UPI Study › Courses › Advanced Social Psychology › Free lessons › Lesson 4.2 Free with a free account
Who Am I? Building a Clear Understanding of Self-Concept
Advanced Social Psychology · Chapter 4: The Self and IdentitySection 4.2 · lesson 19 of 8511 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Advanced Social Psychology.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Advanced Social Psychology
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Measuring Our Own Worth: Early and Modern Theories of Self-Esteem →← Knowing Yourself Through Action: An Introduction to Self-Perception TheoryNext lesson: Measuring Our Own Worth: Early and Modern Theories of Self-Esteem →
In this lesson
Self-concept as a working knowledge system, not a static description.
- Separate self-concept from self-esteem and identity
- Trace James's I / Me distinction into modern theory
- Explain self-schemas and the working self-concept
- Weigh possible selves, complexity, clarity, and culture
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,605 words). Read along, or search it.
The Self and Identity
Who Am I?
Ask someone who they are, and you will get a list. Traits, jobs, relationships, a few things they are proud of. That list is not the self-concept. It is a sample drawn from it. This section treats the self-concept as a knowledge system with structure. We separate it from self-esteem and from identity, which are narrower. We start with William James, in eighteen ninety, and his split between the I and the Me. Then Hazel Markus, who made the self into cognitive machinery. Possible selves, self-complexity, and self-concept clarity follow. And we finish with culture, which changes the structure and not just the contents. The theme throughout is that how the self is organized matters as much as what it holds.
The Construct
Content and Structure, Not a Single Belief
The self-concept is the organized cognitive representation you hold of yourself. Organized is the key word, and multidimensional is the other one. It is not a single belief. It is a structured system of self-relevant knowledge. That system holds traits, roles, values, and autobiographical memories. It also holds group memberships, possible futures, and embodied experience. Advanced theorists ask two separate questions about it, not one. What do you believe about yourself? That is content. And how are those beliefs organized, integrated, and differentiated? That is structure. Three words get used interchangeably in ordinary speech, and they should not be. Self-esteem is only the evaluative dimension, how positively you regard yourself. Identity refers to the meanings attached to roles or group memberships. Self-concept is the umbrella over both, plus the processes of activation and revision.
James, 1890
The I and the Me
Modern self-concept research begins with William James, in eighteen ninety. The book is Principles of Psychology, and the distinction has never been repaired. James split the self into two analytically distinct aspects. The I is the knower, the active and experiencing aspect. It is the stream of consciousness that does the thinking. It is never itself an object. It is always the one doing the looking. The Me is the known, the empirical self taken as an object of thought. It is what you find when you turn attention back on yourself. Here is why a nineteenth-century distinction still earns its place. Every method that asks people to describe themselves is measuring the Me. The I is the thing doing the describing, and it never appears in the data.
Inside The Me
Three Constituents, Two Enduring Themes
James did not leave the Me as a single lump. He gave it three nested constituents. The material self is body, possessions, and kin. The self extended into the objects and people it owns, or belongs to. The social self is the recognition received from others. And James was explicit that this one is not singular. The spiritual self is one's psychological dispositions and conscious states. The innermost layer, and the hardest to observe. Two themes follow from that structure, and both survive into current work. The first is that the self is plural. We have as many social selves as there are groups of persons who recognize us. Plurality is built into the architecture. It is not a pathology. The second theme is that the self is reflexive. An agent that can take itself as an object of analysis. That loop is what makes self-knowledge possible, and what makes it unreliable.
Markus, 1977
Self-Schemas: Importing a Cognitive Idea
The next major move came from Hazel Markus, in nineteen seventy-seven. She imported the schema, a concept that already existed in cognitive psychology. Self-schemas are cognitive generalizations about the self, built from past experience. They organize and guide the processing of self-relevant information. Consider someone who is schematic for independence. They process independence-related stimuli more quickly than other people do. They remember that material more accurately. They resist counter-schematic information rather than absorbing it. And they predict their own future behavior with greater confidence in that domain. Someone aschematic in the same domain shows none of these effects. This is a genuine shift, and it is worth pausing on. The self stops being a description you hold, and becomes machinery you run.
The Evidence
Schemas Operate Below Self-Report
Markus's original study is worth knowing in detail. Not only for what it found, but for what it deliberately failed to find. The schematics were women who rated themselves as independent. And who also rated independence as important to them. Both conditions were required. Those women endorsed independence-related adjectives faster than aschematics did. They also supplied more autobiographical evidence when asked to back up the trait. Now the part that makes the study matter. Both groups described themselves in similar terms when simply asked directly. So the schema was invisible to the most obvious measure in the field. Self-schemas shape attention, memory, and prediction. But they leave explicit self-report largely untouched. Ask directly, and you will miss them entirely.
Activation
The Working Self-Concept
There is a capacity problem hiding in all of this. The total store of self-knowledge is far too large to be active at once. Only a subset is accessible at any given moment. Markus and Kunda named that subset the working self-concept, in nineteen eighty-six. And crucially, it fluctuates with context. A student in a seminar activates scholarly, articulate self-representations. The same student at a family dinner activates caregiving or sibling representations. Neither activation is more real than the other. This construct reconciles two things that appear to contradict each other. The everyday experience of feeling like one stable person. And the empirical fact that self-descriptions vary substantially across situations. Both are true, because only part of the store is ever loaded at a time.
Forward In Time
Possible Selves: Identity in Motion
Markus and Nurius extended the self-concept forward in time, in nineteen eighty-six. Possible selves are the selves you expect to become. Also the ones you hope to become, and the ones you fear becoming. They work as cognitive bridges between the current self and motivation. A desired possible self supplies a target for self-regulation. The example in the source is a doctor who serves rural communities. A feared possible self supplies a deterrent instead. An unemployed dropout, in the same example. Avoidance motivation, given a face. The reason they work is that they are self-relevant motivators. They invest an abstract goal with personal meaning. Oyserman, Bybee, and Terry linked this to real outcomes. The vividness and elaboration of academic possible selves predicted actual academic persistence. Possible-selves interventions now run in schools to reduce dropout. They work best when desired and feared selves are paired with concrete behavioral strategies.
Two Structures
Self-Complexity and Self-Concept Clarity
Two structural variables capture how the self-concept is organized. Not what it contains. How the contents are arranged. Patricia Linville proposed self-complexity, across nineteen eighty-five and eighty-seven. It is the number of distinct self-aspects a person uses, and how non-overlapping they are. Linville argued that higher complexity buffers against affective extremity. Fail as a student, and the failure stays contained inside that one aspect. It does not spill over into every other part of who you are. Later meta-analyses qualify this, and the qualification matters. The buffering effect is real, but moderated by the valence and importance of the affected aspect. The second variable is Campbell's self-concept clarity, from nineteen ninety. How clearly and confidently defined your self-beliefs are. Also how internally consistent they are, and how stable over time. Low clarity is not neutral. It tracks neuroticism and depressive symptoms. It also tracks identity confusion, and susceptibility to social influence.
Social Origins
A Private Structure Made From Public Materials
None of this structure builds itself. The self-concept has social origins. Charles Cooley proposed the looking-glass self in nineteen oh two. It runs in three steps, and the order is the point. First, we imagine how we appear to another person. Second, we imagine their judgment of that appearance. Third, we develop a self-feeling from that imagined judgment. Read the second step twice, because it is where the strangeness sits. The mechanism runs on the imagined judgment, not the actual one. You are reacting to a model of them that lives in your own head. George Herbert Mead extended this in nineteen thirty-four. His generalized other is the internalized attitude of the wider community. It supplies the perspective from which you regard yourself when nobody specific is watching. Both accounts make the self constitutively social. A private structure, assembled out of public materials.
Culture
Independent and Interdependent Self-Construals
Culture does not just change what goes into the self-concept. Markus and Kitayama showed, in nineteen ninety-one, that it changes the structure. The independent self is bounded and stable. It is defined by internal attributes, traits, abilities, and preferences. It is more common in Western, individualistic contexts. The interdependent self is relational and contextual instead. It is defined by roles, group memberships, and obligations. It is more common in East Asian and many other contexts. These construals shape spontaneous self-descriptions and the structure of memory. They also shape the experience of emotion, and how self-enhancement motives operate. Vignoles and colleagues refined the original dichotomy in twenty sixteen. Construals vary within cultures as well as between them. They can be primed experimentally, which means they are states as well as traits. And they interact with socio-economic and ecological conditions.
Consolidate
A Repertoire, and a Working System
The mature view abandons the idea of two kinds of people. Independent and interdependent construals form a repertoire everyone possesses. What varies between persons and settings is the balance, not the presence. Five constructs are worth fixing before you move on. The self-concept itself, content and structure together. The self-schema, which guides attention, memory, and inference in one domain. The working self-concept, the part currently loaded by the situation you are in. Possible selves, which turn abstract goals into personal motivation. And self-concept clarity, where low scores predict identity distress. One habit to carry into the rest of the chapter. When you read a self-report study, ask what the setting activated. And then ask what it left sitting unloaded, invisible to the measure.
About Advanced Social Psychology at UPI Study
Advanced Social Psychology (Psychology 310) is a self-paced online course of 85 video lessons in 12 chapters, from attitudes, persuasion and the self to prejudice, attraction and relationships, conformity and obedience, helping, aggression and social life online. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Psychology and social science courses Every course with PRO →
Compare: Social Psychology vs Sociology
Why take it here
Why students take Advanced Social Psychology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Advanced Social Psychology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Who Am I? Building a Clear Understanding of Self-Concept
What is self-concept in psychology?
What is the difference between the I and the Me according to William James?
What are self-schemas?
What are possible selves?
About the Advanced Social Psychology course
How many college credits is Advanced Social Psychology?
How much does Advanced Social Psychology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Advanced Social Psychology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Advanced Social Psychology.
85 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →