Philosophy Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Personality Psychology on Self - Dictionary of Arguments
Corr I 459 Self/Personality Psychology/Robinson/Sedikides: Why are traits so stable over time? Swann’s (e.g., Swann and Schroeder 1995)(1) contends that people are motivated to confirm rather than disconfirm strongly held views of the self (see also Sedikides 1995)(2). Thus, a given self-view (e.g., that the self is high in Neuroticism) is likely to create its own reality through trait-consistent processes related to self-verification (Swann, Rentfrow and Guinn 2002)(3). See also Tamir (2005)(4). >Personality traits. Self-enhancement reflects a motive to view the self as positively as possible (Sedikides and Gregg 2008(5); Sedikides and Strube 1997)(6). On the basis of this motive, one can explain why individuals (a) view their own traits as more socially desirable than the average person (Alicke and Govorun 2005)(7); (b) interpret ambiguous trait terms in a way that reflects best on the self (Dunning, Meyerowitz and Holzberg 1989)(8); (c) choose questions likely to confirm their positive (versus negative) traits (Sedikides 1993)(9); and (d) manifest superior memory for feedback related to their positive (versus negative) traits (Sedikides and Green 2000)(10). Heterogeneity of the self: when describing themselves, individuals mention important relationships, social roles, goals and motives, preferences and values, as well as rules and strategies for self-regulation (Markus 1983(11); McConnell and Strain 2007(12)). >Self-regulation, >Self-description. When individuals rate their traits in relation to different role-contexts (e.g., in school versus at home), their traits differ in ways that are particular to a given role-context (Donahue and Harary 1998(13)). There has been an attempt to incorporate role-specific tendencies into more general models of traits (Wood and Roberts 2006)(14). Corr I 460 Hierarchies: The self is hierarchically organized. Its most abstract features are captured when individuals characterize themselves in general, irrespective of context or social role (Schell, Klein and Babey 1996)(15). Lower Level: here, social roles encompass aspects of personality that, although generalized, are specific to the role under consideration (Donahue and Harary 1998)(13). At the lowest level of abstraction, self-views are particular to a given day (Kernis, Grannemann and Barclay 1989)(16) or moment in time (Heatherton and Polivy 1991)(17). Such levels of the self function differently. For example, momentary self-esteem varies substantially from day to day, whereas this is not true of global self-esteem (Heatherton and Polivy 1991)(17). 1. Swann, W. B. and Schroeder, D. G. 1995. The search for beauty and truth: a framework for understanding reactions to evaluations, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21: 1307–18 2. Sedikides, C. 1995. Central and peripheral self-conceptions are differentially influenced by mood: tests of the differential sensitivity hypothesis, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69: 759–77 3. Swann, W. B., Rentfrow, P. J. and Guinn, J. 2002. Self-verification: the search for coherence, in M. R. Leary and J. P. Tangney (eds.), Handbook of self and identity, pp. 367–83. New York: Guilford Press 4. Tamir, M. 2005. Don’t worry, be happy?: Neuroticism, trait-consistent affect regulation, and performance, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89: 449–61 5. Sedikides, C. and Gregg, A. P. 2008. Self-enhancement: food for thought, Perspectives on Psychological Science 3: 102–16 6. Sedikides, C. and Strube, M. J. 1997. Self-evaluation: to thine own self be good, to thine own self be sure, to thine own self be true, and to thine own self be better, in M. P. Zanna (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. XXIX, pp. 209–69. New York: Academic Press 7. Alicke, M. D. and Govorun, O. 2005. The better-than-average effect, in M. D. Alicke, D. A. Dunning and J. I. Krueger (eds.), The self in social judgement, pp. 85–106. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press 8. Dunning, D., Meyerowitz, J. A. and Holzberg, A. D. 1989. Ambiguity and self-evaluation: the role of idiosyncratic trait definitions in self-serving assessments of ability, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57: 1082–90 9. Sedikides, C. 1993. Assessment, enhancement, and verification as determinants of the self-evaluation process, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65: 317–38 10. Sedikides, C. and Green, J. D. 2000. On the self-protective nature of inconsistency/negativity management: using the person memory paradigm to examine self-referent memory, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79: 906–22 11. Markus, H. 1983. Self-knowledge: an expanded view, Journal of Personality 51: 543–65 12. McConnell, A. R. and Strain, L. M. 2007. Structure and content of the self, in C. Sedikides and S. Spencer (eds.), The self in social psychology, pp. 51–73. New York: Psychology Press 13. Donahue, E. M. and Harary, K. 1998. The patterned inconsistency of traits: mapping the differential effects of social roles on self-perceptions of the Big Five, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24: 610–19 14. Wood, D. and Roberts, B. W. 2006. Cross-sectional and longitudinal tests of the personality and role identity structural model (PRISM), Journal of Personality 74: 779–809 15. Schell, T.L., Klein, S. B. and Babey, S. H. 1996. Testing a hierarchical model of self-knowledge, Psychological Science 7: 170-3 16. Kernis, M. H., Grannemann, B. D. and Barclay, L. C. 1989. Stability and level of self-esteem as predectors of anger arousal and hostelity, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56: 1013-22 17. Heatherton, T. F. and Polivy, J. 1991. Development and validation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60: 895-910 Michael D. Robinson and Constantine Sedikides, „ Traits and the self: toward an integration“, in: Corr, Ph. J. & Matthews, G. (eds.) 2009. The Cambridge handbook of Personality Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press_____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Personalty Psychology Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
||
> Counter arguments against Personality Psychology
> Counter arguments in relation to Self
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2024-04-28