Critical Comparisons of Theories of Self - Research Paper Example

Critical Comparisons of Theories of Self A number of differences between the theories can be deduced from how they perceive the processes by which individuals acquire self-identity. A major component that creates a basis for comparisons is how the theories view a person’s uniqueness versus the role of society in developing perceptions of the self. Michael Argyle’s theory of self-concept is based on the individual’s self-esteem, which develops depending on how others react to the individual whether by enhancing associations or avoiding their company. In addition, how an individual compares to others in their cycles based on physical appearance or material possession as well as the social roles of individuals (Argyle, 2007). Based on George Mead’s social behaviourism theory of self, individuals develop their personalities from their interactions with others around them (Morris, 2009). Mead argues that the self, as part of an individual’s personality that encompasses the individual’s awareness as well as image of the self, is a product of the individual’s social experience, which underlies the importance of social goals in directing human behaviour (Macionis, 2002). Therefore, the theories about self by Mead and Argyle have inherent similarities as they both highlight importance of the social environment in directing the development of an individual’s sense of self. While Argyle bases his theory on the various determinants of self-esteem and Mead relies on social roles to explain his theory of the self, Albert Bandura’s self-efficacy theory, relies on how individuals perceive their capabilities (Argyle, 2007). Bandura note individuals have unique beliefs about their capabilities to organize and complete specific tasks that are important in managing probable situations. Based on Bandura’s theory an individual’s belief about the likelihood to execute a task successfully can be a motivating factor in itself (Van der Bijl and Shortridge-Baggett, 2002) build self-efficacy theory on the assertion. Therefore, an individual’s own judgements about their capability to perform particular tasks improve their efforts as well as persistence towards challenging tasks (Axtell and Parker, 2003). Therefore, self-efficacy theory by Bandura does not rely on external influences, as is the case with social behaviourism by Mead. Self-efficacy in this case is based on the individuals’ belief in their ability to be successful in a particular situation. This is a key distinction that sets Bandura’s self-efficacy theory from the self-concept theory that is based on how one builds their self-confidence through their notions about how others perceive them as well as the social behaviourism theory, which highlights the importance of society in shaping an individual’s personality case (Stets and Burke, 2003). However, there are also areas of similarities that represent overlapping ideas about self-efficacy and self-concept theories’ perceptions on what motivates individuals to arrive at certain conclusion about the self. Both self-efficacy and have a meeting point when one considers self-esteem as a source of motivation to undertake various life events. Self-efficacy is seeing oneself as being in control of one’s life with the reality about the actual causative capabilities of the individual being less significant than what one observes to be the situation (Stets and Burke, 2003). Therefore, the way high self-esteem affects individual’s sense of self based on self-concept theory, in individuals who experience positive outcomes have also been linked with high self-efficacy such as being able to successfully cope with stressful events in life as well as being able to adopt good health habits. Research has indicated that identity verification does not only improve the individual’s feelings of self-worth but also contributes to other adaptive mechanisms such as increased feelings of control over one’s environment. There exists an important link between self-esteem and self-efficacy with Owens and Aronson (2000) observing that individuals who possess high self-esteem have also been able to see themselves as proficient in various social undertakings. The researchers note that this perception about competence enables the individuals to show increased willingness to be involved in social activities as way of contributing to social change (Owens & Aronson, 2000). Self-efficacy as perceived by Bandura and self-esteem in Argyle’s theory appears to be very similar in their approach to how individuals form their sense of self. While the two theories are conceptually related, they have basic differences where self-esteem is often depicted as an inclusive construct that underlies an individual’s self-evaluations across a range of different circumstances. In opposition, self-efficacy by Bandura’s theory represents an individual’s belief about a particular task andtherefore, refers to the individual’s context-specific capability. Secondly, an individual’s self-esteem in Argyle’s theory is more stable and enduring in most situation while self-efficacy on the other hand has been found to change over time as the individual accumulates new experiences inform of information and skills to perform different tasks. Thirdly, the theory by Argyle relies on the individual’s reflective evaluation of the self that includes feelings of self-worth, which is based on the individual’s awareness about personal traits based on aspects such as intelligence as well as integrity. However, a key deference between Bandura’s theory and that of Argyle is that there are tasks in which an individual might have high self-efficacy while at the same time having low self-efficacy about others but neither of these have a consequence on improvement or reduction in their general self-esteem(Leary and Tangney, 2003). A further distinction that separates self-concept theory from self-efficacy theory is the differentiation of between different strands of self-esteem such as sense of power and sense of worth, sense of competence and self-worth, self-evaluation and self-worth in addition to competence and morality among others. A common differentiation concerns the subdivision between self-esteem that is centered on capability, authority and efficacy and that, which is based on virtue and moral worth with these subdivisions of self-esteem being based on different processes in the formation of concepts about the self. To achieve competency-based self-esteem, individuals have to relate their capabilities with effective performances and therefore it is linked to self-attribution and social comparison processes. Self-esteem grounded on virtue is also known as self-worth and is based on norms and values about personal as well as interpersonal conduct such as justice, reciprocity and honor (Guindon, 2009). A contrast can be drawn further by comparing the perspectives of social behaviourism theory against self-concept as well as self-efficacy on how individuals form their sense of self. An important component of Mead’s social behaviourism theory is the role social process, which is the opposite of self-efficacy and self-concept theories, which approach human experiences that influence sense of self in terms of individual psychology (Morris, 2009). In social behaviourism, Mead analyses the experiences that develops the sense of self from the perspective of communication as a crucial component in a social order. Therefore, to explore an individual’s perception about the self, it is essential that the underlying social processes that motivate and transform how individuals react to different situations be considered (Da Silva, 2007). Self, according to social behaviourism is a social emergent just as is the mind which informs the social behavioural theorists, perception of the self that notes individual selves are the as a result of social interaction. This is the opposite of the ideas of Bandura and Argyle about self-efficacy and self-concept respectively, which relies on the individual’s logical or biological preconditions as the underlying influence for social interactions (Argyle, 2007). Therefore, while the theories by Bandura and Argyle presuppose the priority of selves to social process, Mead argues that the self is a concept, which has a development (Da Silva, 2007). Social behaviourism as constructed by Mead argues that the sense of self does not initially exist at birth, but is something that goes through a development processes that is based on the social experience and activity (Morris, 2009). Therefore, the sense of self can only be cultivated within a person because of the interactions with the entire social development process as well as with other individuals within that process. However, just like Argyle and Bandura recognizes the role of the individual in shaping perceptions about the self, Mead also separated his theory into two important components consisting of two phases of the self. Firstly, Mead incorporates the component of the self, which mirrors the attitude of the generalized other, and secondly, that component which is formed as a reaction to such attitude in order to differentiates between the “me” and the “I” components of the self where “me” is the social self, while the “I” is a response to the “me.” Based on this breakdown of the self, the “I” is experienced in present form by the individual’s actions as an object of symbolism within the perception of the person’s ancient actions. In this sense, the “me” component of self-stands for experiences developed from past actions while the “I,” as a reaction to the “me” denotes action within the individual’s present situations. The “I “in this case represents a potential restructuring of the “me” in a future possibility where after the “I” has performed a task, it becomes embedded in the memory as that which has been done,” but now transformed into an aspect of the restructured “me” (Morris, 2009; Da Silva, 2007).  Therefore, Mead’s conception of the “me” has a number of similarities with other aspects of the self as advanced in the theories by Bandura and Argyle. In Mead’s theory of social behaviorism, the “me” is a function of experiences that individuals accumulates after learning from the society when the individual draws the attitude of the generalized other into the self (Da Silva, 2007). The individual possess mechanisms to internalize these attitudes by taking part in the conversation of symbols though language in addition to other socialization processes such as games and play. This internalization of social processes to influence the perception about self is similar to what Bandura saw as being social modelling. According to the self-efficacy theory, observing others, especially those with similarities to the individual, successfully complete a task raises observers' beliefs that they possess the necessary capabilities to master comparable activities and to achieve success. Further, Bandura shares into Mead’s belief about social processes by highlighting the importance of social persuasion in developing a sense of self. Bandura also believed social influences affect individual’s perspective about the self, given that people could be convinced by others to believe they possess the skills and capabilities to succeed (Sedikides and Brewer, 2001). Even though Mead’s theory has a number of similarities with that of Cooley especially when considering the role of social considerations in shaping an individual’s self image, there are still some inherent difference between the two theorists concept of the self. Cooley bases his theory on the "looking glass self" concept that reliefs on formation of self-image through the individual’s conclusions about how they think others perceive them (Sedikides and Brewer, 2001, p. 163). Cooley saw the people surrounding an individual as representing a mirror given that they reflect the "self" back to the individual. Therefore, Cooley asserted that the individual’s belief about how people see them affect their sense of self, making his theory simple compared to that of Freud and Mead (Sedikides and Brewer, 2001). The theories of self advanced by Mead and Cooley are based on the social environmental factors as important contributors to the formation of a person’s concept about the self. Freud on the other hand concentrates on the importance of biological and environmental factors. Through, the division of id, ego, and superego Freud argues that human beings have fundamental drive within themselves which combines with influence from society to create conclusions about the sense of self. Based on Freud’s concept of self, the id is a biological sense of self that one is born with while ego develops due to societal constrains on how the individual expresses and meets desires in life. The superego on the other hand represents the societal rules and regulations that inform how individuals should interact with others in society (Sedikides and Brewer, 2001). Social processes are also an element in Argyle’s self-concept theory where the theorist uses the term introjections to define the process. According to Argyle, their social environment influences individuals when they incorporate other’s views, attitudes as well as reactions into their self-concept. Argyle notes among the means by which individuals form conclusions about who they are is by making comparisons about themselves with others. The self-concept theory agrees in part with the social behaviourism theory by asserting that there specific aspects of our self-image that can only take on any significance through social process. For instance, according to the tenets of self-concept theory, traits such as being tall or short as well as slim or fat are not absolute. Therefore, an individual can only be tall or fat when making a comparison with others who are shorter or thinner than the individual is (Argyle, 2007). Even as Mead rejects logical and biological preconditions as the basis on which individuals for their sense of self, the theorist accepts that social control of the self has its limits. One of these limits is the “I,” concept that is informed by the individual’s ability to arrive at a conclusion after making value judgements about the various social constructs that affects the individual’s life. A second limitation to the influence of society on the individual’s sense of self is represented in Mead’s depiction of specific social relations that includes Intra-Group Consensus — Extra-Group Conflict as well as Intra-Group Conflict — Extra-Group Consensus models (Morris, 2009). These models highlights the importance of individual’s forming their sense of self that is consistent with the society as well as being able to have independence in decision making in other cases. Therefore, Mead is in agreement with Bandura and Argyle in this aspect since he agrees that individuals can be autonomous in some cases where they form concepts about the self that is inconsistent to social controls (Weiner, Tennen and Suls, 2012). Consequently, social behaviourism theory, self-concept theory and self-efficacy theory of how individuals form their concepts about self, stress the unreliability of forming our sense of self-based on the appraisal of others. These theories acknowledge that in many instances, it is difficult to get honest feedbacks from significant others, especially when the response should be negative. Among the reasons for unreliability of depending on others as a basis of developing sense of the self is that the norms of adult social interaction in our culture prevents honest appraisal of others by replacing honesty with tact and proper, deference as well as demeanour so that the individual’s self-esteem can be protected. As a result, it becomes difficult to make an accurate assessment of how others think of us (Weiner, Tennen and Suls, 2012). As a cognitive theory of personality, George Kelley’s theory has a number of distinctive aspects that separates it from what theories by Mead, Argyle, and Bandura postulates. Kelley believes that individuals have capabilities of forming internal models of reality denoted as paradigms which empower them comprehend and describe the their surroundings in the same manner scientists develop theories. Just like scientists do, individuals develop their constructs through observation and experimentation and it therefore starts as unstable assumption, transforming and gaining stability through the individual’s experiences. Unlike the other theories which insist on the importance of society shaping the individual’s sense of self, Kelley notes an individual has personal control over formation of self perceptions and that individuals in the same situations are capable of forming distinct constructs about a situation (McAdams, 2006). From the foregoing critical comparisons of Mead’s social behaviourism, Argyle’s self-concept and Bandura’s self-efficacy theories, which explain how individuals form their sense of self, it emerges that the theories have areas of similarities as well as differences. Given that the three theories are about essentially about how individuals form their sense of self, it is not surprising that there are important areas of similarities among them. A number of conclusions can be drawn from the similarities differences among the theories. It has been established that social controls plays an influential role in the individual’s assessment of who they are. The theories analysed include components of social influences on the sense of self with self-efficacy theory highlighting the importance of social modelling and social persuasion, self-concept theory includes a component about comparison with others as well as social roles while social behaviourism is the biggest advocator of society as what develops an individual’s concepts about the self. References Argyle, M. (2007) Social interaction. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Axtell, C. M., & Parker, S. K. (2003) Promoting role breadth self-efficacy through involvement, work redesign and training. Human Relations, 56(1), 113-131. Da Silva, F. C. (2007) G. H. Mead: A critical introduction. New Jersey: Wiley and Sons Publishers. Guindon, M. H. (Ed.). (2009) Self-esteem across lifespan: Issues and Interventions. New York: Taylor & Francis. Macionis, A. J. (2002) Sociology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Morris, C. W (2009) Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist (Vol. 1). Chicago: University of Chicago press. Owens, T. J., & Aronson, P. J. (2000) Self-concept as a force in social movement involvement. In S. Stryker, T. J. Owens, & R. White (Eds.) Self, identity, and social movements (pp. 191-214). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2003) A sociological approach to self and identity. Handbook of self and identity. In Leary, M. R., & Tangney, J. P. (Eds.).Handbook of self and identity. (pp. 128-152). New York: Guilford Press. Van der Bijl, J. J., &Shortridge-Baggett, L. M. (2002) The theory and measurement of the self-efficacy construct. In E. A. Lentz & L. M. Shortridge-Baggett (Eds.), Self-efficacy in nursing:Research and measurement perspectives (pp. 9-28).New York: Springer. Weiner, I. B., Tennen, H. A., and Suls, J. M. (2012) Handbook of Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology. New Jersey: Wiley and Sons. McAdams, D. (2006). The person: A new introduction to personality psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Sedikides, C., & Brewer, M. B. (Eds.). (2001) Individual self, relational self, collective self. Psychology Press. Read More