The social self

1.

The Social Self

2.

“NO TOPIC IS MORE
INTERESTING TO PEOPLE
THAN PEOPLE. FOR MOST
PEOPLE, MOREOVER, THE
MOST INTERESTING IS
THE SELF.”
—ROY F. BAUMEISTER,
THE SELF IN SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY, 1999

3. What is the “self”?

Many, varied theories about the purpose and function of the
‘self’ – e.g., philosophy, science, culture, religion.
In psychology:
collection of cognitively-held beliefs that a person possesses
about themselves.
However…
“Self” seems to extend beyond the physical self (body), to
include psychologically meaningful personal possessions
and personal space.

4. What is the “self”?

Interest in the self increased rapidly in the 1960s and
1970s.
Most recently, “self” has been further complexified and
increasingly seen as:
● Dynamic & changeable
● Multiple / Plural
● Hierarchical
● Situational & cognitively influenced
● Culturally constructed

5.

The self has three main parts, which
correspond to several main
things that the self does.
Baumeister, Bushman, 2011

6. Self-concept

Human beings have self-awareness, and this awareness enables
them to develop elaborate sets of beliefs about themselves.
If someone says “Tell me something about yourself,” you can
probably furnish 15 or 20 specific answers without having to think
very hard.
You check your hair in a mirror or your weight on a
scale. You read your horoscope or the results of some medical
tests.
Such moments show the self reflecting on itself and on its store of
information about itself.
.

7. Interpersonal self

A second part of the self that helps the person connect socially to
other people.
Most
people
have
a
certain
image
that
they
try to convey to others. This public self bears some resemblance to
the self-concept, but the two are not the same. Often, people work
hard to present a particular image others even if it is not exactly the
full, precise truth as they know it.
Furthermore, many emotions indicate concern over how one
appears to others: You feel embarrassed because someone
saw you do something stupid, or even just because your underwear
was showing.
You feel guilty if you forgot your romantic partner’s birthday. You are
delighted when your boss compliments you on your good work.
These episodes reveal that the self is often working in complex
ways to gain social acceptance and maintain good
interpersonal relationships.

8. Agent Self

The third important part of the self, the agent self, or executive
function, is the part that gets things done. It enables the self to
make choices and exert control, including both self-control and
control over other people (and things).
Sometimes you decide not to eat something because it is unhealthy
or fattening.
Sometimes you make a promise and later exert yourself to keep it.
Sometimes you decide what courses to take or what job to take.
Perhaps you cast a vote in an election. Perhaps you
sign a lease for an apartment. Perhaps you place a bet on a sports
event.
All these actions reveal the self as not just a knower but also as
a doer.
.

9. Self-concept

Self-awareness
● Self-esteem
● Self-deception
● Self-efficacy

10. Self-awareness

Attention directed to the self
Usually involves evaluative comparison.
In general, people spend little time actually thinking
about themselves (but a lot of time is spent thinking
about self-presentation and self-preservation)
Certain situations
(e.g., mirrors, cameras, audiences, self-development exercises)

11. Self-awareness

Early in the 1970s social psychologists began studying
the difference between being and not being self-aware.
They developed several clever procedures to increase
self-awareness, such as having people work while seated
in front of a mirror, or telling people that they were being
videotaped.

12.

Self-reference Effect
Information bearing on self is processed more deeply and remembered better

13. Social Comparison Theory

Festinger suggested that people compare themselves to
others because, for many domains and attributes, there is
no objective yardstick with which to evaluate the self, so
other people are highly informative.

14.

15.

16. Social Comparison Theory

Festinger suggested that people compare themselves to
others because, for many domains and attributes, there is
no objective yardstick with which to evaluate the self, so
other people are highly informative.
- Desire to see self-positively appears more
powerful that desire to see self-accurately
–
In-group comparisons “my salary is pretty good for a
woman.”
Suls, J. E., & Wills, T. A. E. (1991). Social comparison:
Contemporary theory and research. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.

17.

18.

19.

self-affirmation theory
People seek new favourable knowledge about themselves as well as ways
to revise pre-existing but unfavourable views of themselves.
People are guided by a self-enhancement motive (e.g. Kunda, 1990).
One manifestation of this motive is described by self-affirmation theory
(Sherman & Cohen, 2006).
People strive publicly to affirm positive aspects of who they are.
The urge to self-affirm is particularly strong when an aspect of one's selfesteem has been damaged.
So, for example, if someone draws attention to the fact that you are a lousy
artist, you might retort that while that might be true, you are an excellent
dancer.

20. Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model

In order to maintain a positive view of the self, we distance
ourselves from others who perform better than we do on
valued dimensions, but move closer to others who
perform worse, to protect our self-esteem.
Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation
maintenance model of social behavior.
Advances in experimental social psychology,
21, 181-227.

21. Self-deception strategies

Self Serving Bias (mentioned
More skeptical of bad feedback
Comparisons to those slightly worse
Skew impressions of others to highlight
own good traits as unusual
in the previous lecture)

22. Self-awareness

Private self-awareness
refers to attending to your inner states, including emotions,
thoughts, desires, and traits. It is a matter of looking inward.
Рublic self-awareness
means attending to how you are perceived by others, including
what others might think of you.

23. Self-Monitoring

Self-monitoring is the degree to which you are aware of how
your actions and behaviors affect others and monitoring those
behaviors to “fit in” or adapt to the situation you’re in.
Observing one’s own behavior and adapting it to the
situation

24. Self-Monitoring

What are the dangers of being a:
● High Self-Monitor (adjusts behavior to situation;
monitors situation)
High self-monitors regulate their expressive
self-presentation in order to present the
desired
public appearance.
These
individuals may be considered to be
insincere chameleons.
Low Self-Monitor (principled attitudes guide behaviour)
Low self-monitors lack either the ability or the
motivation to regulate their expressive selfpresentations. These individuals may be
viewed as insensitive.

25. Is high or low-self-monitoring related to job success?

Research (meta-analysis) has shown that high selfmonitoring is positively related to career success and
relates to more promotions than low self-monitoring.

26. Benefits of high self-esteem

Feels good
Helps one to overcome bad feelings
If they fail, they are more likely to try again

27. Self-esteem

Self-esteem reflects a person's overall subjective
emotional evaluation of his or her own worth. It is a
judgment of oneself as well as an attitude toward the self.
Self-esteem encompasses beliefs about oneself.
"The self-concept is what we think about the self; selfesteem, is the positive or negative evaluations of the self,
as in how we feel about it” (Smith, E. R.; Mackie, D. M. (2007).
Social Psychology (Third ed.). Hove: Psychology Press)

28. Benefits of high self-esteem

Feels good
Helps one to overcome bad feelings
If they fail, they are more likely to try again

29. Benefits of high self-esteem

Feels good
Helps one to overcome bad feelings
If they fail, they are more likely to try again
A. Schwarzenegger: “If you try ten times, you have a better chance of
making it on the eleventh try than if you didn’t try at all”
Healthy to have a slightly
inflated sense of self-value

30. Self-esteem

Self-esteem serves as a sociometer for one’s standing
in a group.
Sociometer theory
This theoretical perspective was first introduced by
Mark Leary and colleagues in 1995 and later expanded
on by Kirkpatrick and Ellis (2001).

31. Why do we care about self-esteem?

Self-esteem is a measure of social acceptability
A sociometer (made from the words social and meter) is a measure
of how desirable one would be to other people as a relationship
partner, team member, employee, colleague, or in some other way.
In this sense, self-esteem is a sociometer because it measures
the traits you have according to how much they qualify you for
social acceptance. Sociometer theory can explain why people are
so concerned with self-esteem: It helps people navigate
the long road to social acceptance.

32. Why do we care about self-esteem?

Self-esteem is a measure of social acceptability
Mark Leary, the author of sociometer theory, compares self-esteem
to the gas gauge on a car. A gas gauge may seem trivial because it
doesn’t make the car go forward. But the gas gauge tells you about
something that is important—namely, whether there is enough
fuel in the car.
Just as drivers act out of concern to keep their gas gauge
above zero, so people seem constantly to act so as to
preserve their self-esteem.

33.

A common view is that self-esteem is based mainly on feeling
competent rather than on social acceptance.
However, recent evidence suggests that feeling accepted has a
bigger impact on self-esteem than does feeling competent
(though both matter).

34. Negative aspects of highest self-esteem

Narcissism
Subset of high self-esteem
Tend to be more aggressive and violent
Higher prejudice
Tend to think their group is better

35. Self-efficacy

Belief in one’s capacity to succeed at a given task.
e.g. Public Speaking Self-Efficacy
Bandura recommended specific rather than general
measures of Self-efficacy.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self‐efficacy. John Wiley & Sons, Inc..

36. Effects of High Self-Efficacy

Sources of SelfEfficacy Beliefs
Feedback
Behavioral Patterns
Results
Be active—select best
Prior
Experience
Behavior
Models
Persuasion
from Others
opportunities
High
“I know I
can do this job”
Manage the situation—
avoid or neutralize
obstacles
Set goals—establish
standards
Self-efficacy
beliefs
Plan, prepare, practice
Try hard: persevere
Creatively solve
problems
Assessment of
physical/
emotional
state
Learn from setbacks
Visualize success
Limit Stress
Success

37. People can program themselves for success or failure by enacting their self-efficacy expectations.

Let’s use a work-related example. Let’s say your company has asked you to take on
an international assignment for two years. Let’s analyze the sources of your selfefficacy in accomplishing that assignment successfully.
a. Prior experience – have you done this before and been successful? This is the
most important driver of your self-efficacy. What past experiences would be
relevant in our example? Prior assignments, traveling abroad, having good
experiences, knowledge of the language.
b.Behavior models – success or failure of others who have done this. Have
coworkers you know enjoyed their experiences and been successful?
c. Persuasion from others – what kind of support does your organization provide,
for example, will they help your spouse get a job, will they help you plan your reentry back into the country? Do they present it as you are really the right person
for the job or do you more have the feeling that they just needed someone to go.
d.Assessment of physical or emotional states – would you miss home and
everything that is familiar to you? Maybe you have a health condition that you
feel may prohibit your ability to perform well.

38. Effects of High Self-Efficacy

Sources of SelfEfficacy Beliefs
Feedback
Behavioral Patterns
Results
Be active—select best
Prior
Experience
Behavior
Models
opportunities
High
“I know I
can do this job”
Manage the situation—
avoid or neutralize
obstacles
Set goals—establish
standards
Persuasion
from Others
Assessment of
physical/
emotional
state
Self-efficacy
beliefs
Plan, prepare, practice
Try hard: persevere
Creatively solve
problems
Learn from setbacks
Visualize success
Limit Stress
Success

39. Effects of Low Self-Efficacy

Sources of SelfEfficacy Beliefs
Results
Feedback
Prior
Experience
Behavior
Models
Self-efficacy
beliefs
Persuasion
from Others
Assessment of
physical/
emotional
state
Low
“I don’t think
I can get the job
done”
Behavioral Patterns
Be passive
Avoid difficult tasks
Develop weak
aspirations and low
commitment
Focus on personal
deficiencies
Don’t even try—make
a weak effort
Quit or become
discouraged because
of setbacks
Blame setbacks on
lack of ability or bad
luck
Worry, experience
stress, become
depressed
Think of excuses for
failing
Failure

40.

Correlations between General Self-Efficacy Scale and Outcomes
(correlations derived from a sample of n=180 university students; all
correlations are significant, p<.05.
Extraversion
.49
Neuroticism
-.42
Action orientation
.43
Hope for success
.46
Fear of failure
-.45

41.

The General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE)

42.

Distribution of Self-Efficacy Sum Scores for Total Sample
(N = 17,553) (22 culturas)

43.

Mean Sum Scores Broken Down by Nations and Gender

44.

Interpersonal self
self – presentation
Behaviors that convey an image to others
Public esteem
More important than private self-esteem

45.

Functions of self-presentation
Social acceptance
Increase chance of acceptance and maintain
place within the group
Claiming identity
Social validation of claims to identity

46. Interpersonal Self

The idea that cultural styles of selfhood differ along the dimension of
independence was introduced by Hazel Markus (American) and
Shinobu Kitayama (Japanese).
They proposed that Asians differ from North Americans and
Europeans in how they think of themselves and how they seek
to construct the self in relation to others.
To avoid the overused term self-concept, they introduced the term
self-construal, which means a way of thinking about the self.

47. self-construal

Markus and Kitayama (1991) published their classic article on
culture and the self, proposing that people in different parts of the
world tend to construe themselves in two fundamentally different
ways.

48. self-construal

They argued that Western cultures are unusual in promoting an
independent view of the self as bounded, unitary, stable, and
separate from the social context, whereas cultures in other parts of
the world emphasize an interdependent view of the self as closely
connected to others, fluid, and contextually embedded.

49. Interdependent of Self-Concept

In individualistic cultures it is expected that people will
develop a self-concept separate from
others or
independent from others.
Men are expected to have an independent self-concept
more than women.
In collectivist cultures it is expected that people will
develop a self-concept in terms of their connections or
relationships with others.
Women are expected to have an interdependent selfconcept more than men.

50. self-construal

They proposed that people with independent self-construals would
strive for self-expression, uniqueness, and self-actualization,
basing their actions on personal thoughts, feelings, and goals.
In contrast, people with interdependent self-construals would
strive to fit in and maintain social harmony, basing their actions
on situationally defined norms and expectations.

51.

52. self-construal

Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) proposals had a dramatic impact on social,
personality and developmental psychology, challenging ethnocentric
assumptions, drawing attention to cultural diversity, and providing conceptual
tools for theorizing about it. Social and personality psychologists used measure
sand manipulations of self-construals to predict numerous outcomes: cognitive
styles, well-being, self-regulation, self-esteem, communication styles, social
anxiety, and prosocial behavior, to name just a few (reviewed by Cross,
Hardin, &Gercek-Swing, 2011; Gudykunst & Lee, 2003; Smith,
Fischer,Vignoles, & Bond, 2013). Developmental psychologists sought to
identify the prevailing theories, styles, and practices of parenting that foster
development of independent or interdependent selves in different cultures
(reviewed by Greenfield, Keller, Fuligni, & Maynard, 2003; Kağıtçıbaşı,2007;
Keller, 2007). Neuroscientists have begun to identify differences in brain activity
that correlate with measures of independence and interdependence (reviewed by
Kitayama &Uskul, 2011).

53. self-construal

Their work may have added scientific legitimacy to a common
tendency to understand culture in terms of binary oppositions that
differentiate “Western” cultures from “Other” cultures, while saying
little about how the majority of cultures that are “non-Western” may
differ from each other (Hermans & Kempen, 1998; for a recent example:
Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010).
Concurrently, an empirical focus on comparing “Western” (usually North
American) and “Eastern” usually East Asian) samples has often left the
cultural systems of other world regions relatively marginalized within the
scientific discourse on culture and self (for an example, see
Yamaguchi et al., 2007).
This narrow focus may have restricted theorizing and thus limited the
explanatory potential of self-construals.

54.

Beyond the ‘East-West’ Dichotomy: Global Variation in Cultural Models of
Selfhood // Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2016. Vol. 145. No. 8. P.
966-1000

55. Beyond the ‘East-West’ Dichotomy: Global Variation in Cultural Models of Selfhood

Markus and Kitayama’s original characterization of North American and
East Asian cultural models of selfhood was partly accurate, but that it
does not adequately capture the complexity of global variation in
models of selfhood: Depending on prevailing values and beliefs,
socioeconomic development, and religious heritage, societies promote
different ways of being independent and of being interdependent.

56. Beyond the ‘East-West’ Dichotomy: Global Variation in Cultural Models of Selfhood

We sampled participants from 16 cultural contexts, used a more
extensive pool of items than in previous exploratory studies, adjusted
ratings for acquiescent response style, and used appropriate
statistical procedures for individual-level analysis of pancultural data
(Leung & Bond, 1989). This informed the development of a new, sevendimensional model of individual differences in self-construals, extending
Markus and Kitayama’s (1991 ) original theory.
In Study 2, we tested and confirmed this new theoretical
model among adult participants from over 50 cultural contexts

57. Beyond the ‘East-West’ Dichotomy: Global Variation in Cultural Models of Selfhood

We tested our seven-dimensional model among even more
diverse samples and using an improved set of items. Data were
collected within a second multinational study into culture and
identity processes (Owe et al., 2013; Vignoles & Brown, 2011),
among non-student adults across a much larger number of
cultural groups than Study 1.
Rather than equating ‘culture’ with ‘nation’, we targeted several cultural
groups within each nation where relevant and feasible. The nature of the
groups varied from nation to nation, such that the differences might be
regional (e.g., Eastern and Western Germany), religious (e.g.,
Baptists and Orthodox Christians in Georgia) or ethnic (e.g.,
Damara and Owambo in Namibia). We collected data from over
7,000 adult members of 55 cultural groups in 33 nations,
spanning all inhabited continents.

58. Beyond the ‘East-West’ Dichotomy: Global Variation in Cultural Models of Selfhood

59. Beyond the ‘East-West’ Dichotomy: Global Variation in Cultural Models of Selfhood

60.

Component I appeared to contrast a desire for difference (e.g., “Being a unique individual is
important to me”) with a desire to be similar to others or to fit in (e.g., “I avoid standing out
among my friends”).
Component II appeared to contrast a sense of self-containment (e.g., “I consider my
happiness separate from the happiness of my friends and family”) with a sense of connection
to others (e.g., “If a person hurts someone close to me, I feel personally hurt as well”).
Component III appeared to contrast a sense of self-direction (e.g., “I should decide my
future on my own”) with a sense of receptiveness to influence by others (e.g., “Other
people’s wishes have an important influence on the choices I make”)
Component IV appeared to contrast a preference for self-reliance (e.g., “I prefer to be selfreliant rather than depend on others”) with a preference for dependence on others (e.g., “I
prefer to turn to other people for help rather than solely rely on myself”).
Component V appeared to contrast a sense of consistency across situations (e.g., “I
always see myself in the same way, independently of who I am with”) with a sense of
variability or flexibility across contexts (e.g., “I sometimes feel like a different person when I
am with different groups of people”).
Component VI appeared to contrast a preference for self-expression (e.g., “I prefer to be
direct and forthright when discussing with people”) with a desire to maintain harmony (e.g.,
“It is important to maintain harmony within my group”)
Component VII was mainly defined by items reflecting a sense of commitment to others at
the expense of self-interest (e.g., “I will sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my group”),
all of which loaded negatively. All of these items involved some kind of trade-off between the
interests of self and others. Items that loaded positively on this component tended to cross-load
on other components, but these also seemed to capture a focus on self-interest at the expense
of others (e.g., “My personal accomplishments are more important than maintaining my social
relationships”, “I am comfortable being singled out for praise and rewards”).

61. Beyond the ‘East-West’ Dichotomy: Global Variation in Cultural Models of Selfhood

62.

Component I appeared to contrast a desire for difference (e.g., “Being a unique individual is
important to me”) with a desire to be similar to others or to fit in (e.g., “I avoid standing out
among my friends”).
Component II appeared to contrast a sense of self-containment (e.g., “I consider my
happiness separate from the happiness of my friends and family”) with a sense of connection
to others (e.g., “If a person hurts someone close to me, I feel personally hurt as well”).
Component III appeared to contrast a sense of self-direction (e.g., “I should decide my
future on my own”) with a sense of receptiveness to influence by others (e.g., “Other
people’s wishes have an important influence on the choices I make”)
Component IV appeared to contrast a preference for self-reliance (e.g., “I prefer to be selfreliant rather than depend on others”) with a preference for dependence on others (e.g., “I
prefer to turn to other people for help rather than solely rely on myself”).
Component V appeared to contrast a sense of consistency across situations (e.g., “I
always see myself in the same way, independently of who I am with”) with a sense of
variability or flexibility across contexts (e.g., “I sometimes feel like a different person when I
am with different groups of people”).
Component VI appeared to contrast a preference for self-expression (e.g., “I prefer to be
direct and forthright when discussing with people”) with a desire to maintain harmony (e.g.,
“It is important to maintain harmony within my group”)
Component VII was mainly defined by items reflecting a sense of commitment to others at
the expense of self-interest (e.g., “I will sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my group”),
all of which loaded negatively. All of these items involved some kind of trade-off between the
interests of self and others. Items that loaded positively on this component tended to cross-load
on other components, but these also seemed to capture a focus on self-interest at the expense
of others (e.g., “My personal accomplishments are more important than maintaining my social
relationships”, “I am comfortable being singled out for praise and rewards”).

63. Beyond the ‘East-West’ Dichotomy: Global Variation in Cultural Models of Selfhood

64.

Component I appeared to contrast a desire for difference (e.g., “Being a unique individual is
important to me”) with a desire to be similar to others or to fit in (e.g., “I avoid standing out
among my friends”).
Component II appeared to contrast a sense of self-containment (e.g., “I consider my
happiness separate from the happiness of my friends and family”) with a sense of connection
to others (e.g., “If a person hurts someone close to me, I feel personally hurt as well”).
Component III appeared to contrast a sense of self-direction (e.g., “I should decide my
future on my own”) with a sense of receptiveness to influence by others (e.g., “Other
people’s wishes have an important influence on the choices I make”)
Component IV appeared to contrast a preference for self-reliance (e.g., “I prefer to be selfreliant rather than depend on others”) with a preference for dependence on others (e.g., “I
prefer to turn to other people for help rather than solely rely on myself”).
Component V appeared to contrast a sense of consistency across situations (e.g., “I
always see myself in the same way, independently of who I am with”) with a sense of
variability or flexibility across contexts (e.g., “I sometimes feel like a different person when I
am with different groups of people”).
Component VI appeared to contrast a preference for self-expression (e.g., “I prefer to be
direct and forthright when discussing with people”) with a desire to maintain harmony (e.g.,
“It is important to maintain harmony within my group”)
Component VII was mainly defined by items reflecting a sense of commitment to others at
the expense of self-interest (e.g., “I will sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my group”),
all of which loaded negatively. All of these items involved some kind of trade-off between the
interests of self and others. Items that loaded positively on this component tended to cross-load
on other components, but these also seemed to capture a focus on self-interest at the expense
of others (e.g., “My personal accomplishments are more important than maintaining my social
relationships”, “I am comfortable being singled out for praise and rewards”).

65. Beyond the ‘East-West’ Dichotomy: Global Variation in Cultural Models of Selfhood

66.

Component I appeared to contrast a desire for difference (e.g., “Being a unique individual is
important to me”) with a desire to be similar to others or to fit in (e.g., “I avoid standing out
among my friends”).
Component II appeared to contrast a sense of self-containment (e.g., “I consider my
happiness separate from the happiness of my friends and family”) with a sense of connection
to others (e.g., “If a person hurts someone close to me, I feel personally hurt as well”).
Component III appeared to contrast a sense of self-direction (e.g., “I should decide my
future on my own”) with a sense of receptiveness to influence by others (e.g., “Other
people’s wishes have an important influence on the choices I make”)
Component IV appeared to contrast a preference for self-reliance (e.g., “I prefer to be selfreliant rather than depend on others”) with a preference for dependence on others (e.g., “I
prefer to turn to other people for help rather than solely rely on myself”).
Component V appeared to contrast a sense of consistency across situations (e.g., “I
always see myself in the same way, independently of who I am with”) with a sense of
variability or flexibility across contexts (e.g., “I sometimes feel like a different person when I
am with different groups of people”).
Component VI appeared to contrast a preference for self-expression (e.g., “I prefer to be
direct and forthright when discussing with people”) with a desire to maintain harmony (e.g.,
“It is important to maintain harmony within my group”)
Component VII was mainly defined by items reflecting a sense of commitment to others at
the expense of self-interest (e.g., “I will sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my group”),
all of which loaded negatively. All of these items involved some kind of trade-off between the
interests of self and others. Items that loaded positively on this component tended to cross-load
on other components, but these also seemed to capture a focus on self-interest at the expense
of others (e.g., “My personal accomplishments are more important than maintaining my social
relationships”, “I am comfortable being singled out for praise and rewards”).

67. Beyond the ‘East-West’ Dichotomy: Global Variation in Cultural Models of Selfhood

68.

Component I appeared to contrast a desire for difference (e.g., “Being a unique individual is
important to me”) with a desire to be similar to others or to fit in (e.g., “I avoid standing out
among my friends”).
Component II appeared to contrast a sense of self-containment (e.g., “I consider my
happiness separate from the happiness of my friends and family”) with a sense of connection
to others (e.g., “If a person hurts someone close to me, I feel personally hurt as well”).
Component III appeared to contrast a sense of self-direction (e.g., “I should decide my
future on my own”) with a sense of receptiveness to influence by others (e.g., “Other
people’s wishes have an important influence on the choices I make”)
Component IV appeared to contrast a preference for self-reliance (e.g., “I prefer to be selfreliant rather than depend on others”) with a preference for dependence on others (e.g., “I
prefer to turn to other people for help rather than solely rely on myself”).
Component V appeared to contrast a sense of consistency across situations (e.g., “I
always see myself in the same way, independently of who I am with”) with a sense of
variability or flexibility across contexts (e.g., “I sometimes feel like a different person when I
am with different groups of people”).
Component VI appeared to contrast a preference for self-expression (e.g., “I prefer to be
direct and forthright when discussing with people”) with a desire to maintain harmony (e.g.,
“It is important to maintain harmony within my group”)
Component VII was mainly defined by items reflecting a sense of commitment to others at
the expense of self-interest (e.g., “I will sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my group”),
all of which loaded negatively. All of these items involved some kind of trade-off between the
interests of self and others. Items that loaded positively on this component tended to cross-load
on other components, but these also seemed to capture a focus on self-interest at the expense
of others (e.g., “My personal accomplishments are more important than maintaining my social
relationships”, “I am comfortable being singled out for praise and rewards”).

69. Beyond the ‘East-West’ Dichotomy: Global Variation in Cultural Models of Selfhood

70.

Component I appeared to contrast a desire for difference (e.g., “Being a unique individual is
important to me”) with a desire to be similar to others or to fit in (e.g., “I avoid standing out
among my friends”).
Component II appeared to contrast a sense of self-containment (e.g., “I consider my
happiness separate from the happiness of my friends and family”) with a sense of connection
to others (e.g., “If a person hurts someone close to me, I feel personally hurt as well”).
Component III appeared to contrast a sense of self-direction (e.g., “I should decide my
future on my own”) with a sense of receptiveness to influence by others (e.g., “Other
people’s wishes have an important influence on the choices I make”)
Component IV appeared to contrast a preference for self-reliance (e.g., “I prefer to be selfreliant rather than depend on others”) with a preference for dependence on others (e.g., “I
prefer to turn to other people for help rather than solely rely on myself”).
Component V appeared to contrast a sense of consistency across situations (e.g., “I
always see myself in the same way, independently of who I am with”) with a sense of
variability or flexibility across contexts (e.g., “I sometimes feel like a different person when I
am with different groups of people”).
Component VI appeared to contrast a preference for self-expression (e.g., “I prefer to be
direct and forthright when discussing with people”) with a desire to maintain harmony (e.g.,
“It is important to maintain harmony within my group”)
Component VII was mainly defined by items reflecting a sense of commitment to others at
the expense of self-interest (e.g., “I will sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my group”),
all of which loaded negatively. All of these items involved some kind of trade-off between the
interests of self and others. Items that loaded positively on this component tended to cross-load
on other components, but these also seemed to capture a focus on self-interest at the expense
of others (e.g., “My personal accomplishments are more important than maintaining my social
relationships”, “I am comfortable being singled out for praise and rewards”).

71. Beyond the ‘East-West’ Dichotomy: Global Variation in Cultural Models of Selfhood

72.

Component I appeared to contrast a desire for difference (e.g., “Being a unique individual is
important to me”) with a desire to be similar to others or to fit in (e.g., “I avoid standing out
among my friends”).
Component II appeared to contrast a sense of self-containment (e.g., “I consider my
happiness separate from the happiness of my friends and family”) with a sense of connection
to others (e.g., “If a person hurts someone close to me, I feel personally hurt as well”).
Component III appeared to contrast a sense of self-direction (e.g., “I should decide my
future on my own”) with a sense of receptiveness to influence by others (e.g., “Other
people’s wishes have an important influence on the choices I make”)
Component IV appeared to contrast a preference for self-reliance (e.g., “I prefer to be selfreliant rather than depend on others”) with a preference for dependence on others (e.g., “I
prefer to turn to other people for help rather than solely rely on myself”).
Component V appeared to contrast a sense of consistency across situations (e.g., “I
always see myself in the same way, independently of who I am with”) with a sense of
variability or flexibility across contexts (e.g., “I sometimes feel like a different person when I
am with different groups of people”).
Component VI appeared to contrast a preference for self-expression (e.g., “I prefer to be
direct and forthright when discussing with people”) with a desire to maintain harmony (e.g.,
“It is important to maintain harmony within my group”)
Component VII was partly defined by items reflecting a sense of commitment to others at
the expense of self-interest (e.g., “I will sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my group”)
and items describing a focus on self-interest at the expense of others (e.g., “My personal
accomplishments are more important than maintaining my social relationships”, “I am
comfortable being singled out for praise and rewards”).

73. Beyond the ‘East-West’ Dichotomy: Global Variation in Cultural Models of Selfhood

74. Beyond the ‘East-West’ Dichotomy: Global Variation in Cultural Models of Selfhood

75. Beyond the ‘East-West’ Dichotomy: Global Variation in Cultural Models of Selfhood

In closing, we have argued that previous confusions in the
self-construal literature are due in no small measure to
researchers’ premature convergence on an over-simplified
dimensional model of self-construals (independent and
interdependent) and cultures (Western and non-Western),
without having passed through a prior phase of systematic
exploration to identify the nature and cross-cultural distribution
of these constructs.

76.

Self-Interest

77.

Self-interest
THE “FORER EFFECT” (Barnum effect)

78.

THE “FORER EFFECT” (Barnum effect)
The Forer effect (also called the Barnum effect after P. T. Barnum's
observation that "we've got something for everyone") is the
observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to
descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored
specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to
apply to a wide range of people.

79.

THE “FORER EFFECT” (Barnum effect)
This effect can provide a partial explanation for the widespread
acceptance of some beliefs and practices, such as astrology,
fortune telling, graphology, aura reading.
A related and more general phenomenon is that of subjective
validation.
Subjective validation occurs when two unrelated or even random
events are perceived to be related because a belief, expectation,
or hypothesis demands a relationship. Thus people seek a
correspondence between their perception of their personality and
the contents of a horoscope.

80.

Psychologist Bertram R. Forer gave a personality test to his students. He told his
students they were each receiving a unique personality analysis that was based
on the test's results and to rate their analysis on how well it applied to
themselves. In reality, each received the same sketch, consisting of the
following items:

81.

THE “FORER EFFECT” (Barnum effect)
On average, the students rated its accuracy as 4.26 on a scale of 0
(very poor) to 5 (excellent).
Only after the ratings were turned in was it revealed that each
student had received identical copies assembled by Forer from a
newsstand astrology book. The quote contains a number of
statements that are vague and general enough to apply to a wide
range of people.

82.

THE “FORER EFFECT” (Barnum effect)
Subjects give higher accuracy ratings if...
○ The subject believes analysis applies only to him/her
○ The subject believes in the authority of the evaluator
○ The analysis lists mostly positive traits, or turns
weaknesses into strengths (more positive
more acceptable)

83.

84.

This effect exists due to our self interest. Just someone who
exploits our self interest.)