Fluidity in the self‐concept: the shift from personal to social identity

Abstract

Dominant personality models of the self-concept (e.g. self-schema theory) conceive of the self as a relatively stable cognitive representation or schema. The self-schema controls how we process selfrelevant information across a myriad of situations. Conversely, self-categorization theory argues that self-perception is highly variable and context-dependent. It was hypothesized in two studies (N ¼ 114 and 200) that the effect of personal self-schemas on information-processing would be eliminated when the context makes a conflicting higher-order identity salient. Results largely supported selfcategorization theory. Across various dependent measures (trait endorsements, response latencies, and confidence in self-descriptions), participants generally responded in line with the salient identity, even if this pattern of responding directly contradicted their personal self-schema. Implications for dominant personality models of the self-concept are examined. Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. This paper examines the nature of the self-concept, in particular whether the self is a fluid or stable entity. The fluidity issue is addressed by comparing and contrasting two influential theories of the self, namely self-schema theory (Markus, 1977(Markus, , 1990) and self-categorization theory (Turner, 1999;Turner, Oakes, Haslam, & McGarty, 1994). On the one hand, self-schema theory and social cognition models more generally ascribe a great deal of stability to the self-system. On the other hand, selfcategorization theory conceptualizes the self as a highly dynamic process. The present research extends previous work in both research traditions. In two related studies we test whether selfperception is a context-dependent process, or the manifestation of enduring personality traits or selfschemas. SELF-SCHEMA THEORYSelf-schema theory maintains that the core self comprises our self-schemas-'knowledge structures developed by individuals to understand and explain their own social experiences' (Markus & Sentis, 1982, p. 45). It is assumed that we develop these self-structures for our most centrally-defining attributes. For one person independence may be a centrally-defining attribute, while for another creativity or extroversion may be central (Markus, 1977;Markus & Sentis, 1982). Self-schemas are stable self-representations; they facilitate information-processing such that individuals quickly accept congruent information and reject incongruent information (Markus, 1977). Despite the theory's initial emphasis on stability, self-schema theorists later sought to render the model more dynamic by introducing the concept of a working self-concept (Markus & Nurius, 1986;Markus & Wurf, 1987). The working self was conceived as a temporary structure that contains one's currently active self-aspect. Moreover, the malleability of the self-system was attributed to the varying accessibility of self-aspects that surround the core elements (Markus & Kunda, 1986). Thus the revised model retained the idea that self-schemas are sta...

Unlocking variability: inherent variation and developmental traits of garlic plants originated from sexual reproduction

“…Although the level of identification is sometimes assumed to be a relatively stable ongoing state, it was shown here that the level of identification was also affected by factors in the immediate social context. These findings accord with the notion that identification is a product of self-categorization in context (Turner, 1985(Turner, , 1999; see also Onorato & Turner, 2004). Higher levels of in-group identification were particularly pronounced in those contexts in which the similarity between the in-group and the comparison group was emphasized.…”

Understanding Stereotype Lift: On the Role of the Social Self

“…As a way to manipulate participants' mindsets we asked those in the I Prime condition to circle all the personal pronouns (e.g., I, my, mine, me), those in the We Prime condition to circle all the group-based pronouns (e.g., we, our, ourselves, us), and those in the remaining conditions to circle the letters "x" "y," or "z," while they read the story. Of course for participants in the We Prime condition this "general" manipulation of the social self ("we-ness") may make a variety of social identities accessible, but once the context and situational cues are factored in (I am a person about to take a math test) then the social identity (gender) that is most relevant to the situation (taking a math test) may "win out" in the end (e.g., Davies, Spencer, & Steele, 2005;Major & O'Brien, 2005;Marx & Stapel, 2006, Onorato & Turner, 2004Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). If participants' social identity is linked to a stereotype (be it positive or negative), then it seems reasonable to suggest that their test performance should correspond to that stereotype (e.g., Marx et al, 1999).…”

Understanding academic identity development in a changing landscape : The case of university English teachers in Malaysia

“…Consequently, academics that started their careers as UETs before joining academia may have multiple self-concepts shaping their identity (e.g., self-concept as UET, as a researcher, and as an early career academic). According to Turner and Onorato (2004), central self-concepts tend to be enduring in nature, while the peripheral self relates to a self-concept that is more receptive to change. In fact, Korte (2007) maintains that "the flexibility of the peripheral self allows the individual to adapt to various social situations and adopt various roles and group identities" (p. 168).…”