Topic 1: All About Self

Activity 1: Reading – All About Self

Please read the following text which introduces you to the theory and practice of perception.

^{This activity contains text from 2.1 All About Self in Professional Communication in Health Studies by Chute, A., Johnston, S., & Pawliuk, B. (2023). (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). Minor changes for readability and to add illustrations as cited from other sources.}
Psychologist Steven Pinker (2009) defines the “conscious present” for most people as about three seconds. Everything beyond those three seconds is either the past or the future. Who you are now is probably different from who you will become an hour later, because your environment, knowledge, or skills may change.

As you complete this section, remember that the communication process is dynamic, not static. In other words, communication is constantly changing and does not stay the same. You, too, are a dynamic system. Physiologically, your body changes as you inhale and exhale air, digest food, and cleanse waste from each cell. Psychologically you are also always in a state of change. Some aspects of your personality and character will be constant, while others will shift and adapt to your environment and context. That complex combination contributes to the self you call yourself. In this course, the self is defined as one’s sense of individuality, personal characteristics, motivations, and actions (McLean, 2005).

To understand our communication interactions with others, it is helpful to first understand ourselves. Although each of us experiences ourselves as a singular individual, our sense of self comprises three separate yet integrated components: self-awareness, self-concept, and self-esteem. This section will help you to think critically about who you are, what you believe, and how your sense of self influences how you communicate.

Self-Awareness

Self-awareness can be defined in many ways, including “conscious knowledge of one’s character, emotions, values, assumptions, motives, and desires” (Wood et al., 2008). If “awareness” means consciously taking note of the world around us, then self-awareness should mean bringing awareness to yourself.

Self-awareness allows you to see things from others’ perspectives, practice self-control, experience pride in yourself and your work, and have general self-esteem. It also leads to better decision-making, improves personal and professional communication, and enhances self-confidence and competence.

Self-reflection, introspection, mindfulness, or meditation can increase awareness of self and is the primary mechanism to influence personality development. This is the more internally-focused form of self-awareness. Self-awareness can also be gained through feedback from other trusted people. This is a more externally-focused form of self-awareness. Both forms of knowledge about self are helpful and can lead to many improvements in your life. To embark on a well-balanced journey of self-awareness, consider the following actions:

• Search for yourself — experiment with mindfulness, meditation, and self-reflective practices.
• Share — with those you trust the many parts of yourself, including your ideas, thoughts, feelings, concerns and worries, motivations, and passions.
• Look outside yourself — seek feedback from those you trust who see you in action in various contexts.
• Challenge yourself — as you know more about yourself, your limits, and your desires, challenge yourself to step beyond your comfort zone and experience new things. You will discover new things about yourself and grow at the same time.

As you explore self-awareness, you may notice that you can be tough on yourself, overly critical, and perhaps even insecure. Developing a solid sense of yourself is crucial because you monitor your behaviours and form impressions of yourself through self-observation. As you are watching and observing your actions, you are also engaging in social comparison, which is observing and assigning meaning to others’ behaviour and then comparing it with your own. Social comparison has a particularly potent effect on the self when we compare ourselves to those we wish to emulate. The critical point in understanding who you are, what you believe about yourself, how you think you communicate, and how you are shaped by those you interact with begins with awareness of yourself (Beebe et al., 2010).

Self-Concept, Self-Esteem, and Self-Efficacy

Self-Concept

Self-concept refers to the overall idea of who a person thinks they are. If someone said, “Tell me who you are,” your answers would be clues as to how you see yourself and your self-concept. Each person has an overall self-concept that might be encapsulated in a short list of overarching characteristics that they find essential. But each person’s self-concept is also influenced by context, meaning we think differently about ourselves depending on our situation. Sometimes, personal characteristics such as our abilities, personality, and other distinguishing features will best describe who we are. You might consider yourself laid back, traditional, funny, open-minded, or driven, or you might label yourself a leader or a thrill seeker. In other situations, our self-concept may be tied to a group or cultural membership. For example, you might consider yourself a Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity member or a track team member.

Our self-concept is also formed through our interactions with others and their reactions to us. The concept of the looking-glass self explains that we see ourselves reflected in other people’s responses to us and then form our self-concept based on how we believe other people see us (Cooley, 1922). This reflective process of building our self-concept is based on what other people have said, such as “You are a good listener,” and other people’s actions, such as coming to you for advice. These thoughts evoke emotional responses that feed into our self-concept. For example, you may think, “I am glad that people can count on me to listen to their problems.” This is also referred to as reflected appraisal, and the people whose reflections we consider essential are known as significant others.

We also develop our self-concept through comparisons to other people. Social comparison theory states that we describe and evaluate how we compare ourselves to other people. Social comparisons are based on two dimensions: superiority/inferiority and similarity/difference (Hargie, 2011).

In terms of superiority and inferiority, we evaluate characteristics such as attractiveness, intelligence, athletic ability, etc. For example, you may judge yourself to be more intelligent than your brother or less athletic than your best friend, and these judgments are incorporated into your self-concept. This process of comparison and evaluation is not necessarily flawed, but it can have negative consequences if our reference group is inappropriate. We use reference groups for social comparison, which typically change based on our evaluation. Many people choose unreasonable reference groups for social comparison regarding athletic ability. Suppose an individual wants to get into better shape and starts an exercise routine. In that case, they may be discouraged by difficulty keeping up with the pilates instructor or a running partner and judge themselves as inferior, which could negatively affect their self-concept. Using as a reference group people who have only recently started a fitness program but have shown progress could help maintain a more accurate and hopefully positive self-concept.

We also engage in social comparison based on similarities and differences. Given that self-concept is context-specific, similarity may be desirable in some situations and difference more desirable in others. Factors such as age and personality may influence whether or not we want to fit in or stand out. Although we compare ourselves to others throughout our lives, adolescent and teen years usually bring new pressures to be similar to or different from particular reference groups. Think of all the cliques in high school and how people voluntarily and involuntarily broke off into groups based on popularity, interest, culture, or grade level. Some students in your high school probably wanted to fit in with and be similar to others in the marching band but different from the football players. Conversely, athletes were more apt to compare themselves, in terms of similar athletic ability, to other athletes rather than students in debate clubs. But social comparison can be complicated by perceptual influences. As we learned earlier, we organize information based on similarities and differences, but these patterns only sometimes hold true. Even though students involved in athletics and arts may seem very different, a dancer or singer may be very athletic, perhaps even more so than a football team member. There are positive and negative consequences of social comparison.

We generally want to know where we fall in ability and performance compared to others, but what people do with this information and how it affects self-concept varies. Only some people feel they need to be at the top of the list, but some will only stop once they get a high score on a video game or set a new school record in a track-and-field event. Some people strive to be the first chair in the clarinet section of the orchestra, while another person may be content to be the second chair. The education system promotes social comparison through grades and rewards such as honour rolls and Dean’s Lists. University faculty typically report class aggregate grades, meaning the total number of As, Bs, Cs, etc. This does not violate anyone’s privacy rights but allows students to see where they fell in the distribution. This type of social comparison can be used as motivation. The student who was one of only three out of 23 to get a D on the exam knows that most classmates are performing better than they are, which may lead them to think, “If they can do it, I can do it.” But the social comparison that is not reasoned can have adverse effects and result in negative thoughts like “Look at how bad I did. I am so stupid!” These negative thoughts can lead to negative behaviours because we try to maintain internal consistency, meaning we act in ways that match our self-concept. So if the student begins to question their academic abilities and then incorporate an assessment of themselves as a “bad student” into their self-concept, they may behave in ways consistent with that, which will only worsen their academic performance. Additionally, a student might be comforted to learn that they are not the only person who got a D and then not feel the need to try to improve because they have company. You can see in this example that evaluations we place on our self-concept can lead to cycles of thinking and acting. These cycles relate to self-esteem and self-efficacy, which are components of our self-concept.

Self-Concept Components

Self-concept is based on the attitudes, beliefs, and values that you have about yourself. Identity and self-concept are so intertwined that any lasting desired change or improvement becomes difficult (Fiske & Taylor, 1991).

An attitude is your immediate disposition toward a concept or an object. Attitudes can change quickly and frequently. You may prefer vanilla while someone else prefers peppermint, but if that person tries to persuade you how delicious peppermint is, you might be willing to try it and find that you like it better than vanilla.

Beliefs are ideas based on our previous experiences and convictions and may not necessarily be based on logic or fact. You no doubt have beliefs about political, economic, and religious issues. These beliefs may not have been formed through rigorous study, but you hold them as essential aspects of self. Beliefs often serve as a frame of reference through which we interpret our world. Although beliefs can be changed, it usually takes time or robust evidence to persuade someone to change a belief.

Values are core concepts and ideas about what we consider good or bad, right or wrong, or what is worth making a sacrifice for. Our values are central to our self-image, which makes us who we are. Like beliefs, our values may not be based on empirical research or rational thinking, but they are even more resistant to change than are beliefs. A person may need to undergo a transformative life experience to change values.

For example, suppose you highly value the freedom to make personal decisions, including wearing a helmet while driving a motorcycle. This value of individual choice is central to your thinking, and you are unlikely to change this value. However, you might reconsider this value if your brother was driving a motorcycle without a helmet and suffered an accident that fractured his skull and left him with permanent brain damage. While you might still value freedom of choice in many areas of life, you might become an advocate for helmet laws — and perhaps also for other forms of highway safety, such as stiffer penalties for cell phone talking and texting while driving.

Self-Esteem

Self-esteem refers to the judgments and evaluations we make about our self-concept. While self-concept is a broad description of the self, self-esteem is more specifically an evaluation of the self (DeHart & Pelham, 2007). If you were again prompted to “tell me who you are” and then asked to evaluate (label as good/bad, positive/negative, desirable/undesirable) each of the things you listed about yourself, you would reveal clues about your self-esteem. Like self-concept, self-esteem has general and specific elements. Generally, some people are more likely to evaluate themselves positively, while others are more likely to evaluate themselves negatively (DeHart & Pelham, 2007). More specifically, our self-esteem varies across our life span and contexts.

How we judge ourselves affects our communication and behaviours, but not every negative or positive judgment carries the same weight. The negative evaluation of a trait that is not very important for our self-concept will likely not result in a loss of self-esteem. For example, someone may need to improve at drawing. While they appreciate drawing as an art form, they do not consider drawing ability a big part of their self-concept, so if someone critiqued their drawing ability, their self-esteem would not take a big hit. If that person considers themselves a good teacher and has spent considerable time and effort improving their knowledge of teaching and teaching skills, a critique of these would hurt their self-esteem. This does not mean that we cannot be evaluated on something we find important. For example, while teaching is important to faculty members’ self-concept, they are regularly evaluated. Each term, they are reviewed by students, program deans, and colleagues. Most of that feedback is in the form of praise and constructive criticism (which can still be difficult to receive), but when taken in the spirit of self-improvement, it is valuable and may even enhance self-concept and self-esteem. In professional contexts, people with higher self-esteem are more likely to work harder based on negative feedback, are less negatively affected by work stress, can handle workplace conflict better, and can work independently and solve problems (DeHart & Pelham, 2007). Self-esteem is not the only factor contributing to our self-concept; perceptions about our competence also play a role in developing our sense of self.

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy refers to people’s judgments about their ability to perform a task within a specific context (Bandura, 1997). Judgments about our self-efficacy influence our self-esteem, which influences our self-concept. The following example illustrates these interconnections.

Pedro did an excellent job on his first college speech. During a meeting with his professor, Pedro indicates he is confident going into the following speech and thinks he will do well. This skill-based assessment indicates that Pedro has a high level of self-efficacy related to public speaking. If he does well, the praise from his classmates and professor will reinforce his self-efficacy and lead him to evaluate his speaking skills, contributing to his self-esteem positively. By the end of the class, Pedro likely thinks of himself as an excellent public speaker, which may become an important part of his self-concept. Throughout these connection points, it is important to remember that self-perception affects how we communicate, behave, and perceive others. Pedro’s increased self-efficacy may give him more confidence in his delivery, which will likely result in positive feedback and reinforce his self-perception. He may start to perceive his professors more positively because they share an interest in public speaking, and he may notice other people’s speaking skills more during class presentations and public lectures. Over time, he may start thinking about changing his major to Communication or pursuing career options incorporating public speaking, which would further integrate being “a good public speaker” into his self-concept. You can see that these interconnections can create powerful positive or negative cycles. While some of this process is under our control, much of it is also shaped by the people in our lives.

The verbal and nonverbal feedback we get from people affects our feelings of self-efficacy and our self-esteem. As we saw in Pedro’s example, giving positive feedback can increase our self-efficacy, making us more likely to engage in a similar task in the future (Hargie, 2011). Negative feedback can lead to decreased self-efficacy and a declining interest in engaging with the activity again. People generally adjust their expectations about their abilities based on feedback from others. Positive feedback tends to make people raise their expectations for themselves, and negative feedback does the opposite, ultimately affecting behaviours and creating the cycle. When feedback from others differs from how we view ourselves, additional cycles may develop that impact self-esteem and self-concept.

Self-discrepancy theory states that people have beliefs about and expectations for their actual and potential selves that do not always match up with what they experience (Higgins, 1987). To understand this theory, we must understand the different “selves” that make up our self-concept, which are actual, ideal, and ought selves.

• The actual self consists of attributes you or someone else believes you possess.
• The ideal self consists of attributes you or someone else would like you to possess.
• The ought self consists of the attributes you or someone else believes you should possess.

These different selves can conflict with each other in various combinations. Discrepancies between the actual and ideal or ought selves can motivate in some ways and prompt people to act for self-improvement. For example, if your ought self should volunteer more for the local animal shelter, your actual self may be more inclined to do so. Discrepancies between the ideal and ought selves can be incredibly stressful. For example, many professional women who are also mothers have an ideal view of self, including professional success and advancement. They may also have an ought self that includes a sense of duty and obligation to be a full-time mother. The actual self may be someone who does okay at both but does not quite live up to the expectations of either. These discrepancies do not just create cognitive unease — they also lead to emotional, behavioural, and communicative changes.

When we compare the actual self to the expectations of ourselves and others, we can see particular emotional and behavioural effects patterns. When our actual self does not match up with our ideals of self, we are not obtaining our desires and hopes, which can lead to feelings of sadness, including disappointment, dissatisfaction, and frustration. For example, if your ideal self has no credit card debt and your actual self does, you may be frustrated with your lack of financial discipline and be motivated to stick to your budget and pay off your credit card bills.

When our actual self does not match up with other people’s ideals for us, we may not be obtaining significant others’ desires and hopes, which can lead to feelings of sadness, including shame, embarrassment, and concern for losing the affection or approval of others. For example, if a significant other sees you as an “A” student and you obtain a 2.8 GPA in your first year of post-secondary studies, you may be embarrassed to share your grades with that person.

When our actual self does not match what we think other people think we should be, we are not living up to the self that we think others have constructed for us, which can lead to agitation, feeling threatened, and fear of potential punishment. For example, suppose your parents think you should follow in their footsteps and take over the family business, but your actual self wants to get a Master’s degree. In that case, you may be unsure of what to do and fear being isolated from the family. Finally, when our actual self does not match up with what we think we should be, we are not meeting what we see as our duties or obligations, which can lead to feelings of agitation, including guilt, weakness, and a feeling that we have fallen short of our moral standard (Higgins, 1987). The following is a review of the four potential discrepancies between selves:

• Actual versus own ideals. We feel we are not obtaining our desires and hopes, leading to disappointment, dissatisfaction, and frustration.
• Actual versus others’ ideals. We have an overall feeling that we are not obtaining significant others’ desires and hopes for us, which leads to feelings of shame and embarrassment.
• Actual versus others’ ought. We feel that we are not meeting what others see as our duties and obligations, leading to agitation, including fear of potential punishment.
• Actual versus own ought. We feel that we are not meeting our duties and obligations, which can lead to a feeling that we have fallen short of our moral standards.

Activity 2: Interactive – Dialog Cards Activity

Please complete the following interactive activity.

Media Attributions

Christine, C. (2019, March 13). Black and brown eyeglasses on book on brown wooden table [Photograph]. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/black-and-brown-eyeglasses-on-book-on-brown-wooden-table-D7bmnvGJA2Q

Devia, J. (2018, June 25). Black hoodie [Photograph]. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/black-hoodie-xfYiIpHnvhs

J Meza Photography. (2021, April 4) Self believe [Photograph]. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/woman-in-tank-top-in-grayscale-photography-ike4M3gp2iw

Novitskaa, E. (2020, April 1). Brown and red wooden wall during daytime [Photograph]. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/brown-and-red-wooden-wall-9B3xYEhxGQc

Rae, S. (2017, October 10). Brown dried leaves on sand [Photograph]. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/brown-dried-leaves-on-sand-geM5lzDj4Iw

Winegeart, K. (2020, September 14). Red and white love wall décor [Photograph]. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/red-and-white-love-wall-decor-60GsdOMRFGc

Wright, K. (2019, February 8). Toddler looking a Believe in Yourself Graffiti [Photograph]. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/toddler-looking-at-believe-in-yourself-graffiti-yMg_SMqfoRU

References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.

Beebe, S. A., Beebe, S. J., & Ivy, D. K. (2010). Communication principles for a lifetime (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Chute, A., Johnston, S., & Pawliuk, B. (n.d.). 2.1: All about self. In Professional communication skills for health studies. MacEwan University. https://openbooks.macewan.ca/professionalcommunication/part/chapter-2-self-and-perception/

Cooley, C. (1922). Human nature and the social order. Scribner.

DeHart, T., & Pelham, B. W. (2007). Fluctuations in state implicit self-esteem in response to daily negative events. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(1), 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.01.002

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). McGraw Hill.

Hargie, O. (2011). Skilled interpersonal interaction: Research, theory, and practice. Routledge.

Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319–340. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319

McLean, S. (2005). The basics of interpersonal communication. Allyn & Bacon.

Pinker, S. (2009). The stuff of thought : Language as a window to human nature. Penguin Books.

Wood, S. E., Green Wood, E., & Boyd, D. (2008). Mastering the world of psychology (3rd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.