points out meanings to itself and to others. The ability to point out meanings and to indicate them to others and to itself is made possible by language, which encapsulates meanings in the form of symbols. When one’s self is encapsulated as a set of symbols to which one may respond to itself as an object, as it responds to any other symbol, the self has emerged. The hallmark of this process – of selfhood – is reflexivity. Humans have the ability to reflect back upon themselves, taking themselves as objects. They are able to regard and evaluate themselves, to take account of themselves and plan accordingly to bring about future states, to be self-aware or achieve consciousness with respect to their own existence. In this way, humans are a processual entity. They formulate and reflect, and this is ongoing.
To be clear, the responses of the self as an object to itself come from the point of view of others to whom one interacts. By taking the role of the other and seeing ourselves for others’ perspectives, our responses come to be like others’ responses, and the meaning of the self becomes a shared meaning. Thus, paradoxically, as the self emerges as a distinct object, there is at the same time a merger of perspectives of the self and others, and a becoming as one with the others with whom one interacts. This becoming as one is possible through the shared meanings of the objects and symbols to which individuals respond in interaction. In using language, individuals communicate the same meanings to themselves as to others. The self is, thus, both individual and social in character. It works to control meanings to sustain itself, but many of those meanings, including the meanings of the self, are shared and form the basis of interaction with others and ultimately social structure.
Self-Concept. Over time, as humans point out who they are to themselves and to others, they come to develop a concept/view of who they are. Here, humans are an entity that embodies content and a structure. Sociologists have spent considerable time in understanding the content and structure of the self: one’s self-concept. Early views of the self-concept were concerned only with self-evaluation. Self-concept often meant self-esteem (one’s evaluation of oneself in affective (negative or positive) terms)). To broaden this view, experts suggested that there was more to the self-concept than self-esteem. He defined the self-concept as the sum total of our thoughts, feelings, and imaginations as to who we are. Later conceptions elaborated and refined this view suggesting that the self-concept was made up of cognitive components (given the collection of identities) as well as affective components or self-feelings including self-esteem (both worth-based and efficacy-based self-esteem).
In general, the self-concept is the set of meanings we hold for ourselves when we look at ourselves. It is based on our observations of ourselves, our inferences about who we are, based on how others act toward us, our wishes and desires, and our evaluations’ of ourselves. The self-concept includes not only our idealized views of who we are that are relatively unchanging, but also our self-image or working copy of our self-views that we import into situations and that is subject to constant change and revision based on situational influences. It is this self-image that guides moment-to-moment interaction, is changed in situated negotiation, and may act back on the more fundamental self-views.
For sociological social psychologists, the self-concept emerges out of the reflected appraisal process. Although some of our self-views are gained by direct experience with our environment, most of what we know about ourselves is derived from others. According to the reflected appraisal process, which is based on the “looking glass self”, significant others communicate their appraisals of us, and this influences the way we see ourselves. In a now classic review of studies on the reflected appraisal process, experts found that rather than our self-concepts resembling the way others actually see us, our self-concepts are filtered through our perceptions and resemble how we think others see us.
A renowned sociologist summarizes a program of research in which he has attempted to explain why individuals’ are not very accurate in judging what others think of them. Among the causes of the discrepancy is the apprehension of others to reveal their views. At best they may reveal primarily favorable views rather than both favorable and unfavorable views. Consistent with other research, he finds that individuals have a better idea of how groups see them than how specific individuals see them. Presumably, individuals’ learn the group standards and then apply those standards. In turn, when group members judge individuals, they use the same standards that individuals originally applied to themselves. Thus we find a correspondence in self-appraisals and others appraisals’ of the self.
In our investigation of the reflected appraisal process with newly married couples, we find that social status derived from one’s position in the social structure also influences the appraisal process. The spouse with the higher status (education, occupation, and income) in the marriage is more likely to not only influence their partner’s self-views, but also their partner’s views of them. Spouses with a lower status in the marriage have less influence on the self-view of their higher status counterparts or on how their higher-status counterparts view them.
Self-Evaluation. The aspect of the self-concept that has received a significant amount of attention in sociological social psychology is the evaluative part of the self-concept, better known as self-esteem. Two dimensions of self-esteem have been identified: efficacy-based self-esteem (seeing oneself as competent and capable) and worth-based self-esteem (feeling that one is accepted and valued). Others have labeled the distinction “inner self-esteem” (being effective) and “outer self-esteem” (acceptance by others). It was pointed out, the significant interest in self-esteem is largely due to assuming that high self-esteem is associated with good outcomes such as personal success while low self-esteem is associated with bad outcomes such as deviance. While these associations are a bit misleading since research does not always show such consistency in these outcomes, part of the inconsistency may be rooted, among other things, in measuring self-esteem in global terms rather than more specific terms. Nevertheless, self-esteem remains a high profile topic of investigation and has been examined from a variety of different viewpoints: as an outcome, as a buffer against stress, and as a motive that directs behavior.
Experts use identity theory as a theoretical framework for the integration of these different conceptualizations of self-esteem. They argue that self-esteem is intimately tied to the identity verification process. They point out that: 1) high self-esteem has been found as an outcome of the identity verification process, 2) high self-esteem that is generated from the identity verification process can act as a buffer or resource when the verification process fails, and 3) the desire for self-esteem may be what motivates people to create and maintain situations or relationships that verify one’s identity. They also argue that the two components of self-esteem (worth-based and efficacy-based) are each rooted primarily in the different bases of identities. They argue that verification of group-based identities has a stronger impact on worth-based self-esteem while verification of role-based identities has a stronger impact on efficacy-based self-esteem. Analyzing data from a sample of newly married couples, their results support the integration of the different viewpoints on self-esteem into identity theory.
If (worth-based) self-esteem is a source of motivation, so too is self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is seeing oneself as a causal agent in one’s life. As pointed out, efficacy is a belief about one’s causative capabilities. Whether one actually has control, objectively, is less relevant than what one perceives to be the case. Like self-esteem, positive outcomes have been associated with high self-efficacy such as effectively coping with life’s stresses and adopting good health habits. Our own research finds that identity verification not only enhances feelings of self-worth as noted above, but also feelings of control over one’s environment. Some have also recently linked self-esteem with efficacy by arguing that people with high self-esteem should also tend to perceive themselves as competent and, in turn, exhibit more involvement in social movements to try to effect social change.
