Lesson 4.

PSYCHOLOGY

Most people would say that they do not want to talk about themselves. But in actuality,
most people like hearing life stories of another person as a chance to talk about
themselves or to relate self to others. The famous line of “Me, Myself and I” is often
used in movies, animations and even in social media- as caption to picture or as shout-
outs.
The Psychology of self focuses on the representation of an individual based on his/her
experiences. These experiences are either from the home, school and other groups,
organization or affiliations he/she engaged in. seemingly, the “self” is one of the most
heavily researched areas in social and personality psychology, where concepts are
introduce that beyond our physical attributes, lies our psychological identity. Questions
of “Who am I?” or “what am I beyond my looks?” are thoughts of many that continuously
search for a deeper sense of self which can be traced back from some time of human
history. “Drawing on caves suggests that sometime during the dawn of history, human
beings began to give serious thought to their nonphysical selves. With the advent of
written history, writers would describe this awareness of self in terms of spirit, psyche,
or soul.” (Pajares & Schunck, 2002)
From ancient to current times, the concept of the self is always an interesting
subject for many as it is very personal that it talks about interpersonal properties. In
oxfordbibliographies.com (2-13), it is mentioned that whatever stance one adopts
regarding the self’s ontological status, there is little doubt that the many phenomena of
which the self is a predicate-self-knowledge, self-awareness, self-esteem, self-
enhancement, self-regulations, self-deception, self-presentation to name just a few, are
indispensable research areas.
What to Expect?

At the end of this lesson, the student is expected to:

a. Demonstrate critical and reflective thought in analyzing the different

psychological theories in the study of the “self”
b. Expound the self as a cognitive construction
c. Examine the self as proactive and agentic.
THE SELF AS A COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTIONS

Cognitive construction is a cognitive approach that focuses on the mental

processes rather than the observable behavior. This approach will assist individuals in
assimilating new information to their existing knowledge and will enable to make the
appropriate modification to their existing intellectual framework to accommodate their
new information.

William James and the Me-Self, I-Self

With the initiative of Wilhelm Wundt, the father of Scientific, Psychology,

Scientific methods in studying what Aguirre et al. (2011) mentioned as “phenomenon of
the consciousness”, urged interest in further studies of the self and its role in human
behavior. It is in this time that “William James” classic distinction between the self as
knower (or pure ego) and the self as known (or the empirical self) provides a useful
scheme within which to view the multitudinous aspects of self-functioning
(oxfordbibliographies.com,2013).
W. James suggested that “the self of “Me”, being as it were duplex” is composed of
“partly object and partly subject.” As a consequence, he differentiated between the self
as knower, or the “I” and the self as known, or “Me”. He referred to the “I” as pure ego
and suggested that this component of self is consciousness itself. The “Me”, on the
other hand, is one of the many things that the I may be conscious of , and it consists of
three components, one physical or material, one social, and one spiritual (Pajares &
Schunck, 2002).
Material Self- consists of 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.
 Social Self – our social selves are who we are in 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.
Spiritual Self – is who we are out 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.

Global versus Differentiated Models

There had been postulation that one’s self may be fragmented into different parts
and different selves which may be in conflict needs regulation from each other. Although
W. James gave a very interesting perspective on the self, and was even among the first
writers to coin the ‘Self-Esteem’, other theories emerged to study on the selfhood as an
integrated part of one’s psyche. In the past 30 years, self-esteem has become deeply
embedded in popular culture (Brown & Marchall, 2006). It is a person overall self
evaluation or sense of self-worth.
Global self-esteem (a.k.a. Feelings of Self-esteem), is a personality variable that
represents the way people generally feel about themselves. It is relatively enduring
across time and situations. According to researchers (e.g. Crocker & Park, 2004;
Crocker &Wolfe, 2001), Global self-esteem is a decision people make about their worth
as a person.
State Self-esteem (a.k.a. Feelings of Self-worth), refers to temporary feelings or
momentary emotional reaction to positive and negative events where we feel good or
bad about ourselves during these situation or experiences.
Domain Specific-self esteem (a.k.a. Self-evaluations), is focused on how people
evaluate their values abilities and attributes. This is making distinctions or differentiation
on how good or bad people are in specific physical attributes, abilities and personal
characteristics.
Real and Ideal Self Concepts
The self as the regulating center of an individual’s personality and self=processes
under the guess of id, and superego functioning (Pajares & Schunck, 2002), rocked
psychology as the biggest breakthrough understanding the psychological self. From this
milestone, prominent psychologists followed with their own perspective of the self to
contest the roles and function of ego as the self. These were the landmarks of
Contemporary Psychology and the understanding of the internal process of man. A
group of psychologists called for renewed attention to inner experience, internal
processes, and self-constructs. This perspective asserts the overall dignity and worth of
human beings and their capacity for self-realization (Hall, Lindzey, & Manosevitz, 1997)

Karen Horney with her feminine psychology, established that a person has an ‘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 possessor of unlimited
powers and superlative qualities, is developed. On the other hand, the actual self, the
person one is in everyday life, is often despised because it fails to fulfill the
requirements of the idealized image. Underlying both the idealized self and actual self is
the real self, which is revealed only as a person begins to shed the various techniques
develop 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.

Carl Rogers with his Person-Centered Theory, establish a concept of self, involving
the Real Self (a.k.a. Self-concept) and Ideal Self includes all those aspects of one’s
being and one’s experience that are perceived in awareness (through 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 promoters, what we think are in our best interest.
A wide gap between the ideal 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 self, the greater is the level of
resulting distress.

Multiple versus Unified Selves

Postmodern psychology contends that man has an identity that shifts and morphs in
different social situation 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 one self-concept (ctsites.uga.edu, 2016, danielcw).
Theories believed that there is no one answer to the question, “Who am I?” as one
person can undergo several transition in his life and create multiple versions of himself.
However, there is still the contention of the importance of mental well-being, 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 when our personality dynamics are congruent, cohesive and consistent. It is
understood that a person is essentially connected with selfhood and 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 versus False Selves

Donald W. Winnicott distinguish 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 as 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 the relationship. The Healthy False
Self is functional, can be fits in but through a feeling that it has betrayed its true self.
The Unhealthy False Self fits in but through a feeling of forced compliance rather than
loving adaptation (chancgingminds.org 2016). False Selves, as in investigation by
Heins Kohut (1971), can lead towards narcissistic personality, which identify 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 desire 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 – the 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 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 thing but an active process of exploring, manipulating and
influencing the environment in order to attain outcomes. According to Albert Bandura,
the core features of human agency are Intentionally (acts a person performs
intentionally) forethought (setting goals, anticipation of outcomes of actions, selection of
behavior to produce desired and avoiding undesirable ones), self-reactiveness
(monitoring progress towards 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 desire effect (Feist, et al., 2013).
Self-Efficacy lies in the center 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 actually are (appsychtextbk.wikispaces.com,2014).
Let us move further as we continue examining other perspectives of the self.