Psychology and Mind-Body

UNIT 2 SELF AND IDENTITY Relationship

DEVELOPMENT*
Structure

2.1 Learning Objectives

2.2 Introduction
2.3 Concepts of Self and Identity
2.3.1 Varieties of Self
2.4 Culture, Society and Socialization
2.5 Culture and Self: Mutual Constitution
2.5.1 Conceptualization of Culture
2.5.2 Cultural Patterns and Self
2.5.3 Consequences of Culture for Psychological Functioning
2.5.4 Sociocultural Change and Transformations of Self
2.6 Socio-Structural Influences on Identity
2.6.1 Intersectionality of Identities
2.7 Familial Influences on Self and Identity
2.7.1 Parenting Styles and Consequences for Self
2.8 Let Us Sum Up
2.9 Key Words
2.10 Answers To Self Assessment Questions
2.11 Unit End Questions
2.12 References
2.13 Further Learning Resources

2.1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this Unit, you would be able to:
 Understand the concepts of self and identity;
 Explain how cultures differ and shape different kinds of selves;
 Describe the various social factors and their impact on self development;
and
 Discuss the role of parenting and sibling relationships in formation of self
and identity.

2.2 INTRODUCTION
We usually make a number of choices in our life, for example, going on a trek,
pursuing a particular course of study or helping someone in need. There are also

*
Dr. Parul Bansal, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Lady Shri Ram College for Women,
University of Delhi, Delhi 25
Psychology and Self choices that we make on a regular basis like watching the television, or what
snack to eat, or what time to go to sleep etc. All these choices are grounded in our
self and identity. Based on our knowledge of who we are, we make our choices
and decisions. As people, we make sense of ourselves – who we are and may
become, and the path we should take in our lives. Self and identity influences
people’s goals and motivations, how they think, the actions they take, their feelings
and ability to regulate our behaviours.

2.3 CONCEPTS OF SELF AND IDENTITY

We become aware of ‘self’ when we reflect on ourselves; when we experience
ourselves. Self is the continually developing sense of awareness and agency that
guides action and takes shape as the individual becomes attuned to the various
environments it inhabits (Markus and Kitayama, 2010). Self includes both the ‘I’
that reflects/experiences and the ‘me’ who is the object of reflection and
experience. ‘I’ is the knower and ‘Me’ is the Known. ‘Me’ is ‘who’ part of I – the
thoughts, needs, feelings, attitudes, beliefs, values one has. The ‘me’ aspect is
constituted by and embedded within the moment to moment situations. For
example, when we succeed, we feel that we are competent. When we fail, we
feel incompetent. At times, we crave for stimulation and at times, we need peace
and quiet. The self is always situated and, as a consequence, it always reflects its
contexts.
Self includes not only what I think about me (personal perspective) but also what
others may think of me (other’s perspective). Identity can be understood as
definition of self, i.e., it refers to a consistent sense of self, providing directions
about what one can do, where does one belong, what to value. We can understand
identity to be more stable than self experience which is more momentary.
We are born with a rudimentary sense of awareness of self. Quite early on, we
develop an ecological self – an awareness of our body and its relation to the
physical environment (Neisser, 1988). An infant learns that the more vigorously
it kicks its leg, the faster the hanging toy on the crib will move. Newborns show
a particular interest in human faces and show ability to match their facial
expression to that of their caregivers. Social interaction is integral to self
development (Mead, 1934). The social and cultural factors influence self and
identity development.
We do not always act in a self-aware manner. A lot of our life is lived in un-
selfconscious way, like when we dance with joy in rains, feel immersed in a
book, have fun with friends. At many of these occasions, we are not the object of
our attention. When someone calls out our name in such a situation, for example,
our consciousness shifts to the self.

2.3.1 Varieties of Self

Self is conceptualized in various ways. Triandis (1989) provided the distinction
between private, public and collective aspects of self.
 The private self includes cognitions about traits, states or behaviours of
oneself (“I am kind”, “I enjoy reading books”). It is an assessment of
26 ‘self’ by the self.
  The collective self includes assessments about self by a specific group Self and Identity
Development
such as family, caste group, coworkers/peers etc. (“My friends think I
am a boring person”, “My family makes fun of my soft heartedness”).
 The public self includes cognitions about the self coming from
generalized others (“People usually perceive me as introvert”, “Others
think I can be easily bullied”).
Markus and Kitayama (1991) discussed two types of self construal: Independent
and Interdependent self construals.
(a) The independent self takes one’s own thoughts, feelings and motives to be
the basis of one’s behaviour. Interactions with others produce a sense of
being autonomous, separate or distinct.
(b) For an interdependent self, the immediate referent is the thoughts, feelings,
and actions of others with whom the person is in relationship. It is a sense of
self as connected to, related to, or interdependent with others.
Private and Independent self are overlapping concepts. Similarly, collective and
interdependent self are overlapping concepts.

Fig. 2.1: Independent and Interdependent View of Self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991)

Source: Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.

ACTIVITY 1
Singelis Self Construal Scale (1994)
(Source: https://sparqtools.org/mobility-measure/self-construal-scale/)
Instructions:
This is a questionnaire that measures a variety of feelings and behaviors in
various situations. Listed below are a number of statements. Read each one as
if it referred to you. Circle the response that best matches your agreement or
disagreement on a seven-point scale.
1. I enjoy being unique and different from others in many respects.

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Don’t agree or Agree Agree Strongly

disagree Disagree disagree somewhat agree

2. I can talk openly with a person who I meet for the first time, even when this person is
much older than I am.
27
Psychology and Self
Strongly Disagree Somewhat Don’t agree or Agree Agree Strongly
disagree Disagree disagree somewhat agree

3. Even when I strongly disagree with group members, I avoid an argument.

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Don’t agree or Agree Agree Strongly

disagree Disagree disagree somewhat agree

4. I have respect for the authority figures with whom I interact.

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Don’t agree or Agree Agree Strongly

disagree Disagree disagree somewhat agree

5. I do my own thing, regardless of what others think.

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Don’t agree or Agree Agree Strongly

disagree Disagree disagree somewhat agree

6. I respect people who are modest about themselves.

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Don’t agree or Agree Agree Strongly

disagree Disagree disagree somewhat agree

7. I feel it is important for me to act as an independent person.

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Don’t agree or Agree Agree Strongly

disagree Disagree disagree somewhat agree

8. I will sacrifice my self interest for the benefit of the group I am in.

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Don’t agree or Agree Agree Strongly

disagree Disagree disagree somewhat agree

9. I'd rather say "No" directly, than risk being misunderstood.

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Don’t agree or Agree Agree Strongly

disagree Disagree disagree somewhat agree

10. Having a lively imagination is important to me.

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Don’t agree or Agree Agree Strongly

disagree Disagree disagree somewhat agree

11. I should take into consideration my parents' advice when making education/career plans.

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Don’t agree or Agree Agree Strongly

disagree Disagree disagree somewhat agree

12. I feel my fate is intertwined with the fate of those around me.

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Don’t agree or Agree Agree Strongly

disagree Disagree disagree somewhat agree

Scoring - The Independent Subscale items are Questions 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, and 10. The
Interdependent Subscale items are Questions 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, and 12. Score the responses as
follows: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = somewhat disagree; 4 = don't agree or
disagree; 5 = agree somewhat; 6 = agree; and 7 = strongly agree.

28
Add the scores for each subscale’s items and divide this sum by the number of Self and Identity
Development
items in the subscale (6 items).
Note: The original scale has 30 items in total and 15 items in each subscale.
Scores obtained on the complete scale are valid. Selected items from the original
scale are presented here as example.

2.4 CULTURE, SOCIETY AND SOCIALIZATION

It is common knowledge that self and identity are shaped by external factors.
These external factors are termed as cultural and social factors. What is the
difference between cultural and social? Social is usually understood in terms of
categories such as sex, race, class, caste which are associated with status and
roles. For example, facts such as more women do household work while more
men are in paid employment; rich have greater access to educational and health
facilities than poor – are social facts. They refer to roles (household responsibilities
vs. paid work) and status (privileges and power) differentials. Society refers to
patterned interrelationships amongst categories such as sex, race, class, caste,
religion, language and their relative status and roles. Social refers to the state of
affairs as present here and now.
On the other hand, culture is a historically determined set of denotative (what is),
normative (what should be), and pragmatic (how to do) knowledge shared by a
group of individuals who participate in a form of social structure (Triandis, 1995).
It refers to shared knowledge, meaning and practices of a society. Culture is a
contextual factor beyond social. Gendered division of role, i.e., women do
household chores and men work in the public world and the related status
differential, i.e., women do less important work than men, is based on certain
ideas, beliefs, rules and norms about men and women and their position in the
world which are held in common by people of a particular society. This ‘shared’
aspect is culture. People in different cultures may have different cultural ideas,
beliefs and norms about gender roles and relations. In agrarian cultures, for
example, women have always worked outside homes, on farms and have
contributed to various other kinds of farming related economic activities. Thus,
cultural meanings about gender roles and status hierarchies are not the same in
all societies.
Cultures and societies socialize their members to accept the cultural norms and
practices and become functional members of a given society. Socialization is a
life long process of social interaction through which people acquire the behaviors
and beliefs of the culture they live in. It serves three purposes ((Arnett, 1995;
Grusec, 2002).
 Self regulation – It is the capacity to exercise self control over one’s
impulses and wishes and self direct oneself in accordance with social
norms. It is dependent on the development of conscience which monitors
whether or not our behaviours are in accordance with rules and values.
If not, then one feels ashamed or guilty.
 Role Preparation–We learn the worthwhile roles of the society such as
student role, daughter role, son role, marital roles, employee role, citizen
role through socialization. We acquire know-how about the functions of
these roles. 29
Psychology and Self  Sources of Meaning – As existential beings, we continuously make
meaning of our lives and worlds, we ponder over questions of life and
death, reality and fiction, matters of happiness and suffering. It is from
social interactions with members of one’s own culture that we derive
these meanings.
Family, school, peers, workplace, media are the agents of socialization in modern
societies. Seeing parents planning monthly budget and investing in savings teaches
that splurging money is not advisable. Requiring students to wear uniform in
school is an indication that equality is an important social value. Peers can show
that splurging on fun and gadgets is an acceptable behaviour. This message is
contradictory from socialization influences from parents and can create conflicts
in self and identity. Media, too, opens one to role models and influences from
world over in terms of a variety of lifestyle choices of dressing, accent, taste in
music, books and food, travel, living standards, values, opinions and attitudes
etc.
Self Assessment Questions 1
1. Differentiate between the private and public self.
2. What are the two types of self construal?
3. What is socialization process?

2.5 CULTURE AND SELF: MUTUAL

CONSTITUTION
Culture refers topatterns of ideas, practices, institutions, products, and artifacts.
People and their socio-cultural environments are not separate. They mutually
influence each other. People’s selves are shaped by the socio-cultural context
through socialization influences. A self requires inputs from sociocultural
meanings and practices. The self as the centre of awareness and agency
incorporates and reflects these sociocultural patterns. In turn, people’s thoughts,
feelings and actions (selves) reinforce or change the sociocultural meanings and
practices that shape their lives. Let us understand this with the help of an example.
It is a culturally accepted norm that women are primary caretakers of children,
especially newborns and young children. Women internalize this message and
become psychologically ready to mother children exclusively during the infancy
stage. At best, she may be assisted by other women in the family. However, men
are usually exempted from the care responsibilities of infants. In this way, culture
shapes gendered self of men and women. How does self shape culture? One way
is that by following the cultural norms. This leads to perpetuation of cultural
values and norms. However, it is the way cultural norms are resisted and changed
by individual’s personal goals, needs, feelings and beliefs that give us a clearer
idea of the influence that self exerts on culture systems. In a recent incidentof
year 2020, Indian cricket captain Virat Kohli took paternity leave and left the
Australian tour after one match to be available with his wife during the child
birth and the period after. This action by a celebrated role model flagged the need
for fathers to be emotionally available for their infant children and wives and
make paternity leave more acceptable at workplaces.
30
2.5.1 Conceptualization of Culture Self and Identity
Development
Culture has been conceptualized in terms of different dimensions which are linked
with various aspects of psychological functioning. Let us become familiar with
three most well known conceptualizations of culture in Psychology.
1. The Dimensions of Culture: Geert Hofstede
Geert Hofstede (1980) has identified six cultural dimensions along which different
cultures vary.
a) High vs Low Power Distance – In cultures high on power distance, less
powerful members of institutions (like family) and organizations (like
schools, corporate, political parties) accept and expect that power is
distributed unequally. Thus, the legitimacy of hierarchy (based on power,
age, gender) and authority is largely unquestioned. The parents, old
people, leaders, superiors at workplace are respected and feared. Cultures
low on power distance have flatter hierarchies, obedience and control
are minimal in social relationships between young and old, superior and
subordinate, student and teachers.
b) High vs Low Uncertainty Avoidance – Cultures high on uncertainty
avoidance have low tolerance for ambiguity. In such cultures strict
behavioural codes and rules are sought, deviant opinions are deemed as
dangerous and curbed and absolute truths are sought after. Cultures low
on uncertainty avoidance are more accepting of ambiguity and tolerant
of difference.
c) Individualism vs Collectivism–In the individualist cultures, ties amongst
individuals are loose, everyone looks after oneself and one’s immediate
family, personal opinion and expression is welcome. In collective cultures,
people are integrated into strong cohesive ingroups which include
extended family, caste, regional, religious groupings. Interdependence,
loyalty and harmony amongst ingroup members is privileged. Personal
opinions and expression are deemphasized.
d) Masculinity vs Femininity – Cultures high on masculinity prescribes
different social and emotional roles for men and women, e.g., boys should
not cry while girls can; boys should fight back while girls should not.
There is admiration for strong people and disdain for the weak ones, and
greater exclusion of women from positions of power. Cultures high on
femininity deemphasizes gendered division of labour; men and women
both are expected to participate in care related responsibilities, there is
sympathy for weak, and greater participation of women in positions of
power.
e) Long term vs Short term orientation–Cultures high on long term
orientation see world as dynamic, are future oriented, believe in adaptation
to changing situations, try to learn from examples of other countries,
consider thrift and perseverance as important goals. Cultures high on
short term orientation consider present as more important than future,
treat traditions as sacrosanct, immediate gratification is incentivized.
f) Indulgence vs Restraint–Cultures high on indulgence allows for free
gratification of human needs and desires. Enjoyment, leisure and pleasure 31
Psychology and Self are given free reign. There is a high perception of personal control and
happiness is pursued. Cultures high on restraint controls gratification of
needs and regulates it by social norms. There is low perception of personal
control, and leisure and pleasure are not highly worthwhile social aims.
2. Cultural Syndromes: Harry Triandis
According to Triandis (1996), “A cultural syndrome is a pattern of shared attitudes,
beliefs, categorizations, self-definitions, norms, role definitions, and values that
is organized around a theme that can be identified among those who speak a
particular language, during a specific historic period, and in a definable geographic
region” (p.408). He (1994) identified four cultural syndromes:
a) Cultural Complexity – Cultures differ in complexity. The hunter gatherer
societies are simpler as compared to service – information societies of
contemporary times. The former have fewer lifestyle options and choices
such as career options, social roles, values. For example, there are about
20 jobs among hunters and gatherers vs. 250,000 types of jobs in
information societies. There are far more religious, economic, social,
aesthetic, political and educational variation in more complex cultures
as compared to less complex cultures.
b) Tight vs Loose Cultures - A tight culture is one where there are rules
for many situations and they are applied strictly. Minor deviations from
the rules are punished. Tight societies have more interdependency, greater
surveillance over people. A loose culture is one where there are fewer
rules and norms of social behaviour. There is also greater tolerance for
deviations from norms. It is more heterogeneous and people don’t depend
on each so much.
c) Individualism vs Collectivism - Individualist and Collectivist cultures
(as discussed above) can be horizontal (emphasizing equality) or vertical
(emphasizing hierarchy). The way these emphases intersect with
individualism and collectivism produce four distinct patterns – Horizontal
Individualism, Horizontal Collectivism, Vertical Individualism, Vertical
Collectivism.
Table 2.1: Varieties of Individualism and Collectivism

Horizontal Vertical
Individualism Horizontal Individualism Vertical Individualism (VI)
(HI)
Collectivism Horizontal Collectivism Vertical Collectivism (VC)
(HC)

In HI, people want to be unique and self-reliant without being especially interested
in gaining status and power. In VI, people want to acquire status and be the ‘best’
and they do this in individual competition from others. In HC, people see
themselves as being similar to others and emphasize common goals with others
as well as interdependence. But they do not “easily submit to authority”. In VC,
32 people emphasize belongingness to in-groups, are willing to subordinate their
personal goals to in-group goals, and engage in competitions with out-groups to Self and Identity
Development
prove greater status of in-group.

ACTIVITY 2
Culture Orientation Scale by Triandis and Gelfand (1998)
(Source: https://fetzer.org/sites/default/files/images/stories/pdf/selfmeasures/
CollectiveOrientation.pdf)

Instructions:
Listed below are a number of statements. Read each one as if it referred to you.
Circle the response (1-9) that best matches your agreement or disagreement,
where 1= never or definitely no and 9 = always or definitely yes.
1. I’d rather depend on myself than others.
2. Parents and children must stay together as much as possible.
3. I rely on myself most of the time; I rarely rely on others.
4. It is my duty to take care of my family, even when I have to sacrifice what
I want.
5. Competition is the law of nature.
6. The well-being of my coworkers is important to me.
7. When another person does better than I do, I get tense and aroused
8. To me, pleasure is spending time with others.
Scoring - The HI Subscale items are Questions 1 and 3. The HC Subscale
items are Questions 6 and 8. The VI Subscale items are Questions 5 and 7. The
VC Subscale items are Questions 2 and 4. If you have marked 1 as your response,
give yourself 1 mark, if marked 2, give yourself 2 and so on. Add the scores for
each subscale’s items.

Note: The original scale has 16 items in total and 4 items in each subscale.
Scores obtained on the complete scale are valid. Selected items from the original
scale are presented here as example.
Self Assessment Questions 2
Match the Following:

a. Delayed gratification of needs i. High power distance

b. Tolerant of differences ii. Collectivism
c. Hierarchy is legitimate iii. High on Masculinity
d. Present is more important than iv. Horizontal
future
e. High political, social, economic v. Lowon uncertainty avoidance
variation
33
Psychology and Self
f. Loyalty and harmony amongst vi. Tight cultures
ingroups is emphasized
g. Cultures emphasizing equality vii. Cultural complexity
h. Different roles for men and women viii. Short term orientation
are emphasized
i. Homogeneous cultures ix. Restraint

2.5.2 Cultural patterns and Self

Cultural variation is linked to different kinds of self. Generally, in the more
complex, individualistic and loose cultures, people tend to rely on elements of
private/individualistic self more as guides for their behaviour. In complex cultures,
a person is member of many groups – family group, occupational group, hobby
groups, friend groups, religious group, social media groups, neighbourhood group.
These groups are also likely to have conflictual norms : for example – family
espouses different lifestyle values such as saving money as compared to peer
group which encourages spending. This will mean that the individual has to turn
inwards to decide how he/she should act.He/she will rely on personal values and
thoughts in order to act. Due to looseness, it is more difficult for people to agree
on specific norms. During Covid pandemic, U.S.A. witnessed many “anti mask”
and “anti lockdown” demonstrations from its citizens. Also, it is more difficult
to impose severe sanctions and punishments for flouting the rules and norms.
Geographical mobility allows people to leave the groups they find demanding
and constraining freedom.
Conversely, members of homogenous and tight cultures which require that group
members behave according to group norms are more likely to behave as per the
standards and norms of significant others, i.e., they are more likely to be collective
than individualistic. In tight cultures, people tend to socialize their children by
emphasizing the expectations of generalized others. Thus, public and collective
selves are emphasized more in tight cultures as compared to private selves.
In collectivist cultures, children are socialized for obedience and respect for
hierarchy. Again, selves are more likely to be collectivist here. In individualistic
cultures, child rearing patterns emphasize self reliance, finding yourself and
actualization. This reinforces individualistic self. Identity is defined differently
in individualistic and collectivist cultures. Possessions (“My thoughts”, “My
feelings”, “My abilities”, “My experiences”, “My accomplishments”) define one’s
identity. In collectivist cultures, relationship define identity (“Mother of Y”, “Son
of Z”, “Resident of X village” etc.).

2.5.3 Influence of Culture on Psychological Functioning

a) Influence on Cognition
In individualistic cultures like U.S.A., studies have found that when participants
are asked: Is self similar to others? they usually judge the similarity to be low
(Kitayama, Markus, Tummala, Kurokawa, and Kato, 1990). This is because self
34 knowledge is more distinctive, elaborate and accessible to them as compared to
knowledge about others. This pattern is somewhat different for Indian participants Self and Identity
Development
who are found to be judging the self to be more similar to others.
Shweder and Bourne (1984) found that Indian participants tend to describe close
acquaintances in terms of behaviours, what was done, when, how and with whom.
In these person descriptions such as “He has no land to cultivate but likes to
cultivate the land of others,” or “When a quarrel arises, he cannot resist the
temptation of saying a word”, it is the behaviour that is focal rather than the
internal trait that underpins it. Since, self is believed to be contingent on situations
and contexts and is, thus, highly variable in collectivist cultures, global inferences
about persons are typically regarded as not meaningful or informative. In contrast,
Americans are more likely to describe people they know well in terms of traits.
Rather than saying “He does not disclose secrets” Americans are more likely to
say “He is discreet or principled?’ Rather than “He is hesitant to give his money
away,” Americans say “He is tight or selfish”. A similar trend is noticed when
Cousins (1989) compared the self-descriptions of American high school and
college students with the self-descriptions of Japanese high school and college
students. American students were more comfortable using the original Twenty
Statements Test (TST) which simply asks: Who Am I? because it elicits abstract,
context free self characterizations that form the core of their independent self.
When responding to modified TST in which participants are asked to describe
themselves in specific situations (me at home, at work, with friends etc.) the
American participants tend to qualify their descriptions as if to say “This is how
I am at home, but don’t assume this is the way I am everywhere?”
b) Influence on Emotions
Research has shown that negative emotions like anger are considered as highly
dysfunctional in collectivist cultures as it disrupts harmony in relationships, an
important social goal in collectivist cultures. Roland (1988) reports that Asians
are socialized by family to restrain their inner feelings of rage and anger and
particularly the overt expression of these feelings.
Other emotions such as pride and guilt also differ according to the way culture
and self link up with each other. In collectivist cultures, pride in one’s own
accomplishments is inhibited because it involves focus on one’s performance
and abilities which are not emphasized in such cultures. Additionally, there may
be fears of attracting jealousy and ‘evil eye’ from others if one talks of one’s
accomplishments. Often, pride in such cultures is directed towards a collective
of which self is a part. Thus, an Indian girl who tops a civil services exam, is
proud of bringing laurels to her family, coaching institute, educational institutions
and city. These are the important groups which are sought to be enhanced by
one’s personal accomplishments. Correspondingly, guilt is also experienced as a
consequence of hurting others psychologically or bringing a bad name to
significant others. The ostracization of a member of family who is believed to
have tarnished the reputation of the kith and kin is an example of how guilty is
communally punished in collectivist cultures. Thus, pride is experienced in
enhancing the self esteem of the relevant groups of which one is a member. Guilt
is experienced for hurting the pride and feelings of significant others.
c) Influence on Motivation
In individualistic cultures, independent selves are motivated to express their needs,
views and abilities and resist efforts to comply to undue social pressure. In 35
Psychology and Self collectivist cultures, collective selves are motivated to be receptive to others
andto adjust one’s needs and demands to others.
Achievement orientation, for example, is more socially oriented in such cultures.
It is not as mush a drive to feel a sense of accomplishment for one’s own self as
much as it is to meet expectations of significant others to be a success and bring
laurels to them.
In the West, there is a need to maintain consistency between attitudes, between
attitudes and behaviours. However, in the eastern cultures, need for consistency
is not high as personal opinions and beliefs are not significant drivers of
behaviours. Iwao (1988) gave respondents a series of scenarios and asked them
to judge which responses would be appropriate for the person described in the
scenario. In one scenario, the daughter brings home a person from another race.
One of the possible responses given by the father in the scenario was “thought
that he would never allow them to marry but told them he was in favor of their
marriage” This answer was rated as best by only 2% of Americans who have
independent selves. In sharp contrast, however, it was rated as best by 44% of the
Japanese. Among the Americans, 48% thought it was the worst response, whereas
only 7% of the Japanese rated it as the worst.

2.5.4 Sociocultural changes and Transformations of self

In understanding the links between culture and self, one must know that
individualistic and collectivist cultures, independent and interdependent selves
are not mutually exclusive categories. Individualism and Collectivism are two
cultural ideologies emphasized as cultural ideals in the Euro—American and
theAsian, African and Latin American contexts respectively. Triandis (1994)
emphasizes that ‘‘the two [collectivism and individualism] can coexist and are
simply emphasized more or less in each culture’’ (p. 42). With increasing
globalization, migration and inter cultural mixing, these cultural ideologies have
spread to geographical regions beyond their origins resulting in co-existence and
ad-mixtures of self tendencies. Research on Indian self, for example, has shown
that there is a co-existence of individualistic and collectivist tendencies in it(Sinha
and Tripathi, 1994; Mishra, 1994; Verma and Triandis, 1998; Sinha et al, 2001).
Individualism and Collectivism operate as reversible figure and ground.

Figure 2.2: Reversible Figure and Ground

Source: ibitimes.co.uk
36
In this figure, one can sometimes perceive the white portion as a vase figure Self and Identity
Development
taking the two facial profiles (in black) as the background.On other times, one
can perceive the two face profiles as figure taking the white portion as the
background. Similarly, in different contextual conditions, individualism and
collectivism are displayed. They can also be combined as means and end (Sinha
et al., 2001). At workplace, the competitive ethos and the pressure to be self
driven and independent often makes one rely on individualistic tendencies more,
whereas, in familial contexts, the same person behaves in a deferential manner,
fulfilling emotional interdependencies and reciprocal obligations. A young person
in India facing resistance from parents in the way of pursuing a course of one’s
own choicemay adopt collectivist means to individualistic goals. He/she may
cry, plead, stop talking to parents so that they can agree to his/her wishes. Here,
the means adopted are collectivist as parental approval is being sought but the
goal is individualistic, i.e., satisfaction of personal desires. The other route is to
rebel against the parents’ wishes and study what one wants to study and later do
really well in the course of study to bring pride to the family. Here, the means are
individualistic, i.e., self assertion but the goal is collectivist.

2.6 SOCIO-STRUCTURAL INFLUENCES ON

IDENTITY
Many social structural factors such as socio-economic status, gender and caste
influence identity development.
(a) Socio- economic status and identity
Socioeconomic status (SES) is generally defined in terms of an individual’s
economic position and educational attainment, relative to others. Stephens,
Markus, and Phillips (2014) argue that social class gives rise to different kinds of
self construal shaped by the ‘gateway contexts’ of home, work and school. One
kind of self is ‘hard interdependence’ characteristic of those growing up in low-
income environments. It implies a resilient self needed to cope with the adversities
of life. People in such an environment marked by less choices, influence and
control are also more cognizant of interdependence between self and context.
Since, lower class individuals face greater uncertainty in terms of food, income,
housing, personal safety and health, they are more vigilant about external threats
and are motivated to deal with external constraints. The other type of self they
spell out is ‘expressive independence’ which is typical of those who grow up in
affluent, middle class families. They are safeguarded against financial hardships
and threats and are more enabled to express their individuality, personal choices
and agency.
Self perception of one’s social class marked by perceived standing of one’s
occupational status, individual wealth and prestige of educational attainment
shapes social behaviour. By comparing their wealth, educational attainment and
occupational status with those of others, individuals can determine where they
stand in social hierarchy. Subjective social class exert broad influences on the
way one thinks, feels and acts.
The differences in income and wealth are associated with differences in social
capital, in the form of friendship networks, and cultural capital, in the form of
37
Psychology and Self education and knowledge of how the system works. For example, if a child has
family members or neighbours who are doctors, engineers, singers and artists,
then he/she is more likely to entertain these as possible futures as compared to if
he/she doesn’t have these networks. Similarly, if through these networks, the
child has been exposed to libraries, hospitals, museums, traveling, then the child
would know how these systems work and is less likely to be intimidated by
them.

(b) Gender and Identity

Costa et al. (2001) have found that women are generally higher than men in
neuroticism, agreeableness, warmth, and openness to feelings, whereas men are
generally higher than women in assertiveness and openness to ideas. However,
they also found that, contrary to expectations, these gender differences are variable
across cultures and are in fact stronger in European and American cultures than
in African and Asian ones.

Gender and sex are used interchangeably. However, there are differences between
them. “Sex” refers to the physical differences between people who are male,
female, or intersex. Sex is based on physiological characteristics such as genitalia
and chromosome composition. Gender, on the other hand, refers to the
sociocultural meanings ascribed to male and female social categories. It refers to
traits, qualities, behaviours related with masculinity and femininity. Gender
identity is the psychological identification of self as male or female.

Society, specifically family, peers and media play an important role in gender
socialization. The different roles that men and women are allotted by society are
called gender roles. There are also different expectations that society has from
boys and girls. Boys can be loud and messy while girls have to be quiet and
clean. These expectations take on the form of gender beliefs and dictate the choice
of professional roles, leisure activities and clothing. Men are suitable for combat
jobs in defence services but women are not because men are believed to have the
traits and strength for such jobs. Women are more suitable for teaching and nursing
jobs as compared to men as they are believed to be caring and sensitive. These
gender roles, norms, expectations and beliefs are internalized by men and women.
This in turn shapes their gender identity.

Family is the first teacher for children to learn different roles and expectations of
men and women. Parents create a gendered world for the children through different
toys, clothes, language, tolerance levels and behaviours. Leaper and Farkas (2014)
show significant correlation between parents’ gender attitudes and children’s
gender patterns. Girls and boys are encouraged for engaging in certain kinds of
games and play activities with their peers and prohibitedfrom others. In schools,
teachers may have different stereotyped expectations about abilities and needs of
boys and girls. Textbooks also play a role in forming identities of children. It
mediates the gender specific expectations, norms and expectations and thus
contributes to the reproduction of social inequalities. Media often under-represents
as well as mis-represents men and women. They also perpetuate gender stereotypes
by showing women working in kitchens and taking care of family members in
advertisements.
38
(c) Caste and Identity Self and Identity
Development
Researchers stressed the importance and the influence of caste as an integral
social identity among many South Asians (Mand, 2006). Society is categorized
into castes which are allotted different social status (positive or negative) in
accordance with the group’s position within the social hierarchy. The demeaning
occupational titles like chamars (literally, leatherworkers) and churhas (literally,
street sweepers) accorded to certain caste group in line with their historical status
and position within the caste hierarchy negatively affects their self esteem and
creates an identity of being devalued and ‘spoilt’. The high caste groups tend to
essentialize caste identity (Mahalingam, 2007). Caste essentialism ensures that
even when there is a disidentification of low caste groups from the demeaning
occupations, they are still stigmatized. Caste boundaries are keenly maintained
by both high and low castes. It has been noted in ethnographic fieldwork that in
social interactions with high caste group members, scheduled caste members
may assume a hunched posture, remove their towel from their shoulders and tie
it around the waist, and raise one or both hands in greeting, symbolising their
alleged social inferiority (Gorringe & Rafanell, 2007). However, to characterize
low caste identity as exclusively inferior will be reductive and erroneous.
Identification with inspiring leaders like Ambedkar and collective participation
in Dalit movement also leads to development of Dalit pride in one’s identity. In
such cases, the collective struggle is not just for economic upliftment but to
bring revolutionary change at the structural level, to create a world which is free
of exploitation and hierarchies.

2.6.1 Intersectionality of Identities

Individuals are shaped by a vast array of cultural, social and structural contexts.
As an individual, one has gender, racial/caste, ethnic, class, sexual, national and
many other identities. Take the example of a high caste, class Indian gay male
who is discriminated because of his sexual identity but is privileged because of
his dominant caste, class and gender identity. Interdependent social contexts (caste,
class, gender and sexual identities) work dynamically to shape the experiences
and identities of people. Some of these identities are privileged and some are
oppressed. Thus, intersectional identity is more than a sum of its parts as various
identities are interlocked with each other. Intersectionality theory also captures
the within group differences in identities of members belonging to a gender,
class, caste/racial, ethnic, nationality, age, ability, sexuality, or religious group,
e.g., not all men are alike, not all Indians are same or, all Christians are not
identical.

2.7 FAMILIAL INFLUENCE ON SELF AND

IDENTITY
According to Burgess and Locke, “Family is a group of persons united by the ties
of marriage, blood or adoption; consisting a single household, interacting and
intercommunicating with each other in their social roles of husband and wife,
mother and father, son and daughter, brother and sister creating a common culture”.
Family is the basic unit of socialization. Usually family evokes the notion of
nuclear families consisting of parents and children living together. In India, we 39
Psychology and Self see extended and joint families too where two or more nuclear families live
together. It can take the form of a man and woman living alongwith their married
sons and daughters-in-law, unmarried sons and daughters, grandchildren and great
grand children. Another form is a group consisting of two or more brothers and
their wives and children living together. Family is a dynamic unit and keeps
changing with times. Now, we see many other forms of families too. This includes
- only couple-no children, same sex parents, single parent families, blended
families due to remarriage.

2.7.1 Influence of Parenting styles on Self

Since parents are so important in the growth of children, psychologists have
placed considerable research efforts in investigating the quality of parent-child
relationships and parenting styles. Parenting styles refers to the practices that
parents adopt in relating to their children and its effect on children. The most
influential work in this field is of Diana Baumrind (1971) which led to the
identification of four parenting styles.Maccoby And Martin (1983) argued that
these four parenting styles are based on two dimensions of parental behaviour –
responsiveness (warmth) and demandingness (control). These four parenting styles
are: Permissive, Authoritarian, Authoritative, Uninvolved.

Fig. 2.3: Types of Parenting style

(i) The Permissive Parent is low on demandingness and high on responsiveness.

They have low expectations of conduct and achievement from their children.
They have an attitude of “Do what you want”. They are lenient and rarely
discipline their child. However, they emphasize on relatedness. They provide
loving support for and encourage free expression in their children.
(ii) The Uninvolved Parent is low in both demandingness and responsiveness.
They may have multiple tasks to attend to alongwith parenting. Thus, they
may pay little attention to their children and do not invest emotionally much
in bringing children up. In short, they “don’t care much”. They do not protect,
discipline and set limit for their children. Alongside they also do not have
much emotional attachment for them. They do not express much love for
them.
(iii) The Authoritative Parent is high on demandingness and high on
responsiveness. They have high expectations for conduct and achievement
40 for their children. They set clear rules and norms to follow. However, they
 discuss matters of discipline, explain the reasons for the rules and negotiate Self and Identity
Development
and compromise if the need be. Also, they are warm and tuned into their
children’s needs and desires. They show care and flexibility.
(iv) The Authoritarian Parent is high on demandingness and low on
responsiveness. They impose their rules and norms and expect obedience
from children. Children are not involved in discussions and negotiations about
matters that affect them. These parents response to children’s questions to
authority by “Because I say so”. Such parents are not attuned to their children’s
emotions and feelings. They are punitive in their punishments.
Baumarind describes Authoritative parenting as the “just right” style of parenting.
Children in such households are more likely to grow up with a sense of
independence and responsibility, reinforcing their beliefs that they can eventually
take care of themselves successfully. It promotes self regulation, appropriate
assertiveness, critical thinking skills and self confidence.
The Authoritarian parenting impedes development of empathy and self
assuredness amongst siblings. Such children tend to be conforming, passive and
dependent. Since they feel emotionally controlled by their parents, they are less
self assured, less creative and less socially adept than other adolescents.
Children of permissive parents are more likely to be experiment with both positive
and negative behaviours. As they do not fear repercussions, they tend to be less
responsible and get easily drawn into negative social behaviours. They are higher
in self confidence and lower in academic achievement. They are also more likely
to show greater aggression and hyperactivity as compared to other children.
Baumrind (1991) found that children whose parents have an uninvolved parenting
style have the worst outcomes on a number of behavioral and psychological
measures. These children demonstrate high rates of problem behaviors and drug
use Moreover children of neglectful parents tend to rank low in terms of cognitive
and emotional empathy development which is considered to be of significant
importance with regard to positive social development.
The common parenting practice in Asian cultures like India fits into authoritative
parenting. However, responsiveness and demandingness shown by Indian parents
do not fit into the acceptable meanings of these dimensions found in the western
culture. For example, parents in Indian culture rarely praise their children and do
not show open love and affection towards them. But they are responsible for the
well being of their children, support them financially and emotionally and continue
to remain involved with the matters of their lives well into adulthood. Also,
Indian parents do not engage much in debate and discussion but expect compliance
from their children. However, this compliance is demanded keeping the child’s
interest in mind. Also, social change is affecting parenting too and now Indian
parents are allowing greater freedom and flexibility to the children to decide
their own course of action, while remaining as guides.

Self Assessment Questions 3

Fill in the Blanks.
1. ____________ parents are likely to have the stance “I don’t care” towards
their children.
41
Psychology and Self
2. Authoritarian parents are ________ on demandingness and __________
on warmth.
3. Authoritative parents are _________ on warmth and __________on
demandingness.
4. ______________parents are likely to have “Do what you want” stance
towards their children.
5. Indian parents usually have boundaries and rules for their children but they
are also involved with them. They are high on _______________ parenting
style.

2.8 LET US SUM UP

Self and identity are constituted by sociocultural forces. The behavioural norms,
child rearing practices, cultural values related to social categories such as gender,
class, caste etc. shape self and identity. People of a culture help in reinforcing
these cultural norms and meanings. But people can also resist and change these
values and practices. Thus, self and culture mutually shape each other. Different
cultures emphasize different kinds of self construals – independent and
interdependent selves; private, public and collective selves. However, in each
culture there are possibilities of expressing all of these selves, depending on
situations and contexts. One of the most important gateway context that mediates
between socio-cultural factors and individual is the family. The way parents relate
with their children (parenting styles) impact the development of their selves.

2.9 KEY WORDS

Self : is the centre of self awareness and agency. It includes
both I (knower) and Me (known)
Identity : is the stable and consistent sense of self.
Individualism : is a cultural ideology emphasizing (i) independent
concept of self, (ii) greater importance of personal over
group goals, (iii) attitudes, beliefs and values as basis
of social behaviour, (iv) rationality in evaluating and
choosing social relationships.
Collectivism : is a cultural ideology emphasizing (i) interdependent
concept of self, (ii) compatibility of personal and group
goals, (iii) norms as the basis of social behaviour, (iv)
relationality in social relationships.
Independent self : is a self that is unique, private and autonomous. It seeks
to assert and express the internal attributes (needs, traits,
talents, beliefs and values) in social situations.
Interdependent self : is a self that sees itself as part of social relationships
and recognizes that one’s behaviour is contingent on
what the actors perceives to be the thoughts, feelings
and actions of others in the relationship.
42
Intersectionality : is a framework that describes how different identities Self and Identity
Development
of a person combine to create different modes of
discrimination and privilege.
Parenting Style : sare the various patterns shown by parents in their
attempts to socialize their children.
Demandingness : refers to the demands placed by the parents on children
to behave in certain ways, the way parents supervise
and discipline the children and confront the child when
it disobeys.
Warmth : refers to the extent parents are attuned to, supportive of
and acquiesce to their children.

2.10 ANSWERS TO SELF ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS

Answers to Self Assessment Questions 1
1. The private self includes cognitions about traits, states or behaviours of oneself
(e.g., “I am kind”, “I enjoy reading books”), whereas the public self includes
cognitions about the self coming from generalized others (e.g., “People usually
perceive me as introvert”).
2. Independent and Interdependent self construals.
3. Socialization is a life long process of social interaction through which people
acquire the behaviors and beliefs of the culture they live in.
Answers to Self Assessment Questions 2
a-Restraint, b-Low on uncertainty avoidance, c-High power distance, d-Short
term orientation, e-Cultural complexity, f-Collectivism, g-Horizontal, h-High on
masculinity, i-Tight cultures
Answers to Self Assessment Questions 3
1. Uninvolved, 2. high, low, 3. high, high, 4. Permissive, 5. Authoritative

2.11 UNIT END QUESTIONS

1. What is self? Discuss its various types.
2. Discuss the various dimensions of culture.
3. How does culture and self constitute each other?
4. How socio-structural factors influence development of identity?
5. How does the nature of achievement orientation differ between the
individualistic and collectivist cultures of the world?
6. Why is pride and guilt experienced as shared emotions in collectivist cultures?
7. “Individualism and Collectivism are mutually exclusive categories”. Do you
agree?
43
Psychology and Self 8. Describe the effect of parenting styles on psychological functioning of
children.
REFLECTIVE EXERCISE:
1. Think of two examples of changes in social and cultural life of Indians since
Independence.
2. How do you think having particular kinds of exposure and education (cultural
capital) as well as knowing certain types of people (social capital) help us in
life?
3. What kind of gender based division of roles and responsibilities do you see in
your environment?
4. Are you aware of your caste standing? How does it shape your self
understanding?
5. Think of the important identities that you have. Which one’s are socially
powerful and which one’s are socially weak?

2.12 REFERENCES
Arnett, J. J. (1995). Broad and narrow socialization: The family in the context of
a cultural theory. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 617–628
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental
Psychology, 4, 1–103
Costa P. T., Jr., Terracciano A., McCrae R. R. (2001). Gender differences in
personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 81, 322–331
Cousins, S. (1989). Culture and self hood in Japan and the U.S. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 56, 124-131.
Gorringe, Hugo & Rafanell, Irene. (2007). The Embodiment of Caste: Oppression,
Protest and Change. Sociology, 41, 97-114.
Grusec, J. (2002). Parental socialization and children’s acquisition of values. In
M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (Vol. 5, pp. 245–281). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-
related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Iwao, S. (1988, August). Social psychology’s models of man: Isn’t it time for
East to meet West? Invited address to the International Congress of Scientific
Psychology, Sydney, Australia
Kitayama, S., Markus, H., Tummala, P., Kurokawa, M., & Kato, K. (1990). Culture
and self-cognition. Unpublished manuscript.
Leaper C, Farkas T (2014) The socialization of genderduring childhood and
adolescence. In: Grusec JE,Hastings PD (eds) Handbook of socialization.
Theoryand research, 2nd edn. Guilford Publications, NewYork, pp 541–566.
44
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Self and Identity
Development
Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E. M. Hetheringtono(Vol.
Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. IV. Socialization, Personality and
Social Development (4th Ed., pp. 1-101). New York: Wilepy.
Mahalingam, R. (2007). Beliefs about chastity, machismo, and caste identity: a
cultural psychology of gender. Sex Roles 56, 239–249.
Mand, K. (2006). Gender, ethnicity and social relations in the narratives of elderly
Sikh men and women. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 29, 1057–1071.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual
constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 420–430.
Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society from the Standpoint of a Social
Behaviorist. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Mishra, R. C. (1994). Individualist and collectivist orientations across generations.
In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.),
Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and application (pp. 225–238).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Neisser, U. (1988). Five kinds of self-knowledge. Philosophical Psychology, 1(1),
35–59.
Roland, A. (1988). In search of self in India and Japan: Toward a crosscultural
psychology Princeton, N J: Princeton University Press
Shweder, R. A., & Bourne, E. J. (1984). Does the concept of the person vary
cross-culturally? In R. A. Shweder & R. A. LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays
on mind, self, and emotion (pp. 158-199). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press
Sinha, D., & Tripathi, R. C. (1994). Individualism in a collectivist culture: A case
of coexistence of opposites. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C.
Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and
application (pp. 123–136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Sinha, J.B.P., Sinha, T., Verma, J. and Sinha, R. (2001) Collectivism
Coexisting with Individualism: An Indian Scenario. Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, 4, 133-145.
Stephens, N. M., Markus, H. R., & Phillips, L. T. (2014). Social class culture
cycles: How three gateway contexts shape selves and fuel inequality. Annual
Review of Psychology, 65, 611–634.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural
contexts. Psychological Review, 96(3), 506–520.
Triandis, H. C. (1994). Major cultural syndromes and emotion. In S. Kitayama &
H. R. Markus (Eds.), Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual
influence (pp. 285–308). American Psychological Association.
Triandis, H. C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural
syndromes. American Psychologist, 51(4), 407–415.
Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder: Westview Press 45
Psychology and Self Verma, J., & Triandis, H. C. (1998). The measurement of collectivism in India.
Paper presented at the meeting of the International Association of Cross Cultural
Psychology, Bellingham, WA, August.

2.13 FURTHER LEARNING RESOURCES

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual
constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 420–430.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural
contexts. Psychological Review, 96(3), 506–520.

46