source of threat and difficulty.
Baumeister (1997) defined the term self as
“the direct feeling each person has of privileged
access to his or her own thoughts and feelings
and sensations. It begins with the awareness
of one's own body and is augmented by the
sense of being able to make choices and
initiate action.”
Baumeister (1997) defined the term self-concept
as “the totality of inferences that a person has
made about himself or herself. These refer
centrally to one's personality traits and schemas,
but they may also involve an understanding
of one's social roles and relationships.”
Baumeister (1997) defined the term identity
as “the definitions that are created for and
superimposed on the self. These definitions
refer to concepts about who the person is
and what the person is like. Identity can be
analyzed as consisting of an interpersonal
aspect (a set of roles and relationships),
a potentiality aspect (a concept of who
the person might become), and a values aspect
(a set of values and priorities).”
Baumeister (1997) clarified, “Identity differs
from self-concept in that it is socially defined.
That is, the self-concept is wholly contained
in the person's own mind, whereas
identity is often created by the larger society,
although individuals typically have
some opportunity to refine or negotiate the
identities that society gives them.”
Identity is an aggregate definition of a single
self.

Since a self can be defined in many ways—

with many traits and many different roles,
identity is thus the product of the many
definitions of self that exist.
The self-concept is a loose combination of the
many ideas and inferences that the person
has about him- or herself.

The term self-esteem refers to the evaluative

dimension of the self-concept.
Baumeister (1997) observed, “Although the
concept of self tends to seem so natural and
normal as to be inevitable, it is in fact far from
universal. Ideas about the nature of the self
have varied widely across cultural and historical
boundaries.”

Different cultures in different historical periods

have treated differently the self.
In the modern times, Western societies treat
each person as a special, unique individual
and encourages people to regard themselves
(and each other) that way.
In the ancient times, Western societies
recognized that people were not identical,
but they placed relatively little importance
on these differences. What mattered were
the similarities in form and function.
In the Middle Ages, Western societies
regarded people as having functions according
to their place in society. The person's identity
was intimately bound up with his or her social
rank, family ties, and occupation, and people
were not supposed to want to change any
of these.
In After Virtue, Alasdair Maclntyre (1981)
noted that “the models of human potential
were essentially the same for the vast Christian
majority: salvation in heaven, as a result
of living a moral and pious life, was the goal
for everyone. At most, people differed according
to how well they served their functions, that is,
whether they fulfilled their duties and obeyed
the rules.”
It was only in the early modern period
(roughly 1500-1800) that people became
fascinated with all the small characteristics
that made one person different
from another (e.g., Weintraub, 1978).
In The Value of the Individual: Self and
Circumstance in Autobiography (1978), Karl
Joachim Weintraub observed a great
increase in biographical and autobiographical
writing, including a greatly increased
emphasis on accurate description of factual
details about the person's life.
Weintraub (1978) associated this new interest
with a great social change toward
an emphasis on individuality.

Politically, economically, socially, philosophically,

and in other ways, society came to treat each
person as a unique, self-contained unit.
Since the early modern period
(roughly 1500-1800), people began to think
of themselves as capable of changing roles,
to search for their own unique traits
and destiny, to campaign for individual rights
and social equality, and to do other things
that reflected this new sense of the individual.
In Sincerity and Authenticity (1971),
Lionel Trilling noted that this notion of an inner
self expanded greatly during this same period
in Western culture.

The inner self is a metaphor for one's private

access to, or privileged possession of,
one's thoughts and feelings and intentions.
Trilling traced this notion of the inner self
to the Christian Gnostic notion of soul.

At first, the inner self may have been simply

a way of thinking about hypocrisy, deception,
and insincerity: people were not always really
the way they appeared on the surface to be.
Over time, the notion of an inner self expanded
in Western culture.

People began to believe that their inner selves

contained their true personality traits, the basis
for creativity, and even their most strongly held
values and opinions.
Baumeister (1986) and Weintraub (1978) noted
that the expansion of the notion of an inner self
in Western culture included the thinking
that the path to personal fulfillment depended
substantially on discovering this inner self
and developing it.
The first consequence of the shift toward
an expanded concept of the inner self,
self-knowledge had come to seem increasingly
difficult.

Confidence in self-knowledge eroded

over the subsequent centuries, which included
the Puritan discovery of the pervasiveness
of self-deception, the Victorian fascination
with involuntary disclosure, and later the
Freudian exploration of the unconscious.
The second consequence of the shift toward
an expanded concept of the inner self
is the evolution of the idea of identity crisis.

Identity crisis assumes that the self

is something that exists prior to
and apart from its beliefs and roles.
In Identity: Youth and Crisis (1968),
Erik Erikson (1968) coined the term identity
crisis to describe a period of uncertainty
and confusion in which a person's sense
of identity becomes insecure, typically due
to a conflict between their expected aims
or role in society and self-concept.
 Symptoms of an identity crisis may include
feeling lost, confused, and uncertain about the
future, as well as negative feelings about
oneself or one’s life.
 WHY DOES IT MATTER TO
DISTINGUISH SELF-CONCEPT
FROM IDENTITY?
Erik Erikson (1968) believed that the formation
of identity was one of the most important
conflicts that people face.
To Erikson, an identity crisis is a time of intensive
analysis and exploration of different ways of
looking at oneself.

He noted that developing a sense of identity is

important during the teenage years, though the
formation and growth of identity is not confined
to adolescence.
Erikson observed that identity shifts
and changes throughout life as people
confront new challenges and tackle different
experiences.

Thus, an identity crisis can occur at any age.

Erikson (1968) believed that identity was
formed by experimenting with different
behaviors and roles, as well as through social
interactions.
In Erikson's stages of psychosocial
development, he suggested that an identity
crisis occurs during the teenage years
in which people struggle with feelings of
identity versus role confusion.
Erikson's Stages of Development has eight
psychosocial stages.

Much like Sigmund Freud, Erikson believed that

personality developed in a series of stages.
Unlike Freud's theory of psychosexual stages,
however, Erikson's theory described the impact
of social experience across the whole lifespan.

Erikson was interested in how social interaction

and relationships played a role in the
development and growth of human beings.
Stage 1: Trust vs. Mistrust
(Infancy from birth to 18 months)

Stage 2: Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt

(Toddler years from 18 months to three years)

Stage 3: Initiative vs. Guilt

(Preschool years from three to five)

Stage 4: Industry vs. Inferiority

(Middle school years from six to 11)
Stage 5: Identity vs. Confusion
(Teen years from 12 to 18)

Stage 6: Intimacy vs. Isolation

(Young adult years from 18 to 40)

Stage 7: Generativity vs. Stagnation

(Middle age from 40 to 65)

Stage 8: Integrity vs. Despair

(Older adulthood from 65 to death)
In each stage, Erikson believed people
experience a conflict that serves as a turning
point in development that paves the way
for following periods of development.

Each stage builds on the preceding stages.

If people successfully deal with the conflict
by developing a psychological quality,
they emerge from the stage with psychological
strengths that will serve them well for the rest
of their lives.

If they fail to deal effectively with these

conflicts, they may not develop the essential
skills needed for a strong sense of self.
To Erikson (1968), mastery leads to ego
strength.

Each stage in Erikson's theory is concerned with

becoming competent in an area of life.

A sense of competence motivates behaviors

and actions.
Age Conflict Important Events Outcomes
Infancy Trust vs. Mistrust Feeding Hope
(birth to 18
months)
Early Childhood Autonomy vs. Toilet Training Will
(2 to 3 years) Shame and Doubt
Preschool Initiative vs. Guilt Exploration Purpose
(3 to 5 years)
School Age Industry vs. School Confidence
(6 to 11 years) Inferiority
Age Conflict Important Events Outcomes
Adolescence Identity vs. Role Social Relationships Fidelity
(12 to 18 years) Confusion
Young Adulthood Intimacy vs. Relationships Love
(19 to 40 years) Isolation
Middle Adulthood Generativity vs. Work and Care
(40 to 65 years) Stagnation Parenthood
Maturity Ego Integrity vs. Reflection on Life Wisdom
(65 to death) Despair
Identity versus role confusion is the fifth stage
of ego in psychologist Erik Erikson's theory
of psychosocial development.

This stage occurs during adolescence between

the ages of approximately 12 and 18.

During this stage, adolescents explore their

independence and develop a sense of self.
Identity versus role confusion is a stage
characterized by asking "Who am I?“,
where a person learns more about their own
goals, values, and beliefs.

This is a process of forming a strong identity

and developing a sense of direction in life.
To Erikson, identity is a “fundamental organizing
principle which develops constantly throughout
the lifespan.”

Identity involves the experiences, relationships,

beliefs, values, and memories that make up a
person's subjective sense of self. This helps
create a continuous self-image that remains
fairly constant even as new aspects of the self
are developed or strengthened over time.
Erikson (1968) found that identity provides:

Self-sameness: A sense of continuity within the

self and in interaction with others.

Uniqueness: A frame to differentiate between

self and interaction with others.

Psychosocial development: Mental and physical

health for adolescents
Baumeister (1997) concluded that the notion
of identity crisis is based on the belief that a
person is conceptually separate from his or her
place in society, and on the belief that a person
can find inside him or herself the basis for
choosing an identity.
Baumeister (1997) pointed out that identity
crisis was not an issue in earlier eras in the
Western culture.

Identity crisis is thus a modern, Western

phenomenon, reflecting the new ideas
about the self.
To Baumeister (1987), the identity crisis is one
symptom of the modern burden of selfhood.

He cautioned that the modem notions of self

are more complex and sophisticated than other
notions, but they are not necessarily more
accurate, and they also carry a variety of
burdens and potential problems.
Baumeister (1997) observed, “Most cultures
in the history of the world have not required
people to create definitions of themselves
that could serve as the basis for their adult lives,
and so most cultures have not produced large
numbers of identity crises.”
Baumeister (1997) lamented, “although the
modern self is associated with a great deal
of freedom and opportunity and flexibility,
it is also a problem. . . . What was once a simple,
straightforward matter has now become
something difficult, uncertain,
and problematic.”
 HOW DOES SELF-ESTEEM AFFECT
SELF-CONCEPT AND IDENTITY?
Baumeister (1997) found, “Although the self
may be understood as a unity, the self-concept
is not really a single, unified concept so much
as a loosely connected set of ideas, inferences,
and illusions.”
Hazel Rose Markus Markus(1977) reported that
recent thrust of research on self-knowledge
has abandoned the notion of a single
self-concept per se and focused instead
on self schemas, that is, specific concepts
of various features of the self.
Charles Cooley (1902) coined the term
“The looking-glass self” to describe how one’s
self or social identity is dependent on one’s
appearance to others.

He observed that from early childhood

our concepts of self develop from seeing
how others respond to us.
In Human Nature and the Social Order,
Charles H. Cooley (1902: 152) noted,
“In the presence of one whom we feel to be
of importance, there is a tendency to enter
into and adopt, by sympathy, his judgment
of ourself."
Following Cooley, George Herbert Mead (1934)
proposed the symbolic interactionist view
that self-knowledge is essentially distilled
from feedback received from other people.

Throughout life, an important source

of self-knowledge is the social feedback
people receive from each other.
The concept of the looking-glass self
is associated with a school of sociology
known as symbolic interactionism.

Symbolic interactionism is a theory that focuses

on the meanings attached to individual human
interactions as well as symbols.
Mead (1934) argued that the self involves
two phases: the “Me” and the “I”.

The “Me” is based on how someone sees others

as seeing themself, while the “I” is one’s
personal reaction to a situation.
Mead (1934) argued that people form
their social self through an ongoing interaction
between the “Me” and the “I”.

Through socialization in play and games,

children develop the “Me” and the “I”.
J. Sidney Shrauger and Thomas Schoeneman
(1979) found the symbolic interactionist view
of the self-concept to be inadequate.

They argued that people's self-concepts

do not correspond very closely to how
they are regarded by others.
Shrauger and Schoeneman (1979) found that
people's self-concepts do not correspond very
closely to how they are regarded by others.

Instead, people's self-concepts were highly

correlated with how they believed others
regarded them.
 Shrauger and Schoeneman (1979) suggested
that the self-concept is the product of some
negotiation between one's interpersonal
feedback and one's preferred beliefs
about oneself.
Swann and Hill (1982) demonstrated that
the effects of social feedback depend
on how people are able to respond to it.
The implication is that the passive self
may be shaped directly by external feedback,
but the active self tends to take an aggressive
and critical response to feedback so as to
measure it against what it already knows.

By responding actively to feedback, people can

maintain their views of themselves despite
contrary evidence.
Self-esteem is how a person thinks and feels
about their own qualities and characteristics.

A person who has positive thoughts about

their qualities and characteristics would have
high self-esteem.

A person with negative thoughts about

their qualities and characteristics would have
low self-esteem.
Self-esteem is an essential component
of overall health and well-being.

Higher levels of self-esteem translate into

improved mental health.

Lower levels of self-esteem are related to

mental health conditions such as depression.
Self-esteem levels are centrally linked to
differences in self-knowledge.

People with high self-esteem appear to have

clear, consistent, and stable views
about themselves.

People with low self-esteem do not seem to

know themselves well. Their self-concepts
appear to be confused, contradictory, unstable,
uncertain, and full of gaps.
Self-esteem has been shown to influence a
variety of behaviors.

People with low self-esteem appear to be more

susceptible to influence than people with high
self-esteem.
Most researchers have come to believe that
there are two main sources of self-esteem.

One is indeed the evaluative feedback

the person receives from others
(however distorted it may be).

The other is direct experiences of efficacy

and success (or failure).
People with low self-esteem are more likely
than highs to say that their behavior varies
across situations, which This may reflect
the greater plasticity or flexibility of people
with low self-esteem due to their general lack
of firm self-knowledge.

People with low self-esteem are more critical

of others and of themselves than are people
with high self-esteem.
 IS IDENTITY A CONSTRUCT?
Henri Tajfel and John Turner proposed the
Social Identity Theory in the 1970s.

It posits that individuals derive a portion of their

self-concept from their membership in social
groups.
Social identity theory explains how people
develop their identities through interaction
with society.

The concept of identity is socially constructed,

meaning that what it means to be a certain
gender, race, or have a certain ability is shaped
by historical, cultural, and social facts.
Our identities are relational and
communicative, and are formed through our
interactions with others and in relationship to
social, cultural, and political contexts.
Tajfel and Turner (1979) proposed that the
groups people belonged to, like social class,
family, football team, etc., were important
sources of pride and self-esteem.
Identity is a construct, that is, an entity
consisting of meaning and involving connections
and relationships among many events, stimuli,
and contexts.
Baumeister (1986) argued that identity begins
with an awareness of one's body, but in an adult
human being identity is generally oriented
toward goals.

These goals include becoming a certain kind

of person and not becoming another kind
of person.
Carl Rogers & Rosalind Dymond (1954) found
that people have some concept of themselves,
not as they currently are, but rather as they
would ideally like to be, and their efforts are
often directed at becoming more like their ideal
self.
Markus and Nurius (1987) added that people
have concepts of what they fear becoming—
such as overweight, unloved, or a failure.

Often these undesirable possible selves

are quite detailed and elaborate concepts,
and people exert efforts to avoid becoming
like these feared selves.
Baumeister (1997) observed that there are two
main motivations regarding the self-concept:
consistency and favorability.

Once a person has formed a certain concept

or evaluation of self, and if it is acceptable,
people seek to maintain it, and they resist
external influences designed to change it.
According to Shelley E. Taylor (1989),
there is evidence that the majority of people
strive to sustain favorable views of themselves.
They blame their failures externally but take
credit for successes, they convince themselves
that others like them, and they exaggerate their
degree of control and efficacy.
According to William B. Swann (1987),
there is evidence that people seek consistency.
They strive to confirm their views of themselves,
they dispute feedback that is discrepant
from their self-concepts, and they will even
avoid someone whose opinion of them differs
from their self-concept.
 MUST IDENTITY BE CONSISTENT
WITH SELF-CONCEPT?
Identity crises appear to be one symptom
of the modern emphasis on requiring each
person to create and define his or her own
identity.
Identity deficits begin when the person rejects
the values and behavior patterns that have
shaped his or her life up to that point,
and typically a period of exploration
and experimentation follows,
usually with long-term beneficial results.
Identity conflicts arise in conflict situations
that require the person to betray some personal
commitments or self-definitions.
People hold multiple conceptions of self,
including possible future selves, images of
how they ideally would like to be and how they
ought to be, detailed (if inaccurate) concepts
of how they really are and how they appear to
others, and more.
People with high self-esteem are guided
by a desire to stand out, to excel,
and to make strongly favorable impressions
on others.
People with low self-esteem are torn between
a desire for favorable feedback and a tendency
to distrust and disbelieve it.
On the positive side, people are very interested
in self-knowledge. They desire to learn about
themselves, although they have strong
preferences regarding what they might find out.

People seek to manage and control

the information about themselves.
On the negative side, the self is associated with
a variety of threats and problems.

When people discover a discrepancy between

how they are and how they want
or ought to be, they suffer a variety
of unpleasant emotions.
Baumeister (1997) found that when the self
can be a burden or problem, some people may
want to avoid self-awareness.

Some people deconstruct themselves.

Deconstruction is a matter of breaking those

connections and dissolving those relationships,
thereby reducing the sense of self back to its
bare minimum: a mere body.
Edward Tory Higgins (1987) confirmed that
such states arise when people fall short
of their standards, including ideals and moral
obligations.

Self-awareness is centrally concerned

with comparing oneself with standards,
so when the self falls short, it may be especially
painful or unpleasant to focus attention
on oneself.
Since the modern self is generally a source
of burdensome demands and constraining
definitions, people may find it exhilarating
to escape from self-awareness even when
nothing bad has happened.
To distract themselves from the unpleasant
thoughts about their failures and inadequacies,
some people indulge in states of ecstasy
or loss of ordinary awareness of self.
A variety of escapist behaviors can be
understood on the basis of this process
of shifting attention down to minimal levels.

Jay G. Hull (1981) found that alcohol use

is often a means of escaping from self-
awareness. Alcohol use impairs high-level
cognitive processes and meaningful thought,
focusing attention instead on sensations and
movements.
Baumeister (1997) observed, “Suicide
represents the most negative and maladaptive
aspect of escapist motivations. . . . People
attempt to take their own lives as a desperate
strategy to bring an end to the emotional misery
associated with an awareness of the self's
failures and shortcomings.”
 REFERENCES
Baumeister, Roy F. (1986). Identity: Cultural
change and the struggle for self. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Baumeister, Roy F. (1997). Identity, Self-Concept,

and Self-Esteem: The Self Lost and Found,
Handbook of Personality Psychology, 681-710.
Cooley, Charles H. (1902). Human Nature and
the Social Order. New York: Scribner's.

Erikson, Erik H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis.

New York: Norton.

Higgins, Edward T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A

theory relating self and affect. Psychological
Review, 94, 319-340.
Hull, J. G. (1981). A self-awareness model of the
causes and effects of alcohol consumption.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 586-600.

Maclntyre, A. (1981). After Virtue. Notre Dame,

IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing
information about the self. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63-78.

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. S. (1987). Possible

selves: The interface between motivation and
the self-concept. In K. Yardley & T. Honess (Eds.),
Self and Identity: Psychosocial Perspectives, 157-
172). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Self and Society.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Shrauger, J. S., & Schoeneman, T. J. (1979).

Symbolic Interactionist View of Self-Concept:
Through the Looking Glass Darkly. Psychological
Bulletin, 86(3), 549–573.
Swann, William B., & Hill, C. A. (1982). When our
identities are mistaken: Reaffirming selfconceptions
through social interaction. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,
43, 59-66.

Swann, William B. (1987). Identity negotiation:

Where two roads meet. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 53, 1038-1051.
Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C., Austin, W. G., & Worchel,
S. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup
conflict. Organizational Identity: A reader, 56-
65.

Trilling, L. (1971). Sincerity and Authenticity.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Taylor, Shelley E. (1989). Positive Illusions:

Creative Self-Deception and the Healthy Mind.
New York: Basic Books.
Weintraub, K. J. (1978). The value of the
individual: Self and circumstance in
autobiography. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.