Professional Documents
Culture Documents
4.03 Ituation
4.03 Ituation
To this point, we have argued that human beings have complex and well-developed self-concepts and that they generally attempt to
come to view themselves as positively as they can. In this section, we will consider in more detail the social aspects of the self by
considering the many ways that the social situation determines our self-concept. Our selves are not created in isolation; we are not
born with perceptions of ourselves as shy, interested in jazz, or charitable to others. Rather, these beliefs are determined by our
observations of and interactions with others. Are you rich or poor? Beautiful or ugly? Smart or not? Good or poor at video games?
And how do you know? These questions can be answered only by comparing ourselves with those around us. The self has meaning
only within the social context, and it is not wrong to say that the social situation defines our self-concept and our self-esteem. We
rely on others to provide a “social reality”—to help us determine what to think, feel, and do (Hardin & Higgins, 1996).
This 10-item scale is used to measure identification with students at the University of Maryland, but it could be
modified to assess identification with any group. The items marked with an “R” are reversed (such that low
numbers become high numbers and vice versa) before the average of the scale is computed. The scale was
originally reported by Luhtanen and Crocker (1992).
For each of the following items, please indicate your response on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) by
writing a number in the blank next to the question.
1. ___ I identify with the group of University of Maryland students.
2. ___ I am glad to belong to the group of University of Maryland students.
3. ___ I make excuses for belonging to the group of University of Maryland students.
4. ___ I consider the group of University of Maryland students to be important.
5. ___ I feel held back by the group of University of Maryland students.
6. ___ I criticize the group of University of Maryland students.
7. ___ I see myself as belonging to the group of University of Maryland students.
8. ___ I try to hide belonging to the group of University of Maryland students.
9. ___ I feel strong ties with the group of University of Maryland students.
10. ___ I am annoyed to say that I am a member of the group of University of Maryland students.
Kay Deaux and her colleagues (Deaux, Reid, Mizrahi, & Ethier, 1995) asked college students to list the groups that they identified
with. As you can see in Table 4.1, the students reported belonging to a wide variety of groups and claimed that many of these
groups provided them with social identities. The categories that they listed included ethnic and religious groups (e.g., Asian,
Jewish), political affiliations (conservative, Democratic), occupations and hobbies (gardener, tennis player), personal relationships
(husband, girlfriend), and stigmatized groups (gay, homeless). You can see that these identities were likely to provide a lot of
positive feelings for the individuals.
Table 4.1 Varieties of Social Identities
Relationships Vocation/avocation Political affiliation Stigma Ethnicity/religion
This table represents some of the many social identities reported by a sample of college students. Data are from Deaux et al. (1995).
Which of our many category identities is most accessible for us will vary from day to day as a function of the particular situation
we are in. Seeing a U.S. flag outside a post office may remind of us our national identity, whereas walking across campus and
seeing the football stadium may remind us of our identification with our college. Identity can also be heightened when our identity
is threatened by conflict with another group—such as during an important sports game with another university. Each individual has
multiple potential social identities, including school and religious memberships, preferred sports and hobbies, and many other
social groups, each of which is a potential source of social identity. As a result, which of the many group memberships a person
emphasizes at a given time will depend on the situation as well as the person’s goals in that situation.
Social identity refers to the positive emotions we experience as a member of an important social group. Wikimedia Commons – CC
BY-SA 3.0.
Robert Cialdini and his colleagues (Cialdini et al., 1976) studied the idea that we can sometimes enhance our self-esteem by
“baskingin thereflectedglory” of our ingroups or of other people that we know. They called this basking process BIRGing. To test
this idea, they observed the clothes and clothing accessories that students at different U.S. universities wore to classes on Mondays.
They found that when the university’s football team had won its game on Saturday, students were likely to emphasize their
Key Takeaways
The self-concept and self-esteem are determined in large part through social comparison. We use social comparison to
determine the accuracy and appropriateness of our thoughts, feelings, and behavior.
When we are able to compare ourselves favorably with others through downward social comparison, we feel good about
ourselves. Upward social comparison with others who are better or better off than we are leads to negative emotions.
Social identity refers to the positive emotions that we experience as a member of an important social group.
Normally, our group memberships result in positive feelings, which occur because we perceive our own groups, and thus
ourselves, in a positive light.
Which of our many category identities is most accessible for us will vary from day to day as a function of the particular
situation we are in.
We may enhance our self-esteem by “basking in the reflected glory” of our in-groups or of other people we know.
Our culture has a profound influence on our self-concept, and it influences how we think about and relate to others.
References
Blanton, H., Buunk, B. P., Gibbons, F. X., & Kuyper, H. (1999). When better-than-others compare upward: Choice of comparison
and comparative evaluation as independent predictors of academic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
76(3), 420–430.
Breakwell, G. M. (1993). Integrating paradigms, methodological implications. In G. M. Breakwell & D. V. Canter (Eds.),
Empirical approaches to social representations (pp. 180–201). Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
Buunk, A. P., & Gibbons, F. X. (2007). Social comparison: The end of a theory and the emergence of a field. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 3–21.
Buunk, A. P., Gibbons, F. X., & Visser, A. (2002). The relevance of social comparison processes for prevention and health care.
Patient Education and Counseling, 47, 1–3.
Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three
(football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366–374.
Collins, R. L. (2000). Among the better ones: Upward assimilation in social comparison. In J. Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook
of social comparison (pp. 159–172). New York, NY: Kulwer Academic/Plenum.
Deaux, K., Reid, A., Mizrahi, K., & Ethier, K. A. (1995). Parameters of social identity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68(2), 280–291.
Hardin, C., & Higgins, T. (1996). Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In R. M. Sorrentino & E.
T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 28–84). New York, NY:
4.3: The Social Self- The Role of the Social Situation is shared under a CC BY-NC-SA license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Anonymous.