INTRODUCTION

Most people would say that they do not want to talk about themselves. But in
actuality, most people like hearing life stories of another person as a chance to talk
about themselves or to relate self to others. The famous line of “Me, Myself and l’ is
often used in movies, animation and even in social media as caption to pictures or as
shout-outs.

The psychology of self focuses on the representation of an individual based on

his/her experiences. These experiences are either from the home, school and other
groups, organizations or affiliations he/she engaged in. Seemingly, the ‘self is one of
the most heavily researched areas in social and personality psychology, where
concepts are introduced that beyond our physical attributes, lies our psychological
identity. Questions of “who am I?” or “what am I beyond my looks?” are thoughts of
many that continuously search for a deeper sense of self which can be traced back
from some time of human history. “Drawing on cavex suggests that sometime during
the dawn of history, human beings began to give serious thought to their
nonphysical, psychological selves. With the advent of written history, writers would
describe this awareness of self in terms of spirit, psyche, or soul. “(Pajares &
Schunck, 2002)

From ancient to current times, the concept of the self is always an interesting subject
for many as it is very personal that it talks about intrapersonal properties. In
oxfordbibliographies.com (2-13), it is mentioned that whatever stance one adopts
regarding the self’s ontological status, there is little doubt that the many phenomena
of which the self is a predicate self-knowledge, self-awareness, self-esteem, self-
enhancement, self- regulation, self-deception, self-presentation to name just a few,
are indispensable research areas.

1. THE SELF AS A COGNITIVE CONSTRUCTION

Cognitive Construction is a cognitive approach that focuses on the mental processes

rather than the observable behavior. This approach will assist individuals in
assimilating new information to their existing knowledge and will enable to make the
appropriate modification to their existing intellectual framework to accommodate their
new information.

1.1 William James and the Me-Self, 1-Self

 1.2
With the initiative of Wilhelm Wundt, the father of Scientific Psychology, scientific
methods in studying what Aguirre et al. (2011) mentioned as ‘phenomenon of the
consciousness, urged interest in further studies of the self and its role in human
behavior. It is in this time that William James’ classic distinction between the self as
knower (or pure ego) and the self as known (or the empirical self) provides a useful
scheme within which to

View the multitudinous aspects of self-functioning (oxfordbibliographies.com, 2013).

James suggested that “the total self of ‘Me’, being as it were duplex” I composed of
“partly object and partly subject.” As a consequence, he differentiated between the
self as knower, or the “T”, and the self as known, or “Me”. He referred to the “T” as
pure ego and suggested that this component of self is consciousness itself. The
“Me”, on the other hand, is one of the many things that the I may be conscious of,
and it consists of three components, one physical or material, one social, and one
spiritual (Pajares & Schunck, 2002).

Material Self- consists of things that belong to us or that we belong to. Things like
family, clothes, our body, and money are some of what make up our material selves.

Social Self-our social selves are who we are in a given social situation. For James,
people change how they act depending on the social situation that they are in.
James believed that people had as many social selves as they had social situations
they participated in.

Spiritual Self- is who we are at our core. The spiritual self is more concrete or
permanent than the other two selves. The spiritual self is our subjective and most
intimate self. Aspects of an individual’s spiritual self, include things like his/her
personality, core values, and conscience that do not typically change throughout a
lifetime.

1.3 Global versus Differentiated Models

1.4
There had been postulation that one’s self may be fragmented into different parts
and different selves which may be in conflict or needs regulation from each other.
Although W. James gave a very interesting perspective on the self, and was even
among the first writers to coin the term ‘Self-Esteem’, other theories emerged to
study on the selfhood as an integrated part of one’s psyche. In the past 30 years,
self-esteem has become deeply embedded in popular culture (Brown & Marchall,
2006). It is a person’s overall self evaluation or sense of self-worth.

Global Self-esteem (a.k.a. Trait self-esteem), is a personality variable that represents

the way people generally feel about themselves. It is relatively enduring across time
and situations. According to researchers (e.g. Crocker & Park, 2004; Crocker &
Wolfe, 20011, Global self-esteem is a decision people make about their worth as a
person.

State Self-esteem (a.ka. Feelings of Self-worth), refers to temporary feelings or

momentary emotional reactions to positive and negative events where we feel good
or bad about ourselves during these situations or experiences.

Domain Specific Self-Esteem (a.k.a. Self-evaluations), is focused on how people

evaluate their various abilities and attributes. This is making distinctions or
differentiation on how good or bad people are in specific physical attributes, abilities
and personal characteristics.

1.3 Real and Ideal Self Concepts

The self as the regulating center of an individual’s personality and self-processes

under the guise of id, ego and superego functioning (Pajares & Schunck, 2002),
rocked Psychology as the biggest breakthrough in understanding the psychological
self. From this milestone, prominent psychologists followed with their own
perspectives of the self to contest the roles and functions of ego as the self. These
were the landmarks of Contemporary Psychology and the understanding of the
internal processes of man. A group of psychologists called for renewed attention to
inner experience, internal processes, and self-constructs. These perspectives assert
the overall dignity and worth of human beings and their capacity for self-realization
(Hall, Lindzey, Lochlin, & Manosevitz, 1997)

Karen Horney with her Feminine Psychology, established that a person has an ‘ideal
self’, ‘actual self and the ‘real self. She believed that everyone experiences basic
anxiety through which we experience conflict and strive to cope and employ tension
reduction approaches. Hall, et al. (1997) mentioned that Horney believed people
develop a number of strategies to cope with basic anxiety. Because people feel
inferior, an idealized self-image an imaginary picture of the self as the possessor of
unlimited powers and superlative qualities, is developed. On the other hand, the
actual self, the person one is in everyday life, is often despised because it fails to
fulfill the requirement of the idealized image. Underlying both the idealized self and
the actual self is the real self, which is revealed only as a person begins to shed the
various techniques developed to deal with basic anxiety and to find ways of resolving
conflicts. The real self is not an entity but a ‘force’ that impels growth and self-
realization.

Carl Rogers with his Person-Centered Theory, establish a conception of self,

involving the Real Self (a.k.a. Self-concept) and Ideal Self. The Real Self includes all
those aspects of one’s being and one’s experiences that are perceived in awareness
(though not always accurately) by the individual (Feist, Feist& Roberts, 2013). It is
the part of ourselves where we feel, think, look and act involving our self-image. On
the other hand, the Ideal Self revolves around goals and ambitions in life, is dynamic,
the idealized image that we have developed over time. This is what our parents have
taught us considering: what we admire in others, what our society promotes, what
we think are in our best interest.

A wide gap between the ideal self and the real self indicates incongruence and an
unhealthy personality (Feist et al., 2013). If the way that I am (the real self) is aligned
with the way that I want to be (the ideal self), then I will feel a sense of mental well-
being or peace of mind. If the way that I am is not aligned with how I want to be, the
incongruence, or lack of alignment, will result in mental distress or anxiety. The
greater the level of incongruence between the ideal self and real self, the greater is
the level of resulting distress.

1.5 Multiple versus Unified Selves

1.6
Postmodern psychology contends that man has an identity that shifts and morphs in
different social situations and in response to different stimuli, as Kenneth Gergen
argues that having a flexible sense of self in different context is more socially
adaptable than force oneself to stick to one self-concept (etlsites.uga.edu, 2016,
danielcw).

Theorists believed that there is no one answer to the question, “Who am I?” as one
person can undergo several transitions in his life and create multiple versions of
himself. However, there is still the contention of the importance of mental well-being,
of maintaining a unified, centralized, coherent self.
Multiple Selves, acording to K. Gergen, are the capacities we carry within us from
multiple relationships. These are not ‘discovered but ‘created’ in our relationships
with other people.

Unified Selves, as strongly pointed out in Traditional Psychology emphasizes that

well. Being comes when our personality dynamics are congruent, cohesive and
consistent. It is understood that a person is essentially connected with selfhood and
identity. In a healthy person the ego remains at the helm of the mind, coherent and
organized, staying at the center (etisites.uga.edu, 2016, danielcw).

1.5 True versus False Selves

Donald W. Winnicorn distinguished what he called the “true self” from the “false self”
in the human personality, considering the true self as based on a sense of being in
the experiencing body and the false self as a necessary defensive organization, a
survival kit, a caretaker self, the means by which a threatened person has managed
to survive (Klein, 1994)

True Self has a sense of integrity, of connected wholeness that harks to the early
stage False Self is used when the person has to comply with external rules, such as
being polite or otherwise following social codes. The false self constantly seeks to
anticipate demands of others in order to maintain the relationship. The Healthy False
Self is functional, can be compliant but without the feeling that it has betrayed its true
self. The Unhealthy False Self fits in but through a feeling of forced compliance
rather than loving adaptation (changingminds.org 2016). False Selves, as
investigated by Heinz Kohut (1971), can lead towards narcissistic personality, which
identifies with external factors at the cost of one’s own autonomous creativity.

2. The Self as Proactive and Agentic

Social Cognitive Theory takes an agentic view of personality, meaning that hurmans
have the capacity to exercise control over their own lives. People are self-regulating.
Proactive, self-reflective, and self-organizing and that they have the power to
influence their own actions to produce desired consequences. People consciously
act on their environment in a manner that permits growth toward psychological
health. An adequate theory of personality, according to G. Allport must allow for
proactive behavior (Feist et al., 2013)

Agent self- The agent self is known as the executive function that allows for actions
This is how we, as individuals, make choices and utilize our control in situations and
actions. The agent self, resides over everything that involves decision making, self-
control, taking charge in situations, and actively responding. A person might desire to
eat unhealthy foods, however, it is his/her agent self that allows that person to
choose to avoid eating them and make a healthier food choice (Baumeister, &
Bushman, 2011).

Human agency is not a thing but an active process of exploring, manipulating and
influencing the environment in order to attain desired outcomes. According to Albert
Bandura, the core features of human agency are intentionality (acts a person
performs intentionally) forethought (setting goals, anticipation of outcomes of actions,
selection of behaviors to produce desired outcomes and avoiding undesirable ones),
self-reactiveness (monitoring progress toward fulfilling choices), and self-
reflectiveness (examination of own functioning, evaluation of the effect of other
people’s action on them). These lead to self- efficacy, the belief that they are capable
of performing actions that will produce a desired effect (Feist, et al., 2013).

Self-Efficacy lies in the center of Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory. It is the

measure of one’s ability to complete goals. People with high self-efficacy often are
eager to accept challenges because they believe they can overcome them, while
people with low self- efficacy may avoid challenges, or believe experiences are more
challenging than they actually are (appsychtextbk.wikispaces.com, 2014).