Our experiences develop us into ourselves. The self refers to who we are and our beliefs about attributes and attitudes (Baumeister, 1999). We develop ourselves as we try to find answers to the universal questions of ‘‘Who or what am I?’’ (Markus & Hamedani, 2007). Self-concepts change and we can have multiple self-concepts overtime (Baumeister 1998). Cross cultural psychology assumes that culture exists separate from the individual and influences our personality (Church & Lonner, 1998). Furthermore, without culture there is no self (Geertz, 1973). Differences in norms, beliefs and social interactions between cultures causes variations between selves (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). I will be discussing the extent to which the self differs culturally with reference to James’ self-theory, and self-constructs of; self-esteem, social perception, self-verification, and self-enhancement which influence our self-concept.
James provides a universal self-theory; the self is one's consciousness. We are aware that the self is separate but connected to the social world (Swann & Bosson, 2010). James referred to the self as ‘me’ and the ‘I’ as the ego (James, 1890). The ego is linked to the minds of individuals (James, 1890). The empirical me comprises; social self, the spiritual self, and material self. The body is the core of the material self, called ‘me’. The material self consists of; wealth, clothes, home and family, called ‘mine’ (James, 1890). The social self is our interaction with society; how society recognises you and our reputation within society. The social self changes in different situations (James, 1890). The spiritual me is personality, thoughts, beliefs and feelings. James ordered these components in a hierarchy with the material me at the bottom, followed by social me and the spiritual me at the top (James, 1890). James shows the self has many components and it has social parts. His theory is universal; suggesting that everyone has the same structure to the self. However, Markus and Kitayama (1991) said this theory failed to describe everyone’s self-views. The self is defined differently across cultures (Markus, Mullally, & Kitayama, 1997) so his theory cannot account for differences in the self.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Markus and Kitayama (1991) proposed two different self-concepts; independent and interdependent self-construal’s. A self-construal is one's thoughts and conduct to relationships, and the self as separate from others” (Singelis, 1994). Individualistic cultures view an individual as autonomous (Triandis, 1989). This is an independent self-construal where aspects of the self stem from within the individual (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). In collectivistic cultures the self is viewed in relation to others. Private beliefs and attitudes aren’t important, but family and society are of importance (Wu, 1994). Social relationships define the self thus aspects of the self stem external to the individual; referring to an interdependent self-construal (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). Markus, Uchida, Omoregie, Townsend & Kitayama (2006) found athletes from China attributed success with the importance of their coaches and others. American athletes only emphasised their own strength and work. This supports self-construal theory as it shows the differences in social relationships between cultures. Singelis created a scale to measure self-construals. Americans score higher on independence than interdependence compared to Asian-Americans (Singelis, 1994). Similar results were found with Euro-Americans and Chinese (Singelis, Bond, Sharkey & Lai, 1999). Singelis showed differences exist with self-construals. Kitayama and colleagues compared Hokkaido Japanese with mainland Japan and found Hokkaido showed more independence than urban Japan (Kitayama, Ishii, Imada, Takemura & Ramaswamy, 2006). Similarly, Martella and Maass (2000) found Northern Italians were more independent than Southern Italians; suggesting individual differences within cultures. Although Markus and Kitayama assumed that nations would be classed as independent or interdependent, findings show the self differs within the same nation. The self cannot be universal as studies show that collectivistic cultures place importance to relationships while individualistic cultures are independent; causing variations across cultures. The self-construal theories account for these differences. We should consider cultural influence on the self.
Self-enhancement theory proposes that people are motivated to feel good about themselves (Sedikides & Gregg, 2008). People want a positive self-concept, and so they self-enhance and avoid negative views (self-protect) (Baumeister, 1998). We all have the innate drive to self-enhance, but it differs across cultures. One study found Japanese students were more self-critical to failure feedback than Canadian students. Also, Japanese didn’t share their good performance whereas Canadian students didn’t share their poor performance (Heine, Kitayama & Lehman, 2001). This suggests that East Asians are motivated by self-improvement. Heine and Hamamura (2007) conducted a meta-analysis comparing self-enhancement between East Asia and the West. All 45 studies showed self-enhancement was higher in the West than East. The analysis also showed the western sample didn’t self-criticise but East-Asians self-criticised in 20 studies. This suggests the East self-criticise; holding less positive views of the self than the West.
However, one can view self-enhancement as equal across cultures. One study showed Japanese were less self-enhancing for the individualistic traits but higher self-enhancing for collectivistic traits (Sedikides, Gaertner, & Toguchi, 2003). This shows that people universally engage in self-enhancement; but only on culturally valued dimensions. Self enhancement slightly varies across cultures. Research shows that East Asians are less motivated for self-enhancement than Westerners. They do show self-positivity but self-criticise more and are motivated by self-improvement than westerners. This suggests cultural values impact the expression of the self.
The self-esteem theory is defined as the evaluation of the self. Factors such as our appearance, performance, and our relationships contribute to self-esteem (Tafarodi & Swann, 1995). Rosenberg said high self-esteem is innately rewarding but low self-esteem is the opposite (Rosenberg, 1979). Everyone has sets of positive and negative evaluations, but it differs across cultures. Tafarodi and Swann (1996) found American students scored higher for self-competence compared to Chinese students who scored higher for self-liking. Other studies have shown similar results with students from Malaysian collectivistic cultures and British individualistic cultures (Tafarodi, Lang, & Smith, 1999) and comparisons in Spain and Britain (Tafarodi & Walters, 1999). If we consider self-liking as an affective trait, then both West and East are equal in their self-esteem rather than suggesting Asians are lower on self-esteem. Twenge & Crocker (2002) found that self-esteem in Mexicans was lower compared to Americans or Whites. However, Frazier and Deblassie (1982) found no difference in self-concepts of Mexican-American students and American students’ self-esteem. This suggests self-esteem is universal, but culture does have little influence. Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto, and Norasakkunkit (1997) found that Japanese saw failure more relevant to self-esteem than success, and Americans saw the opposite. Japanese thought that failures would decrease their self-esteem more than success would increase their self-esteem. This suggests culture shapes self-esteem as Japanese are taught to fit in and be considerate of others in society hence, they may see their success as hurtful to others. Culture does impact self-esteem to a small extent. The West promotes independence and so collectively they show higher self-esteem but in collectivistic cultures, they value others over themselves, so they have lower self-esteem on average to keep from failing group views.
The self-verification theory states that we want others to view us the way we view ourselves (Swann, 1983). Individuals with a positive self-view would rather interact with people who view themselves positively. Those with a negative self-view prefer to interact with those who view themselves negatively (de la Ronde and Swann, 1993). We all aim to self-verify but the extent varies from cultures. Swann & Pelham (2002) found people elicit feedback from relationship partners who verified similar views as each other. Other findings show participants preferred to interact with a partner who verified a negative self-view (Chen, Chen & Shaw, 2004). Research from Spain has shown preferences in interacting with others who verified their group identity (Gómez, Seyle, Huici & Swann, 2009). Participants felt more comfortable and understood when their group identity was verified. These findings are similar to western findings; suggesting there is an overall tendency to self-verify in all cultures. One study found that collectivistic cultures self-verify. In the study between Indian participants, Taiwanese participants and Americans, all participants displayed self-verifying strivings. They found self-verification was stronger in Americans when compared to Indians, but it was significant in both groups. They also showed that culture did not influence self-verification (Seih, Buhrmester, Lin, Huang & Swann, 2013). (Chen, English, & Peng, 2006) discovered that Asians and Westerners both favour self-verifying evaluations. These findings again suggest that culture does not impact one’s tendencies to self-verify. We can interpret a universal need for self-verification. Self-verification exists across all cultures, but the way it's expressed may vary slightly across cultures. Research supports this view that even in collectivistic cultures they look to verify with their group views.
Overall, it is clear that some aspects of the self do indeed vary between cultures and culture certainly does impact one’s expression of the self. Western and Eastern cultural norms and values result in different selves. Although the same underlying processes of the self are seen within cultures, the selves develop through social environment and interaction so we cannot disregard culture in relation to the self.
Stuck on your essay?
