Motivation and emotion/Textbook/Motivation/Self-concept
Motivation & self-concept[edit source]
Introduction[edit | edit source]
Who are you? Are you tall? Short? Do you have brown or blonde hair? Is academic competence important to you? Do you only value knowledge and intelligence in a particular domain, say, maths or history? Are you a fit and althetic person? Do you get along with your peers or work colleagues? Are you shy or boisterous?
Each of these questions reflects a particular self-schema which forms the framework of one's self-concept. Self-concept can be understood as guiding the energy and direction behind attitudes, emotions and behaviours. Why do you dress the way you do? Why did you enrol in university or apply for a particular job? An individual's self-concept permeates all facets of his/her life and is a key motivational factor underlying attitudes, emotions and behaviours in the hope to attain facets of psychological well-being (Ross, 1992).
What is Self-Concept and Motivation and how are they Related?[edit | edit source]
'Self' as a noun came into the English language around AD 1400 and was initially defined by negative connotations, such as selfishness (Ross, 1992). The negative connotations reflect the historical context as seen in the following pledge; "Our own self we shall deny, and follow our Lord Almighty" (Baumeister, 1986).
This trend continued into the 16th century when hyphenations of the self became popularised, such as self-pity, self-praise and self-conceit. From the 17th century onwards, the self took on a more positive light with the development of terms such as self-interest, self-efficacy and self-determination (Ross, 1992). The importance and purpose behind the self also shifted in direction as portrayed by the following 18th century Nathaniel Cotton poem excerpt; "The world has nothing to bestow; From our own selves our joys must flow" (Cotton, 2003).
The term self-concept emanates from the previously mentioned derivatives of the self, for example, it incorporates aspects of self-interest, self-praise and self-efficacy. Specifically, self-concept can be understood as one's conception of themselves as a distinct individual; mental representations of who one is and who they wish to become in the context of their environment (Beck, 2000). Box 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 provide examples of the developing self-concepts of three young people. Reeve (2009) asserts that the self-concept develops from personal experiences, reflections on these experiences and feedback from the social environment. Thus, the process of self-concept development and consolidation involves a reciprocal, cyclic process as depicted in the following diagram:
The self-concept is organised into a semantic hierarchy of self-schemas; cognitive generalisations which are domain specific (Reeve, 2009). Self-schemas can include appraisals in social (peers, significant others), academic (general or specific intelligence), emotional (specific emotions), or physical (abilities, appearance) domains (Ross, 1992). Within the self-schema hierarchy, individuals can also possess high or low levels of differentiation and integration (Lipka & Brinthaupt, 1992).
Differentiation refers to the breadth of an individual's self-concept with children often exhibiting low differentiation and adults high differentiation. For example, a child's hierarchy may revolve around a limited number of self-schemas, such as physical ('I am tall', 'I have brown hair') and academic ('I love math', 'I dislike English') domains. Conversely, adults often possess more extensive hierarchies, incorporating many domains (Ross, 1992).
Integration subsequently defines how cohesive and interrelated an individual's hierarchy is, with children again showing low levels and adults high levels. For example, a child often displays disjointed self-schemas such as defining themselves by hair colour (physical domain) and athletic ability (physical domain). Alternatively, adults often define themselves through an integrated network of self-schemas such as their social abilities (social domain) based on interactions with family, peers, strangers and work colleagues and how this relates to their emotional intelligence (academic domain) and the way they present themselves (physical domain) (Deckers, 2004).
Motivation refers to the energising and directive properties behind human behaviour which determines the quantity and quality of our actions (Reeve, 2009). It is shaped and driven by an individual's unique composition internal and external motives including biological, physiological, psychological, cognitive and environmental forces (Beck, 2000). Motivation energises and directs an individual to work out who they are (self-assessment), create a consistent and accurate hierarchy of self-schemas (self-verification) and enable control and psychological well-being (self-enhancement). The purpose of the self-concept therefore reflects the human tendency to seek consistency, control and predictability over their attitudes, emotions and behaviours which will be discussed later in the attribution theory (Lipka & Brinthaupt, 1992).
Chapter Outline and Focus Questions[edit | edit source]
Self-Concept Development[edit | edit source]
Self-concept development is influenced by numerous factors including biological, brain structure, neurotransmitter, socio-cultural and psychological elements. Each element has a differential quantity and quality of impact on an individual and combined they create a unique self-concept. Consequently, individuals demonstrate differences in motivated attitudes, emotions and behaviour which produces varying levels of self-concept change, management and stability (Deckers, 2004).
Biological Elements[edit | edit source]
Biological elements, including genotype and phenotype, play an important role in the development and maintenance of an individual's self-concept (Ross, 1992). The genotype describes the internal genetic code which uniquely controls the inner-workings of each individual. The primary link between genotype and self-concept is the ability for the genotype to control the phenotype. The phenotype defines the outward manifestation of an individual via physical appearance, personality and behaviour (Maltby, Day & Macaskill, 2007). Thus, genetics influence the development of particular self-schemas, such as in social, physical or academic domains, which interact to form an individual’s self-concept.
Physical attractiveness has firstly been shown to influence an individual’s self-concept. Adams and Read (1983) demonstrated that attractive individuals perceived themselves as possessing significantly more positive personality traits than unattractive individuals, such as a superior analytical and critical thought ability and a warm, extraverted social manner. Conversely, unattractive participants perceived themselves as possessing more negative than positive qualities, such as poorer control of interpersonal situations. Similarly, Marks, Miller and Maruyama (1981) found participants were biased when rating others, for example, attractive samples were deemed more intelligent, thoughtful and open-minded than unattractive samples. Interestingly, even psychological therapists have been found to exhibit this bias when evaluating a new client (Hobfoll & Penner, 1978).
Physical attractive bias does appear to partly comprise a biological component as Langlois, Roggman and Rieser-Danner (1990) demonstrated that infants displayed positive affective tone, less withdrawal behaviour and high play involvement with an attractive confederate or doll as compared to an unattractive confederate or doll. Socio-cultural elements tend to stimulate and consolidate the presence of physical attractive biases. For instance, Salmivalli (1998) found school yard bullies often contained a high but negative social and physical self-concept and victims a low social and physical self-concept. Bias is also evident within occupational domains with attractiveness positively correlated with higher income (Judge, Hurst & Simon, 2009), flexible benefits and individual-based pay rates (Cable & Judge, 1994). Individuals also tend to engage in romantic relationships of similar physical attractiveness which is argued to partly reflect an evolutionary basis to maintain survival (which in contemporary society can relate to status and wealth) and reproduction (Horton, 2003). Thus, attractiveness influences how an individual perceives themselves in addition to how others perceive them. The consequences of this bias shapes self-concept development and maintenance. At its most extreme, attractiveness bias can lead individuals to unrealistically distort or evaluate their physical self-schema which plays a role in the development of eating disorders (Jansen, Smeets, Martijn & Nederkoorn, 2006).
Personality traits also influence an individual’s self-concept as they energise and direct approach or avoidance behaviour toward particular self-schemas (Maltby et al., 2007). Twin, adoption and family study research indicates personality traits are partly hereditary, accounting for approximately 20-50% of the variance in self-concept (Lounsbury, Levy, Leong & Gibson, 2007). The big-5 theory of personality provides a common framework for understanding hereditable traits, as displayed in Box 1.1. McCroskey, Heisel and Richmond (2001) demonstrated that extraverts were more assertive and self-accepting than introverts and tended to approach social and arousing occupations and relationships. Conversely, introverts have a tendency to be socially inhibited and apprehensive, preferring predictable and independent occupations and relationships. van der Zee, Thijs and Schakel (2002) found neuroticism to be negatively correlated with emotional intelligence which subsequently appeared to weaken academic intelligence and research on interpersonal conflict suggests individuals high on agreeableness are more responsive to conflict and enact strategies to diffuse these situations (Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001). Research therefore indicates that personality traits predispose individuals with certain abilities and tendency which subsequently influence self-concept development.
Brain Structure Elements[edit | edit source]
Specific brain structures influence self-concept development, depending on individual differences, which can be illustrated through Eysenck's biological model of personality and arousal (Lounsbury et al., 2007). The model asserts that extraverted and neurotic personality dispositions trigger specific brain structure activity which influences behaviour and self-schema development. The model firstly claims that individuals attempt to maintain an equilibrium between their excitatory (alert, active and aroused) and inhibitory (inactivity and lethargy) mechanisms. Equilibrium is achieved through the ascending reticular activating system (ARAS) which controls arousal via the reticulo-cortical circuit (incoming stimuli) and reticulo-limbi circuit (emotional stimuli). The ARAS is situated in the brain stem and connects the thalamus (switchboard), hypothalamus (metabolism & autonomic processes) and cortex (neural processing) to provide an integrated response to information and stimulation (Maltby et al., 2007).
The second component of the model relates to individual differences based on extraverted and neurotic personality types. Extraversion is associated with arousal of the reticulo-cortical (incoming stimuli) circuit in which low arousal levels are present in extraverts (as they are under-aroused and desire stimulation) and high arousal levels are present in introverts (as they are over-aroused and attempt to avoid stimulation). This assertion is supported by literature mentioned in the biological section, such as extraverts preferring social and arousing environments and introverts preferring independent and predictable environments (McCroskey et al., 2001). Alternatively, neuroticism is associated with the arousal of the reticulo-limbic (emotional stimuli) circuit in which neurotics tend to be more aroused by emotional stimulation than stable individuals. Again, this is reflected in aforementioned literature such as neurotics' inability to demonstrate emotional intelligence (van der Zee et al., 2002).
Socio-cultural Elements[edit | edit source]
Socio-cultural elements play a role in self-concept development including the influence of gender roles, family, peers and religion. Research suggests that most cultures socialise individuals into particular gender roles, for example, Western society overtly and covertly encourages femininity amongst females and masculinity amongst males which continues throughout the life span (Gouze & Nadelman, 1980). Bassen and Lamb (2006) posit that gender roles sway the development of schemas in social, emotional and academic domains. For example, male participants frequently indicated their social and emotional self-schema comprised qualities such as assertiveness whereas females highlighted qualities such as affiliativeness. Furthermore, Rudman and Phelan's (2010) study demonstrated that priming females with traditional gender stereotypes (female: teacher, male: mechanic) led to less reported interest in male-stereotyped roles. Interestingly, priming of nontraditional roles (female: mechanic, male: teacher) resulted in participants reporting a lowered leadership self-schema because they engaged in upward social comparison and therefore perceived the scenario as a threat. Gender stereotype threat is a final example of how prescribed roles influence self-concept. A common example in literature is the proposal that males perform better than females on maths equations. This subsequently lowers female performance and academic-domain self-schemas due to performance pressures. Importantly, this effect appears to be limited to females who report a high-identification academic-domain schema (Keller, 2007).
Family and peer interactions also shape an individual's self-concept. Triadic family interaction refers to the social relations between mother, father and child (Brown, Mangelsdorf, Neff, Schoppe-Sullivan & Frosch, 2009). The family systems' perspective posits that the attributes and behaviours of family members, parenting techniques and the differential roles of the mother and father influences self-concept development in childhood (Brown et al., 2009; von Wyl et al., 2008). For instance, Brown et al. (2009) found harmonious interactions were correlated with children expressing positive self-schemas, such as adventurousness. Conversely, discordant interactions such as hostility or low engagement were associated with self-schemas including fearfulness and less agreeableness. Thus, a child is likely to experience constructive self-concept development if they are exposed to parents who (a) possess supportive attributes or (b) provide positive role-modelling or (c) utilise supportive and encouraging parenting techniques or (d) fulfil nurturing mother or father roles. Similarly, supportive or aversive peer interactions shape an individual's self-concept, particularly during middle childhood and adolescence (Lipka & Brinthaupt, 1992). For example, Egbochuku (2009) found that secondary school females reported higher self-concept in academic and social domains when they attended single-sex as opposed to co-educational schools. This finding was explained by the impact of differing peer interactions and subsequent influences.
Lastly, the media also contributes to self-concept development. The level of influence depends on the extent to which an individual attributes importance to the medium and subsequently internalises the content (Beck, 2000). The media exerts influence in most self-schema domains including social, academic, emotional, physical and sexual. For example, Aubrey (2007) found female university students developed negative and dissatisfied sexual self-schemas from viewing soap operas, prime time dramas or excessive amounts of television. Similarly, Bessenoff (2006) found excessive television, newspaper or magazine viewing was associated with the exacerbation of actual-ideal physical self-schemas, particularly for women and thin body shapes. However, the media is also claimed to produce positive self-concept development, such as providing education outlets which develops an individual's academic self-schema (Ross, 1992).
Psychological Elements[edit | edit source]
The development of an individual's self-concept is also shaped by psychological elements which gain increasing complexity throughout the life span. A famous experiment demonstrated the ability of infants aged 12 to 18 months to engage in self-recognition through identifying rouge on their nose when looking at a mirror (Lipka & Brinthaupt, 1992). This illustrates an individual's first experience of identifying the existential self. Infants then develop self-awareness through self-perception exercises, for example, kicking a toy mobile is connected to the mobile swinging and making sounds. Subsequently, the swinging and sounds are associated with the emotion of joy. The ability to connect events and emotions therefore develops an individual's initial journey to understanding their likes and dislikes which directs their behaviour in later life (Ross, 1992).
Attachment behaviour during early childhood marks the ability to distinguish humans and develop one's social self-schema. Research suggests three attachment styles including secure (adventurous, healthy child-mother attachment), resistance (afraid of solo play, crying upon reunion with mother) and avoidant (sporadic play, avoidance upon reunion). These attachment styles are subsequently claimed to continue into middle childhood and influence an individual's understanding of their self-concept (Beck, 2000).
Throughout childhood and adolescence, the acquirement of language and learning of cognitive labels plays the key role in establishing a concrete understanding of one's self-concept. Research shows that during this period individuals learn to distinguish between purely external qualities, such as appearance and possessions, and internal qualities, such as personality traits and possible selves (Salmivalli, 1998). During adulthood psychological needs including autonomy, competence and relatedness motivate the finer distinctions within one's self-concept. For example, achieving a goal under autonomy-supportive conditions, rather than controlled regulation, has been associated with eudaimonic self-concept development (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Self-Concept Stability[edit | edit source]
Two universal factors which influence self-concept development and consolidation are human tendencies, outlined by the attribution theory, and human motives, including self-assessment, self-verification and self-enhancement. These tendencies and motives shape and predict self-concept-related attitudes, emotions and behaviours in addition to change, management and stability. The underlying purpose of these tendencies and motives is to ensure control, consistency, predictability and psychological well-being.
Attribution Theory[edit | edit source]
The attribution theory asserts that humans have a tendency to attribute causality to events, people and situations (West & Turner, 2007). Individuals commonly display three inferences; internal or external, stability and controllability attributions. An internal attribution infers an internal cause, such as explaining attitudes, emotions and behaviour by personality, mood, ability or effort. Conversely, external attributions infer an external cause, such as luck, social influence or task difficulty. Stability describes the attribution of a stable or temporary cause, such as personality dispositions or the effects of alcohol consumption. Controllability is a final attribution which is the distinction between a controllable or uncontrollable cause, such as a situation which was influenced by effort or luck. Figure 1 outlines differing attributions for an individual's academic self-schema. This behaviour enables an individual to develop a coherent view of the world and maintain some level of control, consistency and predictability (Graham & Folkes, 1990).
Self-Assessment, Self-Verification and Self-Enhancement[edit | edit source]
The attribution theory therefore provides the basis for motivated behaviour and self-assessment, verification and enhancement build upon this basis to shape and predict self-concept-related attitudes, emotions and behaviours. Self-assessment defines the desire to gain an accurate perception of one's self-concept, regardless of negative or positive findings (Crisp & Turner, 2010). This desire relates back to the attribution theory as individuals seek to reduce uncertainty and gain predictability over their attitudes, emotions and behaviour by possessing accurate self-concept knowledge. Self-verification subsequently refers to the desire to confirm and consolidate our self-concept. Similarly, this motive derives from the desire to gain control, consistency and predictability over one's self-concept. Self-enhancement, unlike the former two motives, specifically aims to enable positive perceptions about one's self-concept. This is argued to be the most influential motive and often overrides the former two motives because it maintains self-concept stability and psychological well-being through high self-esteem (Elliott, 2007).
How do Human Tendencies and Motives Influence the Self-Concept?[edit | edit source]
It is therefore important to keep in mind that self-concept development, change, management and stability stem from the underlying need to attribute causality and maintain control, consistency and predictability. Human tendencies and motives influence self-concept development as individuals innately seek out information to understand and confirm and enhance their perceptions. For example, gender roles provide a way for individuals to carry out self-assessment, social interaction enables self-verification and psychological processes such as self-serving bias promote self-enhancement.
The next section addresses precursors for self-concept change and management, which is also influenced by human tendencies and motives. Inconsistent attitudes and behaviours (cognitive dissonance theory), actual-ideal or actual-ought selves (self-discrepancy theory) and negative social comparisons (self-evaluation maintenance model and social identity theory) all impinge on an individual's sense of control, consistency, predicatability and psychological well-being (Pemberton & Sedikides, 2001). Thus, a fundamental motivation within self-concept change and management involves the recognition of undesirable states and subsequent efforts to restore stable, accurate and positive self-schemas.
How Stable is the Self-Concept?[edit | edit source]
Research suggests that self-concept is both stable and malleable (Lipka & Brinthaupt, 1992). An individual often possesses a core sense of self which is complemented by an ever-changing outer self. The core self comprises biological elements and innate human tendencies and motives. For example, an individual's genotype and phenotype predisposes them with a particular gender role and unique personality traits, temperaments and neural functioning. Furthermore, the aforementioned human tendencies and motives encourage individuals to constantly seek out and identify a controllable, consistent and predictable self-concept.
The ever-changing outer self-concept is influenced chiefly by psychological and socio-cultural elements. Psychological influences include the recognition of unstable self-schemas (cognitive dissonance) and discrepancies within ideal and possible selves (self-discrepancies). Socio-cultural influences include factors such as peer or family relations, religious beliefs, social class, cultural background or the effects of social comparison (self-evaluation maintenance model and social identity theory). Thus, each of these elements play a role in modifying and altering an individual's self-concept.
Why is Self-Concept Stability Important?[edit | edit source]
A minimum level of self-concept stability is important for psychological well-being and optimum functioning (Elliott, 2007). The importance of stability can be understood through the self-determination theory. The theory asserts that optimal motivation stems from humans' inherent growth tendencies and innate psychological needs. Specifically, motivation falls along a continuum of perceived locus of causality which ranges from extrinsic motivations (e.g. external regulation and compliance) to intrinsic motivations (e.g. intrinsic regulation and personal interest and agency) (Deckers, 2004). A individual's locus of causality subsequently derives from the extent of psychological need satisfaction, including autonomy, competence and relatedness needs. The ability to equally fulfil these psychological needs and pursue self-concordant goals promotes intrinsic motivation which fosters self-concept stability and psychological well-being, such as self-acceptance, positive interpersonal relations, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life and personal growth (Reeve, 2009). Table 1 outlines specific facets of psychological well-being obtained from a stable and well-developed self-concept.
Table 1. The Importance of Self-Concept Stability and its Relationship to Self-Determination Theory
Summary: Self-concept comprises a core part and ever-changing outer part which interact to produce motivated attitudes, emotions and behaviours. Change is often necessary for self-concept development and stability as it enables an individual to assess, modify and reaffirm their self-schemas. Furthermore, change often takes the form of only slight, gradual differences which enables the core part to maintain effective functioning. Although a lack of self-awareness can lead to the pursuance of self-disconcordant goals, humans possess an innate tendency to strive for self-concordant goals. This enables the fulfilment of psychological needs, such as striving for autonomy through life goals, competence through environmental mastery and relatedness through positive interpersonal relations. Together, self-concordant goals and psychological need satisfaction encourage the development of intrinsic motivation which enables persistence, creativity, conceptual understanding and optimal functioning (Reeve, 2009).
Self-Concept Change and Management[edit | edit source]
The final section of this chapter addresses specific forms of self-concept change and management. As previously mentioned, self-concept change often takes the form of slight, gradual differences and to a limited number of self-schema domains at one point in time. As self-concept construction is deemed to stem from personal reflections on experiences as well as social feedback, three key theories will be addressed. The cognitive dissonance theory firstly outlines self-concept change derived from personal reflections on experiences and subsequent motivational properties designed to obtain attitude and behaviour equilibrium. Secondly, the self-discrepancy theory highlights how personal reflection can trigger awareness of discrepancies between actual, ideal and ought selves in addition to possible selves. Positive and negative self-esteem is also addressed to illustrate its role in preventing or enabling a person to become who they want to be. The final theory, self-evaluation maintenance model, highlights the influence of social feedback on self-concept change and management. It further emphasises the motivational properties produced through social comparison.
Cognitive Dissonance Theory[edit | edit source]
Festinger's cognitive dissonance theory proposes that inconsistent attitudes, thoughts and behaviours about the self produce psychological discomfort (West & Turner, 2007). As illustrated in the attribution theory, cognitive dissonance arises from an individual's desire to maintain consistency, control and predictability in their life. Dissonance is therefore aversive because it makes one's self-concept unstable which erodes the foundational base that people function from (Pemberton & Sedikides, 2001). Accordingly, motivation arises from the need to harmonise the inconsistent relationship. The following section will outline the process of cognitive dissonance as depicted in Figure 2.
What causes self-concept change?
Cognitive dissonance occurs when individuals appraise their attitudes, thoughts or behaviours as being incompatible, immoral or unreasonable. Reeve (2009) asserts that cognitive dissonance commonly arises under four circumstances; firstly, choice refers to the ultimatum individuals are faced with where they have to choose between two difficult options. Secondly, insufficient justification occurs when an individual has to explain an action which had little or no external prompting. Thirdly, effort justification defines a situation when an individual needs to reason why they exerted substantial effort for a particular behaviour. Fourthly, new information triggers cognitive dissonance because it can challenge or contradict one's beliefs.
The discomfort associated with cognitive dissonance incorporates both physiological and psychological arousal. Elkin and Leippe (1986) found that cognitive dissonance was a drive state with arousal reduction dependent upon a participant changing their attitude or becoming unaware of the dissonance after partaking in the task for a long duration of time. Similarly, Cooper, Zanna and Taves' (1978) study where participants completed a dissonance task after ingesting either a sedative or amphetamine. Results showed that sedatives attenuated the effects of dissonance in which an attitude change was no more prominent than the control group. Conversely, amphetamines augmented the effects of dissonance in which an attitude change was significantly more likely to occur.
Cognitive dissonance also comprises a psychological component of discomfort. Research indicates that dissonance triggers discrete, aversive feelings which are differentiated from positive or negative affect (Elliot & Devine, 1994). The cause of the psychological discomfort relates back to the attribution theory, where individuals are uncomfortable with possessing a self-concept which is inconsistent and unpredictable. Thus, when an individual notices their attitude and behaviour are incongruent, it produces motivational properties to harmonise the inconsistency.
The key component behind the cognitive dissonance theory relates to its motivational properties (West & Turner, 2007). When an individual experiences dissonance (providing it is of motivational magnitude), the individual is energized to enact either approach or avoidance behaviour. The particular direction to reduce dissonance will be discussed later, but it is important to note that at this point in the process an individual is energized to reduce the dissonance.
How is the self-concept changed/managed?
The determinants of approach or avoidance behaviour are governed by magnitudes of dissonance; the quantitative amount of dissonance an individual experiences including importance, dissonance ratio, rationale, reality and pain-cost ratio (Reeve, 2009; West & Turner, 2007). Importance refers to how imperative the issue is to an individual; dissonance ratio defines the number of consonant attitudes relative to the dissonant attitudes; rationale refers to the reasoning exercised to explain the dissonance; reality describes an individual's appraisal of whether attitudinal or behavioural changes are realistic; and the pain-cost ratio simply refers to the amount of pain and costs required to eliminate a dissonance. Therefore, the determinants of change impact on whether an individual displays approach or avoidance behaviours to reduce or eliminate the dissonance.
The reduction or elimination of dissonance commonly occurs through the use of one of four methods including removal of dissonance, reduction of the importance of dissonance, addition of a consonant attitude or increase the importance of the new consonant attitude (West & Turner, 2007).
Summary: one explanation for why people modify or change their self-concept is when they become aware of cognitive dissonance. As described by the attribution theory, people desire control, consistency and predictability over their attitudes, emotions and behaviour. Noticing an inconsistency between an attitude and behaviour therefore triggers physiological and psychological discomfort. Subsequently, people seek to harmonise this inconsistency through modifying or changing their attitudes or behaviours. When modification or change is successfully executed, individuals are able to clarify and consolidate particular self-schemas which make up the self-concept.
Self-Discrepancy Theory[edit | edit source]
The Self-Discrepancy Theory addresses the motivational and emotional properties triggered from actual, ideal and ought self discrepancies (Crisp & Turner, 2010). The actual self refers to an individual’s current self-concept, the ideal self to an individual’s idyllic self-concept and the ought self to what an individual perceives their self-concept should encompass due to obligation or responsibility (McDaniel & Grice, 2008). Discrepancies consequently arise when the selves conflict which triggers the psychological discomfort outlined in the attribution theory due to the inconsistency and instability of one’s self-concept. Discrepancies stimulate negative emotional reactions including dejected-related emotions in response to actual-ideal inconsistencies and agitation-related emotions in response to actual-ought inconsistencies (Boldero, Moretti, Bell & Francis, 2005). Self-discrepancies have also been proposed as an indirect contributor to suicidal ideation, mood disorders and anxiety disorders (Cornette, Strauman, Abramson & Busch, 2009; McDaniel & Grice, 2008).
The self-discrepancy theory demonstrates how actual-ideal-ought discrepancies can impact on one's self-concept and emotional displays. The theory also provides insight into how these discrepancies motivate behaviour. Specifically, discrepancies can motivate us to change or modify our self-schemas to bridge the gap between our actual-ideal or actual-ought selves. For example, a shy person (actual self) wanting to be confident (ideal self) may enrol in an assertiveness course, practise saying no or gradually become comfortable with delivering speeches through relaxation techniques. The discrepancy has therefore motivated them to engage in strategising and productive behaviours.
The ability for self-discrepancies to motivate behaviour is evident in a diverse range of real life contexts. Wilson, Mack and Grattan (2008) propose that discrepancies between actual-ideal and actual-ought selves can motivate physically unfit or overweight individuals to engage in exercise and diet schedules. Similarly, the theory can be applied to individuals who engage in excessive alcohol consumption and subseqently improve drinking behaviour through a greater self-awareness of actual-ideal standards (McNally, Palfai & Kahler, 2005).
Pentina, Taylor and Voelker (2009) also found that self-discrepancies play a role in young females' decisions to undergo cosmetic surgery. Specifically, actual-ideal discrepancies motivated individuals to seek cosmetic surgery possibly because they had internalised body image values which indicated that their physical self-schema was inadequate. However, actual-ought discrepancies actually reduced cosmetic surgery-seeking behaviours possibly because it leads people to question and avoid risky and commercialised consumption choices. Importantly, family support tended to reduce cosmetic surgery-seeking behaviour while peer support increased it which suggests that additional factors contribute to motivated behaviour. Thus, self-discrepancies play a key role in energising and directing behaviour, however, contemporary research suggests this is moderated by individual factors.
The type and intensity of motivated behaviour produced by self-discrepancies appears to be moderated by individual characteristics (e.g. Lodewyk, Gammage & Sullivan, 2009; Roney & Sorrentino, 1995). Roney and Sorrentino (1995) firstly outline numerous biological, cognitive and psychological factors which implicate motivated behaviour. Biological predispositions such as personality tendencies can direct behaviour in two ways; individuals can possess a tendency to simply avoid discrepancies rather than engage in self-regulation to monitor and improve actual-ideal-ought discrepancies, and individuals often innately exhibit an uncertainty-oriented or certainty-oriented tendency. Uncertainty-oriented individuals are energised to seek out new information about themselves in a process called self-assessment, which subsequently enables them to engage and thrive on amending self-discrepancies.
Conversely, certainty-oriented individuals are energised to maintain consistent self-schemas and subsequently avoid self-assessment to prevent the confrontation of conflicting information about themselves (Deckers, 2004). Thus, uncertainty-oriented individuals often embrace self-discrepancies while certainty-oriented individuals avoid self-discrepancies which provides one explanation for, say, those individuals who devise and maintain a weight loss program and those who do not.
Roney and Sorrentino (1995) also outline several cognitive factors which influence motivated behaviour. Firstly, their study demonstrated that regardless of certainty or uncertainty orientation, individuals who possessed a success-oriented mindset performed better academically than individuals who possessed a failure-threatened mindset. Thus, when individuals set out to reduce a self-discrepancy, approaching the situation with a positive and success-oriented mindset is paramount in effective performance and goal attainment.
A second cognitive factor explored by Roney and Sorrentino involved the process of priming individuals with ideal or ought selves prior to the academic task. Results showed improved performance when individuals were primed with ideal selves and poorer performance when primed with ought selves. This supports Pentina et al. (2009) whose findings suggest that ideal selves stem from an individual's internalised, private beliefs while ought selves stem from an individual's perception of socially desirable beliefs and behaviours.
Roney and Sorrentino also posit that psychological factors can influence motivated behaviour. Their findings suggested that harder goals do not necessarily lead to superior performance as advocated by the goal-setting theory (Locke & Latham, 2006). This is because difficult goals can lead to greater self-discrepancies over time in addition to intensified negative emotions. Thus, self-discrepancies can motivate productive behaviour on the proviso that goal difficulty is reasonable and attainable.
A final dimension which implicates motivated behaviour involves social influences. Lodewyk et al. (2009) emphasise the effects of Western ideals such as achievement and physical attractiveness pressures. Specifically, extreme self-discrepancies can lead to unconstructive, rather than productive, behaviours where the actual-ideal-ought selves trigger anxiety, low self-efficacy and poor outcomes. Similarly, Pentina et al. (2009) highlight the influence of social support on motivated behaviour as mentioned previously. The relationship between self-discrepancies and motivated behaviour can therefore trigger productive or counter-productive behaviour. The direction of behaviour appears to be moderated by biological, cognitive, psychological and social factors in combination with the time-frame, type and difficulty of the self-discrepancy.
Possible Selves[edit | edit source]
Like self-discrepancies, possible selves energise and direct behaviour. Possible selves refer to the totality of self-schemas one does and does not wish to possess to form a coherent and consistent self-concept (Deckers, 2004). For example, an individual may wish to be an excellent conversationalist but not desire to have superior physical fitness. Possible selves subsequently direct an individual's attention to exert effort and persistence in strategically planning and monitoring goal attainment (Reeve, 2009). For instance, the individual in the former example would exert effort in improving their language skills, humour and ability to be personable.
Research suggests that individuals are more likely to think about future rather than past selves (Erikson, 2007), consider positive rather than negative selves (vanDellen & Hoyle, 2008) and believe they will become their positive rather than negative selves (Hart, Fegley & Brengelman, 1993). However, these tendencies are moderated by an individual's level of optimism and pessimism, with optimism being positively correlated to these tendencies and pessimism being negatively correlated (Deckers, 2004). Failure to substantiate one's possible self commonly results in one of two outcomes; the individual rejects the possible self or develops strategies and goals to achieve the posisble self (Reeve, 2009). Thus, the role of possible selves is to enable an individual to evaluate their current self and strive for a future self of more value.
Self-Esteem[edit | edit source]
Self-esteem is a final factor which contributes to an individual's possible selves and the direction of their motivated behaviour. Self-esteem refers to the positive or negative evaluation of oneself based on how well the current self fares against the possible selves (Deckers, 2004). Specifically, self-esteem has been expressed through the following equation (Rodriguez, Wigfield & Eccles, 2003):
The equation defines pretensions as an individual's imagined possible selves and success as achievements towards becoming these possible selves. For example, Jenny may aspire to obtaining a 5.00 GPA which constitutes her possible self, and a success would involve achieving the 5.00 GPA. The theory subsequently proposes that increasing one's self-esteem requires either the reduction of pretensions or the increase of successes. Conversely, a decline in self-esteem is claimed to involve either an increase in pretensions or a decrease in successes (Rodriguez et al., 2003). Importantly, self-esteem is relative to the extent that an individual attributes importance to the possible self. If Jenny attributed no importance to academic schemas, then a failure to attain a 5.00 GPA would not necessarily result in reduced self-esteem (Deckers, 2004). Self-esteem therefore influences the direction and intensity of motivated behaviour and the subsequent selection and development of self-schemas which comprise one's self-concept.
Self-esteem influences motivated behaviour in different ways depending on whether one's self-esteem is positive or negative (Elliott, 2007). Cross and Markus (1994) illustrated this concept through a study which examined task performance in students who were schematic and aschematic in problem-solving. The results demonstrated that an individual with a positive self-esteem (schematic) possesses self-schemas which facilitate encoding, evaluation and retrieval of domain-relevant information. Schematic individuals were able to quickly reject inconsistent feedback (e.g. unbothered by an incorrect answer), were primed to respond in a particular way (e.g. quick and confident judgements, high information-processing) and were more sensitive and attentive to domain-relevant information (e.g. responded productively to feedback, utilised problem-solving skills). Thus, schematic individuals in a particular schema domain possess a superior ability to form and attain possible selves in that domain. Furthermore, motivated behaviour is action-oriented which is complemented by high self-efficacy.
Conversely, individuals with a negative self-esteem (aschematic) produced comparative results in the first task (which illustrates equal performance) but showed increasingly poorer performance throughout the remainder of the experiment. This is because they appraised the task as beyond their competence level which triggers avoidance reactions including reduced concentration, a lack of enjoyment and less exerted effort. Interestingly, aschematic participants who were given negative feedback throughout the task often improved their performance. Cross and Markus propose this result reflects an individual's fear that a problem-solving schema is indicative of general intelligence. When participants were consciously reminded of their performance, they were more attentive and exerted more effort than if they were not given feedback.
The importance of self-esteem can be summarised in the following example:
An individual's self-schema in a particular domain arouses perceived abilities and skills. For example, a social skill domain for Tim arouses his perception that he is personable, funny and competent in this domain.
Appraisal of the self-schema triggers the development and activation of possible selves. For example, Tim develops possible selves, such as being popular, and this self is activated when he is in a social situation.
The development and activation of positive possible selves subsequently primes task-relevant thoughts, emotions and actions. For example, Tim becomes attentive to people's body language when in a social situation and channels in on skills such as being warm, empathetic and humorous.
The activation of task-relevant skills enables an individual to utilise their skills in conjunction with increased self-efficacy which enables effective performance and self-concept consolidation. For example, Tim tunes into necessary social skills and is therefore able to utilise his skills, exert effort and persistence to attain his goal and in turn reaffirm his self-concept.
Summary: the self-discrepancy theory provides a second explanation for why and how individuals change their self-concept. Like cognitive dissonance theory, it explains self-concept change through self appraisals which produce motivational and emotional properties due to an inconsistent and unpredictable self. When an individual becomes aware of a discrepancy they cognitively appraise it with agitated-related emotions (actual-ought discrepancies) or dejected-related emotions (actual-ideal discrepancies). It is the cognitive appraisal and subsequent aversive emotions that produce the motivation behind goal setting and strategy formulation to modify or change one's self-schema or general self-concept. However if one's ideal or ought self is too far removed from their actual self, counter-productive behaviour can occur. Similarly, possible selves generate motivational and emotional properties in the form of approach or avoidance behaviour. Self-esteem tends to moderate the motivational and emotional properties of self-discrepancies and possible selves. Specifically, a positive self-esteem can trigger task-relevant thoughts, self-efficacy, optimisation of individual skills and abilities and self-concept growth. Conversely, a negative self-esteem can hinder self-concept development and stunt growth in self-schema domains.
Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model[edit | edit source]
The Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model posits that challenges to one's self-concept and self-esteem motivates the engagement in either social comparison or social reflection depending on how the individual appraises the situation (Crisp & Turner, 2010). Social comparison involves the process of comparing oneself to another and subsequently using that analysis to define and evaluate their/your self-schemas (Pemberton & Sedikides, 2001). Comparisons often involve either upward comparisons where a person compares themselves to someone perceived as superior to them or downward comparisons where a person compares themselves to someone they perceive as inferior to them (Crisp & Turner, 2010). For example, social comparison is common amongst close work colleagues as it provides explicit performance judgements in the form of work evaluations, promotions or bonuses (Tesser, Millar & Moore, 1988).
Alternatively, social reflection refers to the bolstering of one’s self-esteem and development of the self-concept through internalising the achievements of others (Pemberton & Sedikides, 2001). For example, parents often engage in social reflection where they ‘bask in reflected glory’ from the achievements of their child such as sporting or academic accomplishments (Hannawa & Spitzberg, 2009).
Two key factors are argued to determine whether social comparison or social reflection is utilised, as detailed in Figures 1.1 and 1.2. However, recent research suggests performance, closeness and information are additional determinants (Beach et al., 1996; Pemberton & Sedikides, 2001). Specifically, individuals are more likely to engage in social comparison if they perceive their past or future performance is threatened by others and/or if they are provided with performance information about the other person which suggests competence (Pemberton & Sedikides, 2001). Similarly, individuals are more likely to engage in social comparison if they possess a close relationship to the other person, as opposed to being strangers (Beach et al., 1996). Some research goes further by arguing that all other determinants of behaviour are irrelevant if the comparison is with a stranger (e.g. Tesser et al., 1988). This is because strangers do not directly implicate an individual’s self-concept or self-esteem as they are separate from one’s micro world and therefore hold no value in relation to one’s social environment.
The Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model subsequently posits that social reflection or comparison triggers motivated behaviour (Deckers, 2004). Social reflection motivates the person to engage in positive thoughts about him/herself (they are a part of the success), energises positive emotions (such as joy and pride in the achievement) and directs positive behaviour (such as celebratory actions). Alternatively, social comparison motivates four main defense strategies which aim to protect and maintain a positive self-concept, as displayed in Table 2(Crisp & Turner, 2010).
Table 2 Strategies to Combat the Effects of Social Comparison
Summary: this model provides another explanation for why and how people modify/change their self-concepts. However, rather than self comparisons it addresses social comparisons and how an individual can maintain a stable self-concept and thus psychological well-being. Specifically, perceptions of oneself compared to others can trigger social comparison where an individual bolsters their self-concept through downward comparison or threaten the consistency and stability of their self-concept through upward comparison. Alternatively, individuals can engage in social reflection which acts as a protective and self-enhancing technique.
Chapter Recap[edit | edit source]
Test Yourself: Answering the Chapter Focus Questions
References[edit | edit source]
Adams, G. R., & Read, D. (1983). Personality and social influence styles of attractive and unattractive college women. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 114, 151-157.
Aubrey, J. S. (2007). Does television exposure influence college-aged women's sexual self-concept? Media Psychology, 10, 157-181.
Bassen, C. R., & Lamb, M. E. (2006). Gender differences in adolescents' sefl-concepts of assertion and affiliation. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3, 71-94. doi: 10.1080/17405620500368212
Beach, S. R. H., Tesser, A., Mendolia, M., Anderson, P., Crelai, R., Whitaker, D., & Fincham, F. D. (1996). Self-evaluation maintenance in marriage: Toward a performance ecology of the marital relationship. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 379-396. doi: 10.1037/0893-318.104.22.1689
Beck, R. C. (2000). Motivation theories and principles (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Incorporated.
Bessenoff, G. R. (2006). Can the media afect us? Social comparison, self-discrepancy, and the thin ideal. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 239-251. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00292.x
Bieri, J., & Lobeck, R. (1961). Self-concept differences in relation to identification, religion, and social class. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 94-98. doi: 10.1037/h0047126
Boldero, J. M., Moretti, M. M., Bell, R. C., & Francis, J. J. (2005). Self-discrepancies and negative affect: A primer on when to look for specificity, and how to find it. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57, 139-147. doi: 10.1080/00049530500048730
Brinthaupt, T. M., & Lipka, R. P. (1992). The self definitional and methodological issues. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.
Brown, G. L., Mangelsdorf, S. C., Neff, C., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., & Frosch, C. A. (2009). Young children’s self-concepts: Associations with child temperament, mothers’ and fathers’ parenting, and triadic family interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly: Journal of Developmental Psychology, 55, 184-216. doi: 10.1353/mpq.0.0019
Buhlmann, U., & Wilhelm, S. (2004). Cognitive factors in body dysmorphic disorder. Psychiatric Annals, 34, 922-926.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Pay preferences and job search decisions: A person-organization fit perspective. Personnel Psychology, 47, 317-348. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1994.tb01727.x
Cooper, J., Zanna, M. P., & Taves, P. A. (1978). Arousal as a necessary condition for attitude change following induced compliance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1101-1106. doi: 10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1241
Cornette, M. M., Strauman, T. J., Abramson, L Y., & Busch, A. M. (2009). Self-discrepancy and suicidal ideation. Cognition and Emotion, 23, 504-527. doi: 10.1080/02699930802012005
Cotton, N. (2003). Poems. Retrieved from http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3200816?lookfor=nathaniel%20cotton&offset=1&max=114
Cross, S. E., & Markus, H. R. (1994). Self-schemas, possible selves, and competent performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 423-438.
Deckers, L. (2004). Motivation: Biological, psychological, and environmental (2nd ed.). Boston, USA: Pearson Education.
Dirks, T. (2010). Snow White and the seven dwarfs (1937). Filmsite. Retrieved October 28, 2010 from http://www.filmsite.org/snow.html
Dittmar, H. (2009). How do ‘body perfect’ ideals in the media have a negative impact onbody image and behaviors? Factors and processes related to self and identity. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28, 1-8. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2009.28.1.1
Durand, V. M., & Barlow, D. H. (2010). Essentials of abnormal psychology (5th ed.). Belmont: USA, Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Egbochuku, E. O. (2009). Peer group counselling and school influence on adolescents' self-concept. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36, 3-12.
Elkin, R. A., & Leippe, M. R. (1986). Physiological arousal, dissonance, and attitude change: Evidence for a dissonance-arousal link and a 'Don't remind me' effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 55-65. doi: 10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.199
Elliot, A. J., & Devine, P. G. (1994). On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 382-394. doi: 10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.522
Elliott, A. (2007). Concepts of the self (2nd ed.). Malden, USA: Polity Press.
Erikson, M. G. (2007). The meaning of the future: Toward a more specified definition of possible selves. Review of General Psychology, 11, 348-358. doi: 10.1037/1089-26184.108.40.2068
Gouze, K. R., & Nadelman, L. (1980). Constancy of gender identity for self and others in children between the ages of three and seven. Child Development, 51, 275-278. doi: 10.2307/1129622
Graham, S., & Folkes, V. S. (1990). Attribution theory: applications to achievement, mental health, and interpersonal conflict. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum Associates.
Hannawa, A. F., & Spitzberg, B. H. (2009). "My child can beat your child": Toward a measure of prental self-evaluation maintenance (PSEM). Journal of Family Communication, 9, 23-42. doi: 10.1080/15267430802561584
Hart, D., Fegley, S., & Brengelman, D. (1993). Perceptions of past, present and future selves among children and adolescents. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11, 265-282.
Hobfoll, S. E., & Penner, L. A. (1978). Effect of physical attractiveness on therapists' initial judgments of a person's self-concept. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 200-201. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.46.1.200
Horton, R. S. (2003). Similarity and attractiveness in social perception: Differentiating between biases for the self and the beautiful. Self and Identity, 2, 137-152. doi: 10.1080/15298860309033
Jansen, A., Smeets, T., Martijn, C., & Nederkoorm, C. (2006). I see what you see: The lack of a self-serving body image bias in eating disorders. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 123-135. doi: 10.1348/014466505X50167
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69, 323-362. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.00148
Johnson, W., & Krueger, R. F. (2006). How money buys happiness: Genetic and environmental processes linking finances and life satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 680-691. doi: 10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.110
Judge, T. A., Hurst, C., & Simon, L. S. (2009). Does it pay to be smart, attractive, or confident (or all three)? Relationships among general mental ability, physical attractiveness, core self-evaluations, and income. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 742-755. doi: 10.1037/a0015497
Keller, J. (2007). Stereotype threat in classroom settings: The interactive effect of domain identification, task difficulty and stereotype threat on female students' maths performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 323-338. doi: 10.1348/000709906X113662
Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A., & Rieser-Danner, L. A. (1990). Infants' differential social responses to attractive and unattractive faces. Developmental Psychology, 26, 153-159. doi: 10.1037/0012-1618.104.22.168
Lipka, R. P., & Brinthaupt, T. M. (1992). Self-perspectives across the life span. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Direction in Psychological Science, 15, 265-268. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00449.x
Lodewyk, K. R., Gammage, K. L., & Sullivan, P. J. (2009). Relations among body size discrepancy, geners, and indices of motivation and achievement in high school physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 28, 362-377.
Lounsbury, J. W., Levy, J. J., Leong, F. T., & Gibson, L. W. (2007). Identity and personality: The big five and narrow personality traits in relation to sense of identity. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research,7, 51-70.
Maltby, J., Day, L., & Macaskill, A. (2007). Personality, individual differences and intelligence. Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited.
Marks, G., Miller, N., & Maruyama, G. (1981). Effect of targets' physical attractiveness on assumptions of similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 198-206. doi: 10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.124
McCroskey, J. C., Heisel, A. D., & Richmond, V. P. (2001). Eysenck's big three and communication traits: Three correlational studies. Communication Monographs, 68, 360-366. doi: 10.1080/03637750128068
McDaniel, B. L., & Grice, J. W. (2008). Predicting psychological well-being from self-discrepancies: A comparison of idiographic and nomothetic measures. Self and Identity, 7, 243-261. doi: 10.1080/15298860701438364
McNally, A. M., Palfai, T. P., & Kahler, C. W. (2005). Motivational interventions for heavy drinking college students: Examining the role of discrepancy-related psychological processes. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 19, 79-87. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.19.1.79
Pemberton, M., & Sedikides, C. (2001). When do individuals help close others improve? The role of information diagnosticity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 234-246. doi: 10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.199
Pentina, I., Taylor, D. G., & Voelker, T. A. (2009). The roles of self-discrepancy and social support in young females' decisions to undergo cosmetic procedures. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 8, 149-165. doi:10.1002/cb.279
Reeve, J. (2009). Understanding Motivation and Emotion (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Rodriguez, D., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2003). Changing competence perceptions, changing values: Implication for youth sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 67-81. doi: 10.1080/10413200305403
Roney, C. J. R., & Sorrentino, R. M. (1995). Reducing self-discrepancies or maintaining self-congruence? Uncertainty orientation, self-regulation, and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 485-497. doi: 10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.525
Ross, A. O. (1992). The sense of self: Research and theory. Broadway, New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. (2010). The effect of priming gender roles on women's implicit gender beliefs and career aspirations. Social Psychology, 41, 192-202. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000027
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The darker and brighter sides of human existence: Basic psychological needs as a unifying concept. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 319-338. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_03
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141-166. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141
Salmivalli, C. (1998). Intelligent, attractive, well-behaving, unhappy: The structure of adolescents self-concept and its relations to their social behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8, 333-354. doi: 10.1207/515327795jra0803-3
Sanchez, D. T., & Crocker, J. (2005). How investment in gender ideals affects well-being: The role of external contingencies of self-worth. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 63-77. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00169.x
Shoveller, J. A., Lovato, C. Y., Young, R. A., & Moffat, B. (2003). Exploring the development of sun-tanning behavior: A grounded theory study of adolescents' decision-making experiences with becoming a sun tanner. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 10, 299-314. doi: 10.1207/S15327558IJBM1004_2
Showers, C. J., Abramson, L. Y., & Hogan, M. E. (1998). The dynamic self: How the content and structure of the self-concept change with modd. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 478-493. doi: 10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.2068
Tenenbaum, H. R., & Leaper, C. (2002). Are parents' gender schemas related to their children's gender-related cognitions? A meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 38, 615-630. doi:10.1037/0012-16220.127.116.115
Tesser, A., Millar, M., & Moore, J. (1988). Some affective consequences of social comparison and reflection processes: The pain and pleasure of being close. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 49-61. doi: 10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.168
Thrash, T. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Implicit and self-attributed achievement motives: Concordance and predictive validity. Journal of Personality, 70, 729-755. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.05022
Veale, D., Kinderman, P., Riley, S., & Lambrou, C. (2003). Self-discrepancy in body dysmorphic disorder. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 157-169. doi: 10.1348/014466503321903571
vanDellen, M. R., & Hoyle, R. H. (2008). Possible selves as behaioral standards in self-regulation. Self and Identity, 7, 295-304. doi: 10.1080/15298860701641108
van der Zee, K., Thijs, M., & Schakel, L. (2002). The relationship of emotional intelligence with academic intelligence and the big five. European Journal of Personality, 16, 103-125. doi: 10.1002/per.434
von Wyl, A., Perren, S., Braune-Krickan, K., Simoni, H., Stadlmayr, W., Burgin, D., & von Klitzing, K. (2008). How early triadic family processes predict children’s strengths and difficulties at age three. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5, 466-491. doi: 10.1080/17405620600989701
West, R., & Turner, L. H. (2007). Introduction to communication theory: Analysis and application (3rd ed.). New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies.
Wilson, P. M., Mack, D. E., & Grattan, K. P. (2008). Understanding motivation for exercise: A self-determination theory perspective. Canadian Psychology, 49, 250-256. doi: 0.1037/a0012762