250 likes | 379 Vues
Social Identity: The ‘Self’. Early Years Lecture 10. This lecture. Recognition of ‘self’ The concept of ‘self’ The developing self [1] Self-esteem [2] Self-efficacy The role of ‘self’. Recognizing ‘self’. Q. When are we aware of ‘self’? A. Sometime during second year
E N D
Social Identity: The ‘Self’ Early Years Lecture 10
This lecture • Recognition of ‘self’ • The concept of ‘self’ • The developing self [1] Self-esteem [2] Self-efficacy • The role of ‘self’
Recognizing ‘self’ Q. When are we aware of ‘self’? A. Sometime during second year e.g., ‘Mirror-test’ (Lewis & Brooks-Gunn, 1979). ...familiarity with mirrors? No – Israeli desert study (Priel & deSchonen, 1986)....but....
Recognizing ‘self’ Mirror test – valid? (i.e., does it measure recognition of self or reflection of self-image?) Answer: No – at least not decisively... Show children photo/video taken earlier (with sticker) 4-year-olds – reach for sticker (it’s me + sticker) 2/3 – no attempt to remove sticker (not me?) (Povinelli et al., 1996)
Concept of ‘self’ How do we arrive at a ‘concept’ of ‘self’?
Concept of ‘self’ Unitary concept? No – 2 aspects (James, 1890) [1] self-knower; interpret experience (‘I’) [2] self-known; measure self against others (‘Me’) ...... self = relative?
What develops? Look at ‘primary’ vs ‘secondary’ emotion Example: self-reference is not a necessary precursor to fear... ....but you have to have a sense of self to feel embarrassed.
Fear (wariness) vs embarrassment • Lewis et al., (1989). 3 Groups (1-year-olds, 18 months, & 2-year-olds) • Conduct ‘rouge’ test. • Measure response to stranger (wary?) • Measure embarrassment (avert gaze etc?)
Fear (wariness) vs Embarrassment • Result? 1-year 18 mth2-years Wary (%) 78 100 75 Emb (%) 22 33 55 ...replicated in second study (diff. measures)
‘Who am I’? What children report? @ 2-3 – what is observable! [i.e., name, physical appearance, what I’ve just done...(Stipek et al., 1990)] ... @ 4-5, more info [i.e., longer list: eye colour, family composition, everyday ‘occupation’ .... Siegler & Alibali (2005)] ...emergence of more-and-more self-knowledge.
Psychological characteristics? Begin to compare...along psychological as well as physical dimensions in middle childhood (e.g., Harter, 1999). e.g., “I’m cleverer than my brother” ...emergence of self-efficacy ....... feeds self esteem
Self-efficacy = perception of own competence (Bandura, 1997). Value? Influence on performance.... (e.g., Collins, 1982) Independent effects of self-efficacy on maths tasks (more accurate, quicker, amended failed attempts etc.)
How self-efficacious should we be? • SLT (e.g., Bandura, 1997) = ‘slight overestimations’ Why? [1] motivating (> more demanding tasks) [2] positive reaction to failure e.g., Collins (1982): more efficacious (failure = must try harder!) vs less efficacious (it was too hard!).
Sources of Self-efficacy Parental modelling (Jennings & Abrew, 2004) Infants (Mean age = 18 months) with [a] clinically depressed [b] non-depressed mothers Tasks = putting blocks in holes etc. Measure: persistence, mastery, pleasure, pride, number of prompts required. Result: Infants of N-D mums = more persistent, more pride/pleasure...fewer prompts.
Long-Term effects of Self-efficacy School – Work transition (Pinquart et al., 2003) Measured [1] self-efficacy [2] academic success @ 12-15 High S-E = less unemployment; more job satisfaction motivating? Self-efficacy @ school Employment
When & Why does self-esteem change? Erikson’s (1950) Psychosocial theory 0-1 Trust vs Mistrust (level of attachment?) 1-3 Autonomy vs Doubt (“I can do it..!”) 3-6 Initiative vs Guilt (conscience & competition) 6-11 Industry vs Inferiority (identity = competence) ...still a bit abstract?
When & Why does self-esteem change? How to measure self-esteem? Young children (4-7 years) Show pairs of pictures (Harter & Pike, 1984) “Which one is most like you?” Each pair = 1of 4 dimensions [1] cognitive & [2] social competence [3] peer & [4] parental acceptance
When & Why does self-esteem change? Results? Children scored along two dimensions: [A] – competence [B] – acceptance e.g., children ‘held-back’ scored low on [A] measures children new to a school scored low on [B]
When & Why does self-esteem change? Self-Perception Profile Harter (1985). Total of 36 pairs of statements... ...greater differentiation...now cognitive, social AND physical awareness ..combine to establish General Self-Worth
When & Why does self-esteem change? Backed up by Damon & Hart (1988). Assessed 4-15-year-olds Shift in salience of characteristics 4-7 = more categorical id (e.g., “I’m 6!”) 8-11 = more comparative (“I’m tallest in class”) 12-15 = more interpersonal (“I’m not liked by..”) older we get.... more ‘self’ becomes relative
Effect/’Role’ of self-identity Planinsec et al. (2004) Children (aged 5 – 8) Measured as low vs high physical exercisers ..difference ≠ appearance; = physical self- concept. Coplan et al. (2004) Preschoolers with ‘less-positive’ self perception ....more socially withdrawn...excluded by peers.
The social importance of ‘self’? • We need a sense of ‘self’ if we are to recognize others as separate ‘selves’. > empathy dependent upon sense of self Sad? > hugs? favourite toy? (Perner, 1991) emerges around year 2 – remember Flavell’s Level 1 shift in perspective from Lecture 6? - also gender id from last time....?
Recognizing ‘other’s’ self e.g., Cole (1986) Girls (aged 3/4) Shown 10 presents (which is best/worst) Task 1 – receive ‘best’ present Task 2 – receive ‘worst’ present If E present – polite smile If E absent – show disappointment (ToM?)
Educational role for ‘self’ Second graders (7-8 years) memory tasks (remember 16 words @ 3 sessions) 2 groups: Exp. gp = hint between S1 – S2 Before each S – predict recall... Exp GpCont. Gp S1 p 9.1 8.5 a 8.7 10.0 S2 p 13.8 11.5 a 15.1 11.7 S3 p 13.7 11.3 a 13.8 9.3 p = how many words Ss predicted they would remember a = the number actually remembered
Reading Eysenck (2004). Chapter 16. • Lewis et al. (1989). In A. Slater & D. Muir, (1999), Blackwell reader in developmental psychology, Chapter 27. • Miller (2002). p. 188-191. • Siegler & Alibali (2005) p. 307 - 315. • Smith & Cowie (1991) p. 129-131.