Self and Identity: Definition and Overview

Aiden P. Gregg Constantine Sedikides Claire M. Hart

University of Southampton

The Nature of the Self The self is at once both utterly familiar and infinitely elusive. Everyone reading these words has a self or, perhaps more correctly, is a self; yet it is difficult to say what this means or amounts to, because, unlike other objects of scientific scrutiny, the self resists being pinned down or pointed out. In frustration, some philosophers have contended that the inner I is an illusion (Nrretranders, 1998), the product of outdated dualistic thinking (Dennett, 1992) or of misinterpreted personal pronouns (Kenny, 1989). Even granting that the self does exist (Searle, 2001; Strawson, 1997), two problems persist for the would-be empirical analyst: first, to define the self convincingly and conclusively in view of the hodgepodge of historical meanings it has assumed; and second, to identify worthwhile ways of studying the self in view of the well-established fallibility of verbal reports based upon introspection (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). To meet such challenges, scientifically-minded psychologists typically proceed pragmatically. They accept that reflexive consciousness, the hallmark of human selfhood, is forever likely to elude full elucidation (McGinn, 1999), but nonetheless note that, whatever its nature, it is still a key hub around which human

psychology revolves. They maintain, moreover, that, even though the self, regarded as a transcendental locus, may be empirically intractable, the subordinate phenomena associated with it, studied in a piecemeal way, need not be (James, 1890). Praxis proves, for example, that self-esteem can be adequately conceptualized, reliably measured, and fruitfully investigated without having to specify exactly what is being esteemed (Sedikides & Gregg, 2003). For scientific purposes, then, the self can be defined as the totality of psychological processes intimately intertwined with reflexive consciousness. It is not so much an object of scrutiny as an area of inquiry. Psychologists who study the self are consequently able to deploy a range of methodologies (Reis & Judd, 2000). Common experimental techniques include shortterm manipulations of self-related variables, via the staging of social situations or the presentation of bogus feedback (Aronson, Wilson, & Brewer, 1998). Common measurement techniques include not only psychometrically valid self-report inventories, but also objective indices borrowed from other disciplines, such as implicit measures from cognitive psychology (Wittenbrink & Schwarz, 2007) and brain-imaging techniques from neuroscience (Heatherton, Krendl, Macrae, & Kelley, 2007). The Anatomy of the Self We conceptually dissect the self by adopting a classification scheme that maps on to the traditional division of mind into three faculties: knowing (cognition/reflection), feeling (evaluation/affect), and doing (intention/action). The self as knower. Compared to the rest of the animal kingdom, human beings possess a sophisticated intellect, with unparalleled capacity for linguistic invention, theoretical abstraction, and explicit computation (Pinker, 1994; Sedikides & Skowronski, 2003; Tallis, 1991). Moreover, this intellect combines with reflexive

consciousness to generate a rich tapestry of self-beliefs (Higgins, 1996). These selfbeliefs, in their entirety, constitute the self-concept. Psychologists study, not just the content of these self-beliefs, but also what properties they possess (e.g., accuracy, consistency, accessibility, and importance; Dunning, Heath, & Suls, 2004; Markus, 1977; McGuire, & Padawer-Singer, 1976; Thibodeau & Aronson, 1992), how they are represented in memory (Klein, Loftus, & Kihlstrom, 1996), and how they are structurally organized (McConnell & Strain, 2007). The content of ones personally important self-beliefs is what constitutes ones identity. (Note: this is a psychological definition. It differs from philosophical definitions that attempt to answer the question of what underlies the uniqueness or continuity of a person, e.g., Shoemaker & Swinburne, 1984). Identity is therefore as varied as the content of such self-beliefs. Special attention has been paid to the flexibility with which people categorize themselves. In particular, psychologists have explored how self-categorizations can occur not only at an individual level (e.g., I am this person) but also at a collective level (We are this group) (Searle, 1995; Sedikides & Brewer, 2001), and have noted that either one or the other level can predominate depending on situational or cultural context (Markus & Kitayama, 1999; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). That said, some self-categorizations, such as those having to do with sexual orientation and gender identity, do seem to have biological roots: they are partly heritable, begin in early childhood, and resist modification (Stein, 1999; Wilson & Rahman, 2005). Moreover, contrary to the claims of the sociological models such as the looking-glass self (Cooley, 1902), peoples self-beliefs are less determined by what others actually think about them than by what they believe others think about

them (Shrauger & Schoenman, 1979). Both latter lines of research suggest that selfcategorization is not determined by social context alone. (A word of caution is warranted here. The term self can be and often is used as short-hand for self-categorization. However, the convenience of the contraction should not prompt one to infer that the self as a whole is reducible to content of important self-beliefs. Rather, self-categorization is just one aspect of the self, not its essential feature, as the sections below will illustrate.) The self as feeler. People do not, like indifferent androids, process self-related information dispassionately; rather, they react to it affectively, delivering positive or negative evaluations, and exhibiting agreeable or aversive emotions (Sedikides & Gregg, 2003; Tracy & Robins, 2007). Moreover, the type of reaction that occurs (e.g., basking in reflected glory, or cringing in reflected ignominy) depends on exactly who the self is being compared to, and on how well that comparison person performs in domains of varying importance to the self (Tesser, 1988). In addition, the information eliciting affective reactions need not be directed at the individual self, but also at entities with which the self identifies: that is, to directly praise or criticize us is to indirectly praise or criticize me. As noted above, people can self-categorize flexibly with collectives beyond themselves; also remarkable is how readily partisan preferences for one collective over another develop (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971; Greenwald, Pickrell, & Farnham, 2002). Peoples level of commitment to such collectives, which often defies utilitarian analysis, moderates the strength and nature of their affective reactions to collective threats (Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 2002). Peoples overall affective reaction to themselveswhich may both direct and derive from their social identifications (Cialdini et al., 1976; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) corresponds to their self-esteem. Having high self-esteem seems to make peoples

subjective lives brighter; but whether and to what extent it confers objective or interpersonal advantages is much debated (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003). However, it may matter not only what quantity of self-esteem people possess, but also what quality of self-esteem they possessfor example, how stable it is over time (Kernis, 2003). The self as doer. People do not merely contemplate themselves and then react emotionally; they also act. Indeed, self-reflexive thoughts and feelings arguably direct adaptive action. One key component of adaptive action is self-regulation. This denotes the executive management of spontaneous mental and behavioural inclinations, essential for attaining long-term goals and preserving psychological equilibrium. Consequently, psychologists spend time studying successes and failures of self-regulation (Vohs, & Schmeichel, 2007), and building heuristic models of the self-regulation process as a whole (Carver & Scheier, 2000). Foundational research also addresses the question of whether there is anything more to the exercise of voluntary agency than the mere attribution of authorship to the self, the deed really having unconscious determinants (Wegner, 2002; Libet, 1985). Note that self-regulation can be either direct or oblique. When direct, an attempt is made to manage the mind from within (say, by trying to suppress feelings of worthlessness); when oblique, an attempt is made to manage the mind from without (say, by trying to impress others to feel worthwhile). Oblique self-regulation, as in the example given, is often accomplished by strategic self-presentation (Jones & Pittman, 1982), a form of impression management that highlights the interplay between self and society. People also vary in their penchant for presenting a polished image to the world, an individual difference explored under the rubric of self-monitoring (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000).

Self-Related Motivations What is the psychological glue that binds the three domains of selfhood together? One plausible answer is motivation: when people strive after many nonelementary goals, their self-directed thoughts, feelings, and actions fuse. For example, Higgins (1987) postulates that perceiving a disparity between ones actual self and ones ought and ideal selves (implicating the self as knower) leads respectively to the emotions of anxiety and depression (implicating the self as feeler) that then prompt remedial action of trying to lessen the disparity in concrete ways (implicating the self as doer). Several grand theories of self-related striving posit the existence of fundamental needs that must be met in order to maintain psychological stability, as well as motivational systems designed to service those needs. For example, sociometer theory posits a need to belong to significant social groups (Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995); terror management theory (Pyszczynski, Greenberg, & Solomon, 1997), a need to construct meaningful worldviews; and self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2002), needs to act autonomously, accomplish goals effectively, and bond closely with others. All such needs theorized to be linked, in one way or another, with self-esteem. This in turn suggests that the motive to self-enhancethat is, maintain a positive view of selfis a cardinal motive, an hypothesis further supported by the sheer variety of documented ways, overt and subtle, in which people defend and promote their positive self-view (e.g., positivity bias, self-handicapping, and self-serving attributions; see Sedikides & Gregg, 2003, in press; Sedikides & Strube, 1997). However, people do not inevitably self-enhance: sometimes other motives, such as finding out the truth about oneself, predominate (Trope, 1982). After all, even imperfectly rational human beings are guided, out of pragmatic necessity, by

reality constraints. Complex dispositional and situational factors determine which self-motive predominates in particular situations. One controversial question is whether people most want (a) to maintain a firm sense of identity per se, and so seek to reassure themselves that they are who they already think they are, whatever it is (i.e., to self-verify); (b) to maintain a positive identity, and so seek to reassure themselves that, whoever they happen to be, it is good (i.e., to self-enhance). Empirical research shows that, when people with negative self-views are given the choice, they predominantly opt for sources of information that confirm rather than contradict their pre-existing self-views. This finding has been interpreted as indicating that the motive to self-verify is stronger than the motive to self-enhance (Swann, Rentfrow, & Guinn, 2003). However, an equally if not more plausible interpretation is that people with negative self-views do not feel rationally entitled to believe positive feedback, and turn it down despite keenly wanting it to be true (Gregg, in press).

References: Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Experimentation in social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 99-142). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1-44. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2000). On the structure of behavioral selfregulation. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of selfregulation. (pp. 41-84). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Cialdini, R., Borden, R., Thorne, A., Walker, M., Freeman, S., Sloan, L. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366-375. Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and social order. New York: Scribners. Dennett, D. C. (1992). The self as a center of narrative gravity. In F. Kessel, P. Cole, and D. Johnson (Eds.) Self and Consciousness: Multiple Perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. (2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 69-106. Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 161-186. Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 530-555.

Greenwald, A. G., Pickrell, J. E., & Farnham, S. D. (2002). Implicit partisanship: Taking sides for no reason. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 367-379. Gregg, A. P. (in press). Is identity irrelevant? A contrarian view of selfverification effect. Depression and Anxiety. Heatherton, T. F., Krendl, A. C., Macrae, C. N., & Kelley, W. M. (2007). A social brain sciences approach to understanding self (pp. 3-20). In C. Sedikides & S. Spencer (Eds.), The Self. New York: Psychology Press. Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319340. Higgins, E. T. (1996). The self digest: Self-knowledge serving selfregulatory functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1062-1083. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Holt. Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 1, pp. 231-262). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Kenny, A. (1989) The Metaphysics of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 1-26. Klein, S. B., Loftus, J., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1996). Self-knowledge of an amnesic patient: Toward a neuropsychology of personality and social psychology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 250-260. Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Selfesteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 518-530.

Libet, B. (1985). Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8, 529-566. Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63-78. Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. McConnell, A. R., & Strain, L. M. (2007). Content and structure of the self. In C. Sedikides & S. Spencer (Eds.), The self in social psychology (pp. 51-73). New York: Psychology Press. McGinn, C. (1999). The mysterious flame: Conscious minds in a material world. New York. Basic Books. McGuire, W. J., & Padawer-Singer, A. (1976). Trait salience in the spontaneous self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 743-754. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259. Nrretranders, T. (1998). The user illusion: Cutting consciousness down to size. NY: Penguin Books. Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: Norton. Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., & Solomon, S. (1997). Why do we need what we need? A terror management perspective on the roots of human social motivation. Psychological Inquiry, 8, 1-20. Reis, H. T., & Judd, C. M. (2000). Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 333). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Searle, J. R. (2001). Rationality in action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press. Sedikides, C., & Brewer, M. B. (2001). Individual self, relational self, collective self. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Sedikides, C., & Gregg, A. P. (2003). Portraits of the self. In M. A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), Sage handbook of social psychology (pp. 110-138). London: Sage Publications. Sedikides, C., & Gregg, A. P. (in press). Self-enhancement: Food for thought. Personality and Social Psychology Review. Sedikides, C., & Skowronski, J. J. (2003). Evolution of the self: Issues and prospects. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (594609). New York, NY: Guilford. Sedikides, C., & Strube, M. J. (1997). Self-evaluation: To thine own self be good, to thine own self be sure, to thine own self be true, and to thine own self be better. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 209269. New York, NY: Academic Press. Shoemaker, S., & Swinburne, R. (1984). Personal identity. Oxford: Blackwell. Shrauger, J. S., & Schoeneman, T. J. (1979). Symbolic interactionist view of self-concept: Through the looking glass darkly. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 549-573. Stein, E. (1999). The mismeasure of desire. New York: Oxford University Press. Strawson, G. (1997). The self. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 4, 405-428.

Swann, W. B. Jr., Rentfrow, P. J., & Guinn, J. (2003). Self-verification: The search for coherence. In M. Leary, and J. Tangney, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Self and Identity (pp. 367-383). New York: Guilford Publications. Tajfel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149-178. Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1986). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 2-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Tallis, R. (1991). The explicit animal. A defence of human consciousness. London: Macmillan. Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 21), 181-227. New York: Academic Press. Thibodeau R., & Aronson, E. (1992). Taking a closer look: Reasserting the role of the self-concept in dissonance theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 591-602. Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Self-conscious emotions: Where self and emotion meet. In C. Sedikides & S. Spence (Eds.), The self in social psychology. Frontiers of social psychology series (pp. 187-209). New York: Psychology Press. Trope, Y. (1982). Self-assessment and task performance. Journal of Experimental Social. Psychology, 18, 201-215. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M .S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Wegner, D. M. (2002). The illusion of conscious will. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wilson, G. & Rahman, Q. (2005). Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation. London: Peter Owen. Vohs, K. D., & Schmeichel, B. J. (2007). Self-regulation: How and why people reach (and fail to reach) their goals (pp. 139-162). In C. Sedikides & S. Spencer (Eds.), Frontiers in social psychology: The self. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Wittenbrink, B., & Schwarz, N. (Eds.). (2007). Implicit measures of attitudes. New York: Guilford Press.