That people differ from each other is obvious. How and why they differ is less clear and is the subject of the study of Individual differences (IDs). Although to study individual differences seems to be to study variance, how are people different, it is also to study central tendency, how well can a person be described in terms of an overall within-person average. Indeed, perhaps the most important question of individual differences is whether people are more similar to themselves over time and across situations than they are to others, and whether the variation within a single person across time and situation is less than the variation between people. A related question is that of similarity, for people differ in their similarities to each other. Questions of whether particular groups (e.g., groupings by sex, culture, age, or ethnicity) are more similar within than between groups are also questions of individual differences.
Personality psychology addresses the questions of shared human nature, dimensions of individual differences and unique patterns of individuals. Research in IDs ranges from analyses of genetic codes to the study of sexual, social, ethnic, and cultural differences and includes research on cognitive abilities, interpersonal styles, and emotional reactivity. Methods range from laboratory experiments to longitudinal field studies and include data reduction techniques such as Factor Analysis and Principal Components Analysis, as well as Structural Modeling and Multi-Level Modeling procedures. Measurement issues of most importance are those of reliability and stability of Individual Differences.
Research in Individual Differences addresses three broad questions: 1) developing an adequate descriptive taxonomy of how people differ; 2) applying differences in one situation to predict differences in other situations; and 3) testing theoretical explanations of the structure and dynamics of individual differences.
Taxonomies of individual differences:
Taxonomic work has focused on categorizing the infinite ways in which individuals differ in terms of a limited number of latent or unobservable constructs. This is a multi-step, cyclical process of intuition, observation, deduction, induction, and verification that has gradually converged on a consensual descriptive organization of broad classes of variables as well as on methods for analyzing them. Most of the measurement and taxonomic techniques used throughout the field have been developed in response to the demand for selection for schooling, training, and business applications.
Test Theory
Consider the case of differences in vocabulary in a particular language (e.g., English). Although it is logically possible to organize people in terms of the specific words they know in English, the more than 2^(500,000) possible response patterns that could be found by quizzing people on each of the more than 500,000 words in English introduces more complexity rather than less. Classical Test Theory (CTT) ignores individual response patterns and estimates an individual's total vocabulary size by measuring performance on small samples of words. Words are seen as random replicates of each other and thus individual differences in total vocabulary size are estimated from observed differences on these smaller samples. The Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient (r) compares the degree of covariance between these samples with the variance within samples. As the number of words sampled increases, the correlation of the individual differences within each sample and with those in the total domain increases accordingly.
Estimates of ability based upon Item Response Theory (IRT) take into account parameters of the words themselves (i.e., the difficulty and discriminability of each word) and estimate a single ability parameter for each individual. Although CTT and IRT estimates are highly correlated, CTT statistics are based on decomposing the sources of variance within and between individuals while IRT statistics focus on the precision of an individual estimate without requiring differences between individuals. CTT estimates of reliability of ability measures are assessed across similar items (internal consistency), across alternate forms, and across different forms of assessment as well as over time (stability). Tests are reliable to the extent that differences within individuals are small compared to those between individuals when generalizing across items, forms, or occasions. CTT reliability thus requires between subject variability. IRT estimates, on the other hand, are concerned with the precision of measurement for a particular person in terms of a metric defined by item difficulty.
The test theory developed to account for sampling differences within domains can be generalized to account for differences between domains. Just as different samples of words will yield somewhat different estimates of vocabulary, different cognitive tasks (e.g., vocabulary and arithmetic performance) will yield different estimates of performance. Using multivariate procedures such as Principal Components Analysis or Factor Analysis, it is possible to decompose the total variation into between domain covariance, within domain covariance, and within domain variance. One of the most replicable observations in the study of individual differences is that almost all tests thought to assess cognitive ability have a general factor (g) that is shared with other tests of ability. That is, although each test has specific variance associated with content (e.g., linguistic, spatial), form of administration (e.g., auditory, visual), or operations involved (e.g., perceptual speed, memory storage, memory retrieval, abstract reasoning), there is general variance that is common to all tests of cognitive ability.
Personality and Ability
Although to some the term personality refers to all aspects of a person's individuality, typical usage divides the field into studies of ability and personality. Tests of ability are viewed as maximal performance measures. Ability is construed as the best one can do on a particular measure in a limited time (speed test) or with unlimited time (power test). Personality measures are estimates of average performance and typically include reports of preferences and estimates of what one normally does and how one perceives oneself and is perceived by others.
The same procedures used to clarify the structure of cognitive abilities have been applied to the question of identifying the domains of personality. Many of the early and current personality inventories use self-descriptive questions (e.g., do you like to go to lively parties; are you sometimes nervous) that are rationally or theoretically relevant to some domain of interest for a particular investigator. Although there is substantial consistency across inventories developed this way, some of this agreement could be due to conceptually overlapping item pools. Other researchers have advocated a lexical approach to the taxonomic problem, following the basic assumption that words in the natural language describe all important individual differences. This shifts the taxonomic question from how are individuals similar and different from each other to how are the words used to describe individuals (e.g., lively, talkative, nervous, anxious) similar and different from each other.
Dimensional analyses of tests developed based on lexical, rational, or theoretical bases suggest that a limited number (between three and seven) of higher order trait domains adequately organize the thousands of words that describe individual differences and the logically infinite way that these words can be combined into self or peer report items. The broadest domains are those of introversion-extraversion and emotional stability-neuroticism, with the domains of agreeableness, conscientiousness and intellectual openness or culture close behind. These domains can be seen as asking the questions that one wants to know about a stranger or a potential mate: are they energetic and dominant (extraverted), emotionally stable (low neurotic), trustworthy (conscientious), loveable (agreeable), and interesting (intelligent and open).
Measures of ability and personality reflect observations aggregated across time and occasion and require inferences about stable latent traits thought to account for the variety of observed behaviors. However there are other individual differences that are readily apparent to outside observers and require little or no inference about latent traits. The most obvious of such variables include sex, age, height, and weight. Differences that require some knowledge and inference are differences in ethnicity and social economic status. These obvious group differences are sometimes analyzed in terms of the more subtle measures of personality and ability or of real life outcomes (e.g, sex differences in neuroticism, mathematics ability, or income).
Predictive Validity
Individual differences are important only to the extent that they make a difference. Does knowing that people differ on a trait X help in predicting the likelihood of their doing behavior Y? For many important outcome variables the answer is a resounding yes. In their review of 85 years of selection in personnel psychology, Frank Schmidt and John Hunter (Psychological Bulletin, 1998, 124, 262-274) show how differences in cognitive ability predict differences in job performance with correlations averaging about .50 for mid complexity jobs. These correlations are moderated by job complexity and are much higher for professional-managerial positions than they are for completely unskilled jobs. In terms of applications to personnel psychology, a superior manager (one standard deviation above the mean ability for managers) produces almost 50% more than an average manager. These relationships diminish as a function of years of experience and degree of training. General mental ability (g) also has substantial predictive powers in predicting non-job related outcomes, such as likelihood of completing college, risk for divorce and even risk for criminality.
The non-cognitive measures of individual differences also predict important real life criteria. Extraversion is highly correlated with total sales in dollars among salespeople. Similarly, impulsivity can be used to predict traffic violations. Conscientiousness, when added to g substantially increases the predictability of job performance. Although the size of the correlation is much lower, conscientiousness measured in adolescence predicts premature mortality over the next fifty years.
Sources of individual differences
The taxonomic and predictive studies of individual differences are descriptive organizations of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that go together and how they relate to other outcomes. But this categorization is descriptive rather than causal and is analogous to grouping rocks in terms of density and hardness rather than atomic or molecular structure. Causal theories of individual differences are being developed but are in a much earlier stage than are the descriptive taxonomies.
Descriptive taxonomies are used to organize the results of studies that examine genetic bases of individual differences. By applying structural modeling techniques to the variances and covariances associated with various family constellations it is possible to decompose phenotypic trait variance into separate sources of genetic and environmental variance. The most common family configurations that are used are comparisons of identical (monozygotic) with fraternal (dizygotic) twins. Additional designs include twins reared together or apart, and biological versus adoptive parents, children and siblings. Conclusions from behavioral genetics for most personality traits tend to be similar: Across different designs, with different samples from different countries, roughly 40-60% of the phenotypic variance seems to be under genetic control with only a very small part of the remaining environmental variance associated with shared family environmental effects. Additional results suggest that genetic sources of individual differences remain important across the lifespan. However, this should not be taken to mean that people do not change as they mature but rather that the paths one takes through life are similar to those taken by genetically similar individuals.
Genes do not code for thoughts, feelings or behavior but rather code for proteins that regulate and modulate biological systems. Although promising work has been done searching for the biological bases of individual differences it is possible to sketch out these bases only in the broadest of terms. Specific neurotransmitters and brain structures can be associated with a broad class of approach behaviors and positive affects while other neurotransmitters and structures can be associated with a similarly broad class of avoidance behaviors and negative affects. Reports relating specific alleles to specific personality traits emphasize that the broad personality traits are most likely under polygenic influence and are moderated by environmental experience.
Subtle differences in neurotransmitter availability and re-uptake vary the sensitivity of individuals to cues about their environment that predict future resource availability and external rewards and punishments. It is the way these cues are detected, atttended to, stored, and integrated with previous experiences that makes each individual unique. Current work on the bases of individual differences is concerned with understanding this delicate interplay of biological propensities with environmental opportunities and constraints as they are ultimately represented in an individual's information processing system. With time we can expect to increase our taxonomic and predictive power by using these causal bio-social theories of individual differences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
Brody, N. and Ehrlichman, H. (1997) Personality Psychology : Science of Individuality. Prentice Hall Press; A thoughtful introduction to the broad field of personality.
Cooper, C. (1997) Individual Differences: London: Arnold A broad overview of the field that includes a review of measurement methodologies.
Eysenck, H.J. (1994) Personality: Biological foundations. In P.A. Vernon (Ed.) The neuropsychology of individual differences. London: Academic Press.
Eysenck, H.J. and Eysenck, M.W (1985) Personality and individual differences: a natural science approach. Plenum: New York. Although dated, perhaps the best treatment of the scientific method as applied to the study of personality and individual differences.
Hogan, R., Johnson, J. & Briggs, S. (Eds) (1997) Handbook of Personality Psychology. San Diego: Academic Press. The definitive handbook of the field includes chapters on evolutionary, biological, and social bases of individual differences.
Jensen, A.R. (1998) The G Factor : The science of mental ability. Westport, Conn. Praeger Review of the importance of general intelligence for performance on tasks.
Loehlin, J.C. (1992) Genes and environment in personality development. Newbury Park, Ca. Sage. A concise tutorial on genetic modeling and personality taxonomies.
Saklofske, D. H. & Zeidner, M. (1995). International handbook of personality and intelligence. New York: Plenum.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE: Psychology Perspective
The science of psychology studies people at three levels of focus captured by the well known quote: “Every man is in certain respects (a) like all other men, (b) like some other men, (c) like no other man" (Murray, H.A. & C. Kluckhohn, 1953).
Individual differences psychology focuses on this second level of study. It is also sometimes called Differential Psychology because researchers in this area study the ways in which individual people differ in their behavior. This is distinguished from other aspects of psychology in that although psychology is ostensibly a study of individuals, modern psychologists often study groups or biological underpinnings of cognition. For example, in evaluating the effectiveness of a new therapy, the mean performance of the therapy in one group might be compared to the mean effectiveness of a placebo (or a well-known therapy) in a second, control group. In this context, differences between individuals in their reaction to the experimental and control manipulations are actually treated as errors rather than as interesting phenomena to study. This is because psychological research depends upon statistical controls that are only defined upon groups of people. Individual difference psychologists usually express their interest in individuals while studying groups by seeking dimensions shared by all individuals but upon which individuals differ.
Contents [hide]
1 Importance of individual differences
2 Areas of study
3 Prominent researchers in individual differences psychology
4 London School of Differential Psychology
Importance of individual differences
The study of individual differences is essential because important variation between individuals can be masked by averaging. For example, a researcher is interested in resting metabolic rate in humans. The researcher gathers a sample of men, women, and children, measures their metabolic rate and gets a single average. The researcher then tells the whole population that they should be eating 1,900 calories a day. What's wrong with this study? The researcher has neglected individual differences in activity level, body size, sex, age, and other factors that influence metabolic rate. The average reported based on the results is masking multiple dimensions that should be used to determine daily caloric intake. Therefore, his or her conclusions are misleading if not outright false. This is an extreme example to make a point, but it illustrates the problems that can arise by averaging across groups.
Areas of study
Individual differences research typically includes personality, motivation, intelligence, ability, and IQ. interests, values, self-concept, self-efficacy, and self-esteem (to name just a few). There are few remaining "differential psychology" programs in the United States, although research in this area is very active. Current researchers are found in a variety of applied and experimental programs, including educational psychology, industrial psychology, personality psychology and social psychology programs.
Prominent researchers in individual differences psychology
Phillip L. Ackerman
Gordon Allport
Anne Anastasi
Camilla Benbow
Alfred Binet
Cyril Burt
John B. Carroll
Raymond Cattell
Lee Cronbach
Francis Galton
Linda Gottfredson
J. P. Guilford
Jan-Eric Gustafsson
John L. Horn
Lloyd Humphreys
Earl Hunt
Arthur Jensen
David F. Lohman
David Lubinski
Richard Lynn
Walter Mischel
Richard Snow
William Stern
Robert J. Sternberg
Robert L. Thorndike
L.L. Thurstone
Leona E. Tyler
London School of Differential Psychology
The London School of Differential Psychology is a particular subset of researchers interested in explaining individual differences. Researchers in this area often (though not necessarily) look toward biology as an explanation. Its members have contributed much by way of their research in psychometrics, behavior genetics, and General intelligence factor. The founding of the School is often accredited to Victorian polymath Francis Galton. Additional members are:
Charles Spearman, creator of the Spearman-Brown prediction formula
Cyril Burt
Hans Eysenck
Philip E. Vernon
Arthur Jensen
Richard Lynn
J. Philippe Rushton
Ian Deary
Chris Brand
Thomas Bouchard
See also
Educational psychology
Intelligence
Personality psychology
Further reading
Introduction to Individual Differences
Buss, D.M., & Greiling, H.(1999). Adaptive Individual Differences. Journal of Personality, 67, 209-243.
Tyler, L.E. (1965). The psychology of human differences. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.
London School Web page
Timeline of researchers and brief biographies
Individual differences psychology focuses on this second level of study. It is also sometimes called Differential Psychology because researchers in this area study the ways in which individual people differ in their behavior. This is distinguished from other aspects of psychology in that although psychology is ostensibly a study of individuals, modern psychologists often study groups or biological underpinnings of cognition. For example, in evaluating the effectiveness of a new therapy, the mean performance of the therapy in one group might be compared to the mean effectiveness of a placebo (or a well-known therapy) in a second, control group. In this context, differences between individuals in their reaction to the experimental and control manipulations are actually treated as errors rather than as interesting phenomena to study. This is because psychological research depends upon statistical controls that are only defined upon groups of people. Individual difference psychologists usually express their interest in individuals while studying groups by seeking dimensions shared by all individuals but upon which individuals differ.
Contents [hide]
1 Importance of individual differences
2 Areas of study
3 Prominent researchers in individual differences psychology
4 London School of Differential Psychology
Importance of individual differences
The study of individual differences is essential because important variation between individuals can be masked by averaging. For example, a researcher is interested in resting metabolic rate in humans. The researcher gathers a sample of men, women, and children, measures their metabolic rate and gets a single average. The researcher then tells the whole population that they should be eating 1,900 calories a day. What's wrong with this study? The researcher has neglected individual differences in activity level, body size, sex, age, and other factors that influence metabolic rate. The average reported based on the results is masking multiple dimensions that should be used to determine daily caloric intake. Therefore, his or her conclusions are misleading if not outright false. This is an extreme example to make a point, but it illustrates the problems that can arise by averaging across groups.
Areas of study
Individual differences research typically includes personality, motivation, intelligence, ability, and IQ. interests, values, self-concept, self-efficacy, and self-esteem (to name just a few). There are few remaining "differential psychology" programs in the United States, although research in this area is very active. Current researchers are found in a variety of applied and experimental programs, including educational psychology, industrial psychology, personality psychology and social psychology programs.
Prominent researchers in individual differences psychology
Phillip L. Ackerman
Gordon Allport
Anne Anastasi
Camilla Benbow
Alfred Binet
Cyril Burt
John B. Carroll
Raymond Cattell
Lee Cronbach
Francis Galton
Linda Gottfredson
J. P. Guilford
Jan-Eric Gustafsson
John L. Horn
Lloyd Humphreys
Earl Hunt
Arthur Jensen
David F. Lohman
David Lubinski
Richard Lynn
Walter Mischel
Richard Snow
William Stern
Robert J. Sternberg
Robert L. Thorndike
L.L. Thurstone
Leona E. Tyler
London School of Differential Psychology
The London School of Differential Psychology is a particular subset of researchers interested in explaining individual differences. Researchers in this area often (though not necessarily) look toward biology as an explanation. Its members have contributed much by way of their research in psychometrics, behavior genetics, and General intelligence factor. The founding of the School is often accredited to Victorian polymath Francis Galton. Additional members are:
Charles Spearman, creator of the Spearman-Brown prediction formula
Cyril Burt
Hans Eysenck
Philip E. Vernon
Arthur Jensen
Richard Lynn
J. Philippe Rushton
Ian Deary
Chris Brand
Thomas Bouchard
See also
Educational psychology
Intelligence
Personality psychology
Further reading
Introduction to Individual Differences
Buss, D.M., & Greiling, H.(1999). Adaptive Individual Differences. Journal of Personality, 67, 209-243.
Tyler, L.E. (1965). The psychology of human differences. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.
London School Web page
Timeline of researchers and brief biographies
SELF CONSEPT & SELF ESTEEM
By self, we generally mean the conscious reflection of one's own being or identity, as an object separate from other or from the environment. There are a variety of ways to think about the self. Two of the most widely used terms are self-concept and self-esteem. Self-concept is the cognitive or thinking aspect of self (related to one's self-image) and generally refers to
"the totality of a complex, organized, and dynamic system of learned beliefs, attitudes and opinions that each person holds to be true about his or her personal existence" (Purkey, 1988).
Self-esteem is the affective or emotional aspect of self and generally refers to how we feel about or how we value ourselves (one's self-worth). Self-concept can also refer to the general idea we have of ourselves and self-esteem can refer to particular measures about components of self-concept. Some authors even use the two terms interchangeably.
Franken (1994) states that
"there is a great deal of research which shows that the self-concept is, perhaps, the basis for all motivated behavior. It is the self-concept that gives rise to possible selves, and it is possible selves that create the motivation for behavior" (p. 443).
This supports the idea that one's paradigm or world view and one's relationship to that view provide the boundaries and circumstances within which we develop our vision about possibilities. This is one of the major issues facing children and youth today (Huitt, 2004).
Franken (1994) suggests that self-concept is related to self-esteem in that
"people who have good self-esteem have a clearly differentiated self-concept.... When people know themselves they can maximize outcomes because they know what they can and cannot do" (p. 439).
It would seem, then, that one way to impact self-esteem is to obey the somewhat outworn cliche of "Know thyself."
We develop and maintain our self-concept through the process of taking action and then reflecting on what we have done and what others tell us about what we have done. We reflect on what we have done and can do in comparison to our expectations and the expectations of others and to the characteristics and accomplishments of others (Brigham, 1986; James, 1890). That is, self-concept is not innate, but is developed or constructed by the individual through interaction with the environment and reflecting on that interaction. This dynamic aspect of self-concept (and, by corollary, self-esteem) is important because it indicates that it can be modified or changed. Franken (1994) states
"there is a growing body of research which indicates that it is possible to change the self-concept. Self-change is not something that people can will but rather it depends on the process of self-reflection. Through self-reflection, people often come to view themselves in a new, more powerful way, and it is through this new, more powerful way of viewing the self that people can develop possible selves" (p. 443).
There are a several different components of self-concept: physical, academic, social, and transpersonal. The physical aspect of self-concept relates to that which is concrete: what we look like, our sex, height, weight, etc.; what kind of clothes we wear; what kind of car we drive; what kind of home we live in; and so forth. Our academic self-concept relates to how well we do in school or how well we learn. There are two levels: a general academic self-concept of how good we are overall and a set of specific content-related self-concepts that describe how good we are in math, science, language arts, social science, etc. The social self-concept describes how we relate to other people and the transpersonal self-concept describes how we relate to the supernatural or unknowns.
Marsh (1992) showed that the relationship of self-concept to school achievement is very specific. General self-concept and non-academic aspects of self-concept are not related to academic work; general academic achievement measures are related moderately to academic success. Specific measures of subject-related self-concepts are highly related to success in that content area.
Using linear discriminant analysis, Byrne (1990) showed that academic self-concept was more effective than was academic achievement in differentiating between low-track and high-track students. Hamachek (1995) also asserts that self-concept and school achievement and school achievement are related. The major issue is the direction of the relationship: does self-concept produce achievement or does achievement produce self-concept. Gage and Berliner (1992) state
"the evidence is accumulating, however, to indicate that level of school success, particularly over many years, predicts level of regard of self and one's own ability (Bridgeman & Shipman, 1978; Kifer, 1975); whereas level of self-esteem does not predict level of school achievement. The implication is that teachers need to concentrate on the academic successes and failures of their students. It is the student's history of success and failure that gives them the information with which to assess themselves" (p. 159).
If academic achievement leads to self-concept/self-esteem, but self-concept is a better predictor of being a low-track or high-track student, it would appear that there is some intervening variable. James (1890) states that the intervening variable is personal expectations. His formula is:
Self-esteem = Success / Pretensions.
That is, increasing self-esteem results when success is improved relative to expectations. Bandura (1997) states that one's self-efficacy is one of the best predictions of successful achievement. He also states that one's mastery experiences related to success is the major influence on one's self-efficacy. As self-efficacy and self-esteem are both constructed by one's conscious reflections, it would appear that educators and parents should provide experiences that students can master rather than attempting to boost self-esteem directly through other means.
An interesting corollary to this equation is that success is limited by expectations and self-esteem:
Success = Pretensions * Self-esteem.
This equation states that success, especially the limits of one's success, can be improved by increasing expectations and/or self-esteem. However, as noted by Gage and Berliner (1992), the research on the relationship between self-esteem/self-concept and school achievement suggests that measures of general or even academic self-concept are not significantly related to school achievement. It is at the level of very specific subjects (e.g., reading, mathematics, science) that there is a relationship between self-concept/self-esteem and academic success. Given the above formula, this suggests that success in a particular subject area is not really changing one's self-concept (knowledge of one's self) or even self-esteem (one's subjective evaluation of one's value or worth), but rather is impacting one's expecation about future success based on one's past experience.
Seligman's (1996) work on explanatory style suggests that the intervening variable connecting self-esteem and achievement is the student's level of "optimism" or the tendency to see the world as a benevolent (good things will probably happen) or malevolent (bad things will probably happen).
Some additional "self" terms are self-direction (Smith, 2004) and self-determination (Ryan & Deci, 2000; the extent to which one's aspirations, dreams, and goals are self-selected), self-regulation (Bandura, 1997; Behncke, 2003; one's guidance of one's goal-directed thinking, attitudes, and behavior), and self-transcendence (Polanyi, 1970; Frankl, 1963; going beyond or above the limitations of one's ego; meaningful connections to others, nature, universe, Creator, etc.). My view is that we need to address all of these constructions in a holistic manner if we are to prepare our children and youth for successful adulthood (Huitt, 2004).
References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Behncke, L. (2002). Self-regulation: A brief review. Athletic Insight, 14(1). Retrieved November 2004, from http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol4Iss1/SelfRegulation.htm
Brigham, J. (1986). Social psychology. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
Byrne, B. (1990). Self-concept and academic achievement: Investigating their importance as discriminators of academic track membership in high school. Canadian Journal of Education, 15(2), 173-182.
Franken, R. (1994). Human motivation (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
Frankl, V. (1963). (I. Lasch, Trans.). Man's search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy. New York: Washington Square Press
Gage, N., & Berliner, D. (1992). Educational psychology (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Hamachek, D. (1995). Self-concept and school achievement: Interaction dynamics and a tool for assessing the self-concept component. Journal of Counseling & Development, 73(4), 419-425.
Huitt, W. (2004, October 29). Becoming a Brilliant Star: An introduction. Presentation at the Forum for Integrated Education and Educational Reform sponsored by the Council for Global Integrative Education, Santa Cruz, CA. Available on at http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/brilstar/chapters/BrilStarintro.pdf
James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. New York: Henry Holt.
Marsh, H. (1992 ). The content specificity of relations between academic self-concept and achievement: An extension of the Marsh/Shavelson model. ERIC NO: ED349315.
Polanyi, M. (1970). Transcendence and self-transcendence. Soundings, 53(1), 88-94. Retrieved November 2004, from http://www.compilerpress.atfreeweb.com/Anno%20Polanyi%20Transcendence%201970.htm
Purkey, W. (1988). An overview of self-concept theory for counselors. ERIC Clearinghouse on Counseling and Personnel Services, Ann Arbor, Mich. (An ERIC/CAPS Digest: ED304630)
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78. Retrieved November 2004, from http://psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/documents/2000RyanDeciSDT.pdf
Seligman, M. (1996) The optimistic child: How learned optimism protects children from depression. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Smith, M. (2004). Self-direction. The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Retrieved November 2004, from http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-selfdr.htm
"the totality of a complex, organized, and dynamic system of learned beliefs, attitudes and opinions that each person holds to be true about his or her personal existence" (Purkey, 1988).
Self-esteem is the affective or emotional aspect of self and generally refers to how we feel about or how we value ourselves (one's self-worth). Self-concept can also refer to the general idea we have of ourselves and self-esteem can refer to particular measures about components of self-concept. Some authors even use the two terms interchangeably.
Franken (1994) states that
"there is a great deal of research which shows that the self-concept is, perhaps, the basis for all motivated behavior. It is the self-concept that gives rise to possible selves, and it is possible selves that create the motivation for behavior" (p. 443).
This supports the idea that one's paradigm or world view and one's relationship to that view provide the boundaries and circumstances within which we develop our vision about possibilities. This is one of the major issues facing children and youth today (Huitt, 2004).
Franken (1994) suggests that self-concept is related to self-esteem in that
"people who have good self-esteem have a clearly differentiated self-concept.... When people know themselves they can maximize outcomes because they know what they can and cannot do" (p. 439).
It would seem, then, that one way to impact self-esteem is to obey the somewhat outworn cliche of "Know thyself."
We develop and maintain our self-concept through the process of taking action and then reflecting on what we have done and what others tell us about what we have done. We reflect on what we have done and can do in comparison to our expectations and the expectations of others and to the characteristics and accomplishments of others (Brigham, 1986; James, 1890). That is, self-concept is not innate, but is developed or constructed by the individual through interaction with the environment and reflecting on that interaction. This dynamic aspect of self-concept (and, by corollary, self-esteem) is important because it indicates that it can be modified or changed. Franken (1994) states
"there is a growing body of research which indicates that it is possible to change the self-concept. Self-change is not something that people can will but rather it depends on the process of self-reflection. Through self-reflection, people often come to view themselves in a new, more powerful way, and it is through this new, more powerful way of viewing the self that people can develop possible selves" (p. 443).
There are a several different components of self-concept: physical, academic, social, and transpersonal. The physical aspect of self-concept relates to that which is concrete: what we look like, our sex, height, weight, etc.; what kind of clothes we wear; what kind of car we drive; what kind of home we live in; and so forth. Our academic self-concept relates to how well we do in school or how well we learn. There are two levels: a general academic self-concept of how good we are overall and a set of specific content-related self-concepts that describe how good we are in math, science, language arts, social science, etc. The social self-concept describes how we relate to other people and the transpersonal self-concept describes how we relate to the supernatural or unknowns.
Marsh (1992) showed that the relationship of self-concept to school achievement is very specific. General self-concept and non-academic aspects of self-concept are not related to academic work; general academic achievement measures are related moderately to academic success. Specific measures of subject-related self-concepts are highly related to success in that content area.
Using linear discriminant analysis, Byrne (1990) showed that academic self-concept was more effective than was academic achievement in differentiating between low-track and high-track students. Hamachek (1995) also asserts that self-concept and school achievement and school achievement are related. The major issue is the direction of the relationship: does self-concept produce achievement or does achievement produce self-concept. Gage and Berliner (1992) state
"the evidence is accumulating, however, to indicate that level of school success, particularly over many years, predicts level of regard of self and one's own ability (Bridgeman & Shipman, 1978; Kifer, 1975); whereas level of self-esteem does not predict level of school achievement. The implication is that teachers need to concentrate on the academic successes and failures of their students. It is the student's history of success and failure that gives them the information with which to assess themselves" (p. 159).
If academic achievement leads to self-concept/self-esteem, but self-concept is a better predictor of being a low-track or high-track student, it would appear that there is some intervening variable. James (1890) states that the intervening variable is personal expectations. His formula is:
Self-esteem = Success / Pretensions.
That is, increasing self-esteem results when success is improved relative to expectations. Bandura (1997) states that one's self-efficacy is one of the best predictions of successful achievement. He also states that one's mastery experiences related to success is the major influence on one's self-efficacy. As self-efficacy and self-esteem are both constructed by one's conscious reflections, it would appear that educators and parents should provide experiences that students can master rather than attempting to boost self-esteem directly through other means.
An interesting corollary to this equation is that success is limited by expectations and self-esteem:
Success = Pretensions * Self-esteem.
This equation states that success, especially the limits of one's success, can be improved by increasing expectations and/or self-esteem. However, as noted by Gage and Berliner (1992), the research on the relationship between self-esteem/self-concept and school achievement suggests that measures of general or even academic self-concept are not significantly related to school achievement. It is at the level of very specific subjects (e.g., reading, mathematics, science) that there is a relationship between self-concept/self-esteem and academic success. Given the above formula, this suggests that success in a particular subject area is not really changing one's self-concept (knowledge of one's self) or even self-esteem (one's subjective evaluation of one's value or worth), but rather is impacting one's expecation about future success based on one's past experience.
Seligman's (1996) work on explanatory style suggests that the intervening variable connecting self-esteem and achievement is the student's level of "optimism" or the tendency to see the world as a benevolent (good things will probably happen) or malevolent (bad things will probably happen).
Some additional "self" terms are self-direction (Smith, 2004) and self-determination (Ryan & Deci, 2000; the extent to which one's aspirations, dreams, and goals are self-selected), self-regulation (Bandura, 1997; Behncke, 2003; one's guidance of one's goal-directed thinking, attitudes, and behavior), and self-transcendence (Polanyi, 1970; Frankl, 1963; going beyond or above the limitations of one's ego; meaningful connections to others, nature, universe, Creator, etc.). My view is that we need to address all of these constructions in a holistic manner if we are to prepare our children and youth for successful adulthood (Huitt, 2004).
References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Behncke, L. (2002). Self-regulation: A brief review. Athletic Insight, 14(1). Retrieved November 2004, from http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol4Iss1/SelfRegulation.htm
Brigham, J. (1986). Social psychology. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
Byrne, B. (1990). Self-concept and academic achievement: Investigating their importance as discriminators of academic track membership in high school. Canadian Journal of Education, 15(2), 173-182.
Franken, R. (1994). Human motivation (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
Frankl, V. (1963). (I. Lasch, Trans.). Man's search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy. New York: Washington Square Press
Gage, N., & Berliner, D. (1992). Educational psychology (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Hamachek, D. (1995). Self-concept and school achievement: Interaction dynamics and a tool for assessing the self-concept component. Journal of Counseling & Development, 73(4), 419-425.
Huitt, W. (2004, October 29). Becoming a Brilliant Star: An introduction. Presentation at the Forum for Integrated Education and Educational Reform sponsored by the Council for Global Integrative Education, Santa Cruz, CA. Available on at http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/brilstar/chapters/BrilStarintro.pdf
James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. New York: Henry Holt.
Marsh, H. (1992 ). The content specificity of relations between academic self-concept and achievement: An extension of the Marsh/Shavelson model. ERIC NO: ED349315.
Polanyi, M. (1970). Transcendence and self-transcendence. Soundings, 53(1), 88-94. Retrieved November 2004, from http://www.compilerpress.atfreeweb.com/Anno%20Polanyi%20Transcendence%201970.htm
Purkey, W. (1988). An overview of self-concept theory for counselors. ERIC Clearinghouse on Counseling and Personnel Services, Ann Arbor, Mich. (An ERIC/CAPS Digest: ED304630)
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78. Retrieved November 2004, from http://psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/documents/2000RyanDeciSDT.pdf
Seligman, M. (1996) The optimistic child: How learned optimism protects children from depression. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Smith, M. (2004). Self-direction. The Encyclopedia of Informal Education. Retrieved November 2004, from http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-selfdr.htm
SELF CONSEPT: Assessment
Self-concept is one of the most popular ideas in psychological literature. The ERIC database includes over 6000 entries under the "self-concept" descriptor. Unfortunately, self-concept is also an illusive and often poorly defined construct. Reviews of literature have found at least 15 different "self" terms used by various authors (Strein, 1993). Terms such as "self-concept," "self-esteem," "self-worth," "self-acceptance," and so on are often used interchangeably and inconsistently, when they may relate to different ideas about how people view themselves. Accordingly, definition is the first consideration in the assessment of self-concept. Before attempting to assess self-concept, counseling practitioners or researchers must first clarify for themselves what they mean by "self-concept" and then choose a method or instrument consistent with that definition.
GLOBAL VERSUS DOMAIN-SPECIFIC MODELS
Perhaps the most important distinction that differentiates various conceptualizations is whether self-concept is viewed as an overarching, global characteristic of the person, or as a set of self-evaluations specific to different domains of behavior. The global view, sometimes conceptualized as "self-esteem" or "general self-concept," is the older and probably the more common view among counselors and therapists (Strein, 1993). Items comprising the "Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale" (Rosenberg, 1965) capture the essence of the global self-concept idea, and continue to be used frequently in research. "The Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale" (Piers, 1984) and the "Tennessee Self Concept Scale" (Fitts, 1991), both commonly used instruments, are also rooted in the global tradition, although each also provides domain-specific scales.
In contrast to the traditional model of global self-concept, multifaceted models stress self-evaluations of specific competencies or attributes, for example, academic self-concept, physical self-concept, and so on. Although some theoretical models are hierarchical, with global self-concept at the apex, most of these models stress the distinctiveness of various self-concept facets. Extensive empirical research in developmental and educational psychology over the past 15 years has strongly supported the multifaceted view. Consistent with research findings, most published self-concept measures now emphasize domain-specific self-concepts. The clearest example of measures based on the multifaceted view is Marsh's (1992) set of scales ("Self-Description Questionnaire I, II, or III") covering ages seven to young adult.
METHODS OF SELF-CONCEPT ASSESSMENT
Self-concept is inherently phenomenological, that is, it refers to the person's own view of him- or herself. In fact, one leading scholar in the field (Wylie, 1974) has argued that comparisons to external events are not particularly relevant in the assessment of self-concept. Accordingly, self-concept is almost always assessed through self-report. Four commonly used self-report methods are described below (Burns, 1979).
"Rating scales" are the most frequently used type of instrument. Most of the currently published instruments are of this type. Rating scales typically are composed of a set of statements to which the respondent expresses a degree of agreement or disagreement. Five- and seven-point Likert scales are common. Typical items might be "I am good at math" or "On the whole, I am satisfied with myself." Responses are then summed to form a score for a specific scale (e.g., math self-concept) or a measure of global self-concept.
"Checklists" involve having respondents check all of the adjectives that they believe apply to themselves. Because the adjectives have been assigned to a category, such as "self-favorability," based on either rational or empirical criteria, the person's choices can be tabulated to form a self-concept measure. Checklists provide interesting qualitative information, but have two shortcomings. First, responses are dichotomous (yes/no); there is no way for the respondent to indicate degree of agreement. Second, the categorization of the adjectives is done by an external party, without knowing what exact meaning the adjective has for the individual.
"Q-sorts" have been used extensively in self-concept research but are seldom used by practicing counselors because they are time-consuming and require considerable commitment from the client. In brief, the Q-sort technique involves having the person sort cards that contain self-descriptors (e.g., "I am strong") into a pre-defined number of piles ranging from "most like me" to "least like me." Typically, 100 or more cards would be used and each pile can contain only a pre-determined number of cards. Both quantitative and qualitative methods can be used to evaluate the results of the sorting task.
In "free-response" methods respondents typically complete partial statements (e.g., I feel best when...). Although some sets of these sentence-completion tasks have been published formally, complete with quantitative scoring schemes, responses more frequently are evaluated qualitatively. Free-response methods are seldom used in self-concept research but have favor with many counselors because the open-ended, qualitative nature of the task lends itself to facilitating discussion with the client. The rather low reliability of such methods, however, argues against interpreting the results as a "measure" of self-concept.
Although most of the self-concept measures compare the person's response against some set of norms, one researcher (Brahm, 1981) successfully used a "criterion-referenced approach" in which the child's self-efficacy beliefs were assessed repeatedly in reference to an external criterion of accuracy. Brahm argues that this assessment approach integrates self-concept with mastery learning more effectively than does the traditional norm-referenced self-concept scale. Although this is a promising idea, it remains undeveloped.
CONSIDERATIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT OF SELF-CONCEPT
Counselors or others who wish to assess self-concept must keep several considerations in mind, including demand characteristics of self-report measure, technical adequacy of the assessment procedure, and whether the assessment is being used for research or clinical purposes. Self-report measures make several requirements of the respondent (Burns, 1979). First, the person must have a sufficient level of self-awareness. Young children may lack confidence but may not be consciously aware of their own perceptions. Second, self-report measures also require substantial verbal competence, a skill that can not be assumed. Third, even children are aware that some responses are more socially acceptable than others. The accuracy of self-reports is often decreased by this "social desirability" response tendency.
Technical quality of self-concept instruments demands serious consideration. Reliability and validity coefficients for personality tests are frequently considerably lower than for performance measures, such as those for cognitive ability. For some of the older self-concept measures internal consistency reliabilities, especially for subscales, are only in the .70 range. Some newer instruments, however, attain internal consistency coefficients in the .90's. To help in choosing a test, prospective test users should consult technical manuals and test reviews carefully before making a final choice.
Finally, most empirically scored self-concept measures were developed more for research than for clinical use. Normative samples are seldom anywhere near as useful as for tests of achievement or ability. Information relating test scores to problem behavior is virtually absent. Counselors should use scores from self-concept measures very cautiously when working with individual clients.
REFERENCES
Brahm, N. (1981). "The assessment of self concepts of educational achievement by a criterion referenced approach." (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 235 184)
Burns, R. B. (1979). "The self-concept in theory, measurement, development and behaviour." London: Longman.
Fitts, W. H. (1991). "Tennessee Self Concept Scale, Manual." Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Marsh, H. W. (1992). "Self-Description Questionnaire II: Manual." Macarthur, Australia: Publication Unit, Faculty of Education, University of Western Sydney.
Piers, E. V. (1984). "Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale: Revised Manual." Los Angles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). "Society and adolescent self-image." Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Strein, W. (1993). Advances in research on academic self-concept: Implications for school psychology. "School Psychology Review," 22, 273-284.
Wylie, R. C. (1974). "The self-concept, Revised edition." Volume 1. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
GLOBAL VERSUS DOMAIN-SPECIFIC MODELS
Perhaps the most important distinction that differentiates various conceptualizations is whether self-concept is viewed as an overarching, global characteristic of the person, or as a set of self-evaluations specific to different domains of behavior. The global view, sometimes conceptualized as "self-esteem" or "general self-concept," is the older and probably the more common view among counselors and therapists (Strein, 1993). Items comprising the "Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale" (Rosenberg, 1965) capture the essence of the global self-concept idea, and continue to be used frequently in research. "The Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale" (Piers, 1984) and the "Tennessee Self Concept Scale" (Fitts, 1991), both commonly used instruments, are also rooted in the global tradition, although each also provides domain-specific scales.
In contrast to the traditional model of global self-concept, multifaceted models stress self-evaluations of specific competencies or attributes, for example, academic self-concept, physical self-concept, and so on. Although some theoretical models are hierarchical, with global self-concept at the apex, most of these models stress the distinctiveness of various self-concept facets. Extensive empirical research in developmental and educational psychology over the past 15 years has strongly supported the multifaceted view. Consistent with research findings, most published self-concept measures now emphasize domain-specific self-concepts. The clearest example of measures based on the multifaceted view is Marsh's (1992) set of scales ("Self-Description Questionnaire I, II, or III") covering ages seven to young adult.
METHODS OF SELF-CONCEPT ASSESSMENT
Self-concept is inherently phenomenological, that is, it refers to the person's own view of him- or herself. In fact, one leading scholar in the field (Wylie, 1974) has argued that comparisons to external events are not particularly relevant in the assessment of self-concept. Accordingly, self-concept is almost always assessed through self-report. Four commonly used self-report methods are described below (Burns, 1979).
"Rating scales" are the most frequently used type of instrument. Most of the currently published instruments are of this type. Rating scales typically are composed of a set of statements to which the respondent expresses a degree of agreement or disagreement. Five- and seven-point Likert scales are common. Typical items might be "I am good at math" or "On the whole, I am satisfied with myself." Responses are then summed to form a score for a specific scale (e.g., math self-concept) or a measure of global self-concept.
"Checklists" involve having respondents check all of the adjectives that they believe apply to themselves. Because the adjectives have been assigned to a category, such as "self-favorability," based on either rational or empirical criteria, the person's choices can be tabulated to form a self-concept measure. Checklists provide interesting qualitative information, but have two shortcomings. First, responses are dichotomous (yes/no); there is no way for the respondent to indicate degree of agreement. Second, the categorization of the adjectives is done by an external party, without knowing what exact meaning the adjective has for the individual.
"Q-sorts" have been used extensively in self-concept research but are seldom used by practicing counselors because they are time-consuming and require considerable commitment from the client. In brief, the Q-sort technique involves having the person sort cards that contain self-descriptors (e.g., "I am strong") into a pre-defined number of piles ranging from "most like me" to "least like me." Typically, 100 or more cards would be used and each pile can contain only a pre-determined number of cards. Both quantitative and qualitative methods can be used to evaluate the results of the sorting task.
In "free-response" methods respondents typically complete partial statements (e.g., I feel best when...). Although some sets of these sentence-completion tasks have been published formally, complete with quantitative scoring schemes, responses more frequently are evaluated qualitatively. Free-response methods are seldom used in self-concept research but have favor with many counselors because the open-ended, qualitative nature of the task lends itself to facilitating discussion with the client. The rather low reliability of such methods, however, argues against interpreting the results as a "measure" of self-concept.
Although most of the self-concept measures compare the person's response against some set of norms, one researcher (Brahm, 1981) successfully used a "criterion-referenced approach" in which the child's self-efficacy beliefs were assessed repeatedly in reference to an external criterion of accuracy. Brahm argues that this assessment approach integrates self-concept with mastery learning more effectively than does the traditional norm-referenced self-concept scale. Although this is a promising idea, it remains undeveloped.
CONSIDERATIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT OF SELF-CONCEPT
Counselors or others who wish to assess self-concept must keep several considerations in mind, including demand characteristics of self-report measure, technical adequacy of the assessment procedure, and whether the assessment is being used for research or clinical purposes. Self-report measures make several requirements of the respondent (Burns, 1979). First, the person must have a sufficient level of self-awareness. Young children may lack confidence but may not be consciously aware of their own perceptions. Second, self-report measures also require substantial verbal competence, a skill that can not be assumed. Third, even children are aware that some responses are more socially acceptable than others. The accuracy of self-reports is often decreased by this "social desirability" response tendency.
Technical quality of self-concept instruments demands serious consideration. Reliability and validity coefficients for personality tests are frequently considerably lower than for performance measures, such as those for cognitive ability. For some of the older self-concept measures internal consistency reliabilities, especially for subscales, are only in the .70 range. Some newer instruments, however, attain internal consistency coefficients in the .90's. To help in choosing a test, prospective test users should consult technical manuals and test reviews carefully before making a final choice.
Finally, most empirically scored self-concept measures were developed more for research than for clinical use. Normative samples are seldom anywhere near as useful as for tests of achievement or ability. Information relating test scores to problem behavior is virtually absent. Counselors should use scores from self-concept measures very cautiously when working with individual clients.
REFERENCES
Brahm, N. (1981). "The assessment of self concepts of educational achievement by a criterion referenced approach." (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 235 184)
Burns, R. B. (1979). "The self-concept in theory, measurement, development and behaviour." London: Longman.
Fitts, W. H. (1991). "Tennessee Self Concept Scale, Manual." Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Marsh, H. W. (1992). "Self-Description Questionnaire II: Manual." Macarthur, Australia: Publication Unit, Faculty of Education, University of Western Sydney.
Piers, E. V. (1984). "Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale: Revised Manual." Los Angles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). "Society and adolescent self-image." Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Strein, W. (1993). Advances in research on academic self-concept: Implications for school psychology. "School Psychology Review," 22, 273-284.
Wylie, R. C. (1974). "The self-concept, Revised edition." Volume 1. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
SELF CONSEPT: Basic Comsumption
Many of the successes and failures that people experience in many areas of life are closely related to the ways that they have learned to view themselves and their relationships with others. It is also becoming clear that self-concept has at least three major qualities of interest to counselors: (1) it is learned, (2) it is organized, and (3) it is dynamic. Each of these qualities, with corollaries, follow.
'Self-concept is learned'. As far as we know, no one is born with a self-concept. It gradually emerges in the early months of life and is shaped and reshaped through repeated perceived experiences, particularly with significant others. The fact that self-concept is learned has some important implications:
Because self-concept does not appear to be instinctive, but is a social product developed through experience, it possesses relatively boundless potential for development and actualization.
Because of previous experiences and present perceptions, individuals may perceive themselves in ways different from the ways others see them.
Individuals perceive different aspects of themselves at different times with varying degrees of clarity. Therefore, inner focusing is a valuable tool for counseling.
Any experience which is inconsistent with one's self-concept may be perceived as a threat, and the more of these experiences there are, the more rigidly self-concept is organized to maintain and protect itself. When a person is unable to get rid of perceived inconsistencies, emotional problems arise.
Faulty thinking patterns, such as dichotomous reasoning (dividing everything in terms of opposites or extremes) or overgeneralizing (making sweeping conclusions based on little information) create negative interpretations of oneself.
Self-concept is organized. Most researchers agree that self-concept has a generally stable quality that is characterized by orderliness and harmony. Each person maintains countless perceptions regarding one's personal existence, and each perception is orchestrated with all the others. It is this generally stable and organized quality of self-concept that gives consistency to the personality. This organized quality of self-concept has corollaries.
Self-concept requires consistency, stability, and tends to resist change. If self-concept changed readily, the individual would lack a consistent and dependable personality.
The more central a particular belief is to one's self-concept, the more resistant one is to changing that belief.
At the heart of self-concept is the self-as-doer, the "I," which is distinct from the self-as-object, the various "me's." This allows the person to reflect on past events, analyze present perceptions, and shape future experiences.
Basic perceptions of oneself are quite stable, so change takes time.
Perceived success and failure affect self-concept. Failure in a highly regarded area lowers evaluations in all other areas as well. Success in a prized area raises evaluations in other seemingly unrelated areas.
Self-concept is dynamic. To understand the active nature of self-concept, it helps to imagine it as a gyrocompass: a continuously active system that dependably points to the "true north" of a person's perceived existence. This guidance system not only shapes the ways a person views oneself, others, and the world, but it also serves to direct action and enables each person to take a consistent "stance" in life. Rather than viewing self-concept as the cause of behavior, it is better understood as the gyrocompass of human personality, providing consistency in personality and direction for behavior. The dynamic quality of self-concept also carries corollaries.
The world and the things in it are not just perceived; they are perceived in relation to one's self-concept.
Self-concept development is a continuous process. In the healthy personality there is constant assimilation of new ideas and expulsion of old ideas throughout life.
Individuals strive to behave in ways that are in keeping with their self-concepts, no matter how helpful or hurtful to oneself or others.
Self-concept usually takes precedence over the physical body. Individuals will often sacrifice physical comfort and safety for emotional satisfaction.
Self-concept continuously guards itself against loss of self-esteem, for it is this loss that produces feelings of anxiety.
If self-concept must constantly defend itself from assault, growth opportunities are limited.
'Self-concept is learned'. As far as we know, no one is born with a self-concept. It gradually emerges in the early months of life and is shaped and reshaped through repeated perceived experiences, particularly with significant others. The fact that self-concept is learned has some important implications:
Because self-concept does not appear to be instinctive, but is a social product developed through experience, it possesses relatively boundless potential for development and actualization.
Because of previous experiences and present perceptions, individuals may perceive themselves in ways different from the ways others see them.
Individuals perceive different aspects of themselves at different times with varying degrees of clarity. Therefore, inner focusing is a valuable tool for counseling.
Any experience which is inconsistent with one's self-concept may be perceived as a threat, and the more of these experiences there are, the more rigidly self-concept is organized to maintain and protect itself. When a person is unable to get rid of perceived inconsistencies, emotional problems arise.
Faulty thinking patterns, such as dichotomous reasoning (dividing everything in terms of opposites or extremes) or overgeneralizing (making sweeping conclusions based on little information) create negative interpretations of oneself.
Self-concept is organized. Most researchers agree that self-concept has a generally stable quality that is characterized by orderliness and harmony. Each person maintains countless perceptions regarding one's personal existence, and each perception is orchestrated with all the others. It is this generally stable and organized quality of self-concept that gives consistency to the personality. This organized quality of self-concept has corollaries.
Self-concept requires consistency, stability, and tends to resist change. If self-concept changed readily, the individual would lack a consistent and dependable personality.
The more central a particular belief is to one's self-concept, the more resistant one is to changing that belief.
At the heart of self-concept is the self-as-doer, the "I," which is distinct from the self-as-object, the various "me's." This allows the person to reflect on past events, analyze present perceptions, and shape future experiences.
Basic perceptions of oneself are quite stable, so change takes time.
Perceived success and failure affect self-concept. Failure in a highly regarded area lowers evaluations in all other areas as well. Success in a prized area raises evaluations in other seemingly unrelated areas.
Self-concept is dynamic. To understand the active nature of self-concept, it helps to imagine it as a gyrocompass: a continuously active system that dependably points to the "true north" of a person's perceived existence. This guidance system not only shapes the ways a person views oneself, others, and the world, but it also serves to direct action and enables each person to take a consistent "stance" in life. Rather than viewing self-concept as the cause of behavior, it is better understood as the gyrocompass of human personality, providing consistency in personality and direction for behavior. The dynamic quality of self-concept also carries corollaries.
The world and the things in it are not just perceived; they are perceived in relation to one's self-concept.
Self-concept development is a continuous process. In the healthy personality there is constant assimilation of new ideas and expulsion of old ideas throughout life.
Individuals strive to behave in ways that are in keeping with their self-concepts, no matter how helpful or hurtful to oneself or others.
Self-concept usually takes precedence over the physical body. Individuals will often sacrifice physical comfort and safety for emotional satisfaction.
Self-concept continuously guards itself against loss of self-esteem, for it is this loss that produces feelings of anxiety.
If self-concept must constantly defend itself from assault, growth opportunities are limited.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
SELF-CONCEPT: HISTORY
History
A milestone in human reflection about the non-physical inner self came in 1644, when René Descartes wrote Principles of Philosophy. Descartes proposed that doubt was a principal tool of disciplined inquiry, yet he could not doubt that he doubted. He reasoned that if he doubted, he was thinking, and therefore he must exist. Thus existence depended upon perception.
A second milestone in the development of self-concept theory was the writing of Sigmund Freud (1900) who gave us new understanding of the importance of internal mental processes. While Freud and many of his followers hesitated to make self-concept a primary psychological unit in their theories, Freud's daughter Anna (1946) gave central importance to ego development and self-interpretation.
Self-concept theory has always had a strong influence on the emerging profession of counseling. Prescott Lecky (1945) contributed the notion that self-consistency is a primary motivating force in human behavior. Raimy (1948) introduced measures of self-concept in counseling interviews and argued that psychotherapy is basically a process of altering the ways that individuals see themselves.
By far the most influential and eloquent voice in self-concept theory was that of Carl Rogers (1947) who introduced an entire system of helping built around the importance of the self. In Rogers' view, the self is the central ingredient in human personality and personal adjustment. Rogers described the self as a social product, developing out of interpersonal relationships and striving for consistency. He maintained that there is a basic human need for positive regard both from others and from oneself. He also believed that in every person there is a tendency towards self-actualization and development so long as this is permitted and encouraged by an inviting environment (Purkey & Schmidt, 1987).
While most self-concept theorists continued to write and conduct research during the 1970s and 1980s, general interest in self-concept declined. In a recent article explaining the likely causes for the decline of "humanistic" education, Patterson (1987) presents reasons for the decline of interest in self-concept as well. He offers four likely causes:
* A cornucopia of contrived games, gimmicks, and techniques that were introduced and controlled by unprepared professionals.
* A national mood of "back to basics" in education prevailed where concern for the emotional needs of students was viewed as inimical to academic excellence.
* Poor judgment by counselors and teachers in selecting suitable materials for values clarification programs resulted in public opposition to any attempt to introduce values in school.
* Strong opposition by those who objected to any consideration of personal development of students because they believed it to be secular humanism and, therefore, an effort to undermine religion.
Fortunately, there is a new awareness on the part of both the public and professionals that self-concept cannot be ignored if we are to successfully address such nagging problems as drug and alcohol abuse, drop-out rates, dysfunctional families, and other concerns. In addition to this growing awareness, new ways are being developed to strengthen self-concepts. For example, research by cognitive theorists (McAdam, 1986; Ryan, Short & Weed, 1986) are demonstrating that negative self-talk leads to irrational thinking regarding oneself and the world
A milestone in human reflection about the non-physical inner self came in 1644, when René Descartes wrote Principles of Philosophy. Descartes proposed that doubt was a principal tool of disciplined inquiry, yet he could not doubt that he doubted. He reasoned that if he doubted, he was thinking, and therefore he must exist. Thus existence depended upon perception.
A second milestone in the development of self-concept theory was the writing of Sigmund Freud (1900) who gave us new understanding of the importance of internal mental processes. While Freud and many of his followers hesitated to make self-concept a primary psychological unit in their theories, Freud's daughter Anna (1946) gave central importance to ego development and self-interpretation.
Self-concept theory has always had a strong influence on the emerging profession of counseling. Prescott Lecky (1945) contributed the notion that self-consistency is a primary motivating force in human behavior. Raimy (1948) introduced measures of self-concept in counseling interviews and argued that psychotherapy is basically a process of altering the ways that individuals see themselves.
By far the most influential and eloquent voice in self-concept theory was that of Carl Rogers (1947) who introduced an entire system of helping built around the importance of the self. In Rogers' view, the self is the central ingredient in human personality and personal adjustment. Rogers described the self as a social product, developing out of interpersonal relationships and striving for consistency. He maintained that there is a basic human need for positive regard both from others and from oneself. He also believed that in every person there is a tendency towards self-actualization and development so long as this is permitted and encouraged by an inviting environment (Purkey & Schmidt, 1987).
While most self-concept theorists continued to write and conduct research during the 1970s and 1980s, general interest in self-concept declined. In a recent article explaining the likely causes for the decline of "humanistic" education, Patterson (1987) presents reasons for the decline of interest in self-concept as well. He offers four likely causes:
* A cornucopia of contrived games, gimmicks, and techniques that were introduced and controlled by unprepared professionals.
* A national mood of "back to basics" in education prevailed where concern for the emotional needs of students was viewed as inimical to academic excellence.
* Poor judgment by counselors and teachers in selecting suitable materials for values clarification programs resulted in public opposition to any attempt to introduce values in school.
* Strong opposition by those who objected to any consideration of personal development of students because they believed it to be secular humanism and, therefore, an effort to undermine religion.
Fortunately, there is a new awareness on the part of both the public and professionals that self-concept cannot be ignored if we are to successfully address such nagging problems as drug and alcohol abuse, drop-out rates, dysfunctional families, and other concerns. In addition to this growing awareness, new ways are being developed to strengthen self-concepts. For example, research by cognitive theorists (McAdam, 1986; Ryan, Short & Weed, 1986) are demonstrating that negative self-talk leads to irrational thinking regarding oneself and the world
SELF-CONCEPT
Self-concept or self identity is the mental and conceptual understanding and persistent regard that sentient beings hold for their own existence. In other words, it is the sum total of a being's knowledge and understanding of his or her self. The self-concept is different from self-consciousness, which is an awareness or preoccupation with one's self. Components of the self-concept include physical, psychological, and social attributes, which can be influenced by the individual's attitudes, habits, beliefs and ideas. These components and attributes can not be condensed to the general concepts of self-image and the self-esteem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)