Week 5 assignment

2.1 Communication and the Self-Concept

Consider again the exercise presented in the chapter introduction. The contents of this list differ for every person, but taken together, they represent their unique self-concept. Self- concept can be defined as one’s broad description or perception of him- or herself as a pers on, “based on an organized collection of beliefs and feelings about oneself” (Myers, 1993, p. 188). It is your sense of you, who you are as an individual, as well as how you make sense o f your place in the world. The list that you created, which we will refer to throughout this c hapter, shows that you have several components to your self- concept. These components of “you” are shaped and altered by aspects of self- concept, including the looking-glass self, social comparisons, culture, and the self- fulfilling prophecy. Together, these components combine to create who you are and shape your self-concept over time and are linked to both self- talk and interpersonal communication.

Bill Losh/The Image Bank/Getty Images

The social roles you play and the groups you identify with can contribute to your self- concept.

How Self-Concept Is Created

Where does your concept of self come from? Most researchers believe that who you think y ou are is a complex mix of how you see yourself, how others see you, what others have told

you about yourself that you have recognized and internalized, and what your society or cult ure tells you that you are or should be. For example, psychologist Michael Argyle (1983) de scribed four key factors that contribute to development of self- concept. An example of how communication messages further help the influence of these fa ctors are provided in parentheses:

• the reaction of others (A coworker complimenting you on how nice you look wearing a new shirt may encourage you to wear it more often. You might say to yourself, “I’m attractive.” I f said enough, you might even believe it to be true.)

• your comparison with others (Your parents telling you to be more like your older sibling m ay create feelings of competition and resentment as you try to forge your own path. If you i nternalize this belief that you should be different, it might make you change your behavior or have thoughts about yourself as inadequate. It is not just about what others say, but wha t we internalize.)

• the social roles you play in society (You are an elementary school teacher, so, when you are in this role, your students call you “Mr. Montgomery” and your employer classifies you that way.)

• the groups with which you identify (As someone diagnosed with a specific chronic health c ondition, you may embrace labels such as “chronic pain sufferer” and this is integrated into your identity. You might seek out others who also have that condition via online support gr oups so you can discuss your situation with others. The more time spent with similarly- identified others, the more likely you are to integrate those labels into your self-concept.) Your self-concept is learned; it is organized, it is dynamic, and it is ever- changing (Purkey, 1988). You construct this sense of self through communication with your self and others— by what you tell yourself and what others tell you about yourself. In other words, your self- concept is first externally imposed by others and then internally incorporated in your thou ghts, feelings, actions, and communication.

For example, when you were born, you had no clear concept of yourself. However, you expr essed yourself by communicating with others through cries and other sounds, through facia l expressions, and through bodily actions such as grabbing a finger that was extended towa rd you. At some point, you realized that your behavior resulted in responses from others. Y ou cried and received something to eat or your diaper was changed. Then your behavior be came purposeful; you made that cry because you learned that doing so would elicit a respo nse from others. You most likely did not think through this action and reason, “If I cry, I will be fed or changed,” but, at a conscious or unconscious level, you communicated because yo u wanted to achieve a specific goal. As you matured, your behavior was more consciously pl anned to get your needs and desires met. And as you got even older, you started to develop your own sense of who you were, what you wanted to be, and what others were telling you was valued and devalued in your culture.

Throughout life, you have an infinite number of opportunities to express yourself and to int eract with people. These people may express opinions about your behavior by smiling or fr owning at you or by making verbal judgments about your behavior or appearance. “That ba by sure cries a lot, doesn’t he?” “You are a very pretty child.” “She plays well with other chil

dren.” The opinions that other people express to you or about you affect you in ways you m ight not realize. They influence the way you see yourself, the way you respond to difficultie s in life, and the way you interact with others. All the feedback you get from others, whethe r verbal or nonverbal, are early instances of you learning about the cultural standards that surround you and what is right or wrong or good or bad. We subtly and not-so- subtly learn that crying is not appreciated, being pretty is good, and getting along with othe rs is beneficial. Though we will address culture more directly in the next chapter, culture is a central force in shaping our ideas of the self. Though self- concept is an internal process, it is learned, maintained, and can change through interperso nal communication. Now, let’s look more at what contributes to our self-concept.

The Looking-Glass Self

Humans are social beings, and in the early 20th century, American sociologist Charles Hort on Cooley posited that people always see themselves in relation to other people. Your sense of self, he believed, is formed by imagining how you appear to other people. Cooley used th e term looking-glass self to describe this view of your self-concept, and the looking- glass self is the first way that self-concept is created. Cooley suggests that other people are like a looking glass, or a mirror, in which you can vie w yourself from others’ perspectives. In other words, you are always considering how you l ook to other people. You might have a specific person in mind that you want to impress, or you might have a general sense of “other people” and how they might judge you. In essence, we treat others’ views of us as clues to who we are. We gather this information about their “views” through the verbal and nonverbal cues they provide, giving us clues about how we have met or not met cultural expectations. These clues to who we are may be accurate or in accurate, harmful or beneficial, temporary or enduring. Look back at the “Who am I?” list th at you created. Are those descriptions at all based on how you think others view you? To w hat degree do these descriptions reflect how you view yourself?

When you see yourself in a mirror, or think about yourself, you may be pleased or displease d by what you see, but not simply because it does or does not reflect who you want to be. Y ou are likely also imagining how other people will judge you. In fact, we might even be visu alizing what others might say about us as we look into that mirror. These judgments create feelings in you such as pride or embarrassment. For example, in the presence of a person y ou think is beautiful, you may feel ugly. In the presence of someone who seems to be less fa shionable than you, you may feel sophisticated.

You might argue that you, or someone you know, are not affected by what other people thin k. However, when you say, “I don’t care about other people’s opinions,” that does not mean that you have not considered them. In fact, to come to this decision, you had to make a cons cious choice to disregard the judgment of others. Instead of shame about an action you took , for example, you might choose an attitude of apathy and not allow yourself to be bothered by the opinion of others, or you might even feel pride at disobeying the rules of society. In a ny case, Cooley (1902) believed that the thoughts of other people are always there.

Social Comparison

According to social psychologist Leon Festinger’s (1954) social comparison theory, humans have a fundamental impulse to evaluate their abilities and opinions. When there is no obje ctive assessment such as a test or a numerical evaluation available, we rely on social compa risons and evaluate our abilities and opinions by comparing ourselves to other people. In p articular, Festinger’s (1954) theory specifies that this act of social comparison is more likel y to occur in relation to a particular group that is important or central to you in some way, c alled a reference group. The results of these social comparisons— whether you conclude that you compare favorably or unfavorably to members of a group o n a particular characteristic—is the second element that contributes to your self- concept. For example, you may think that you must have certain possessions because other s in your reference group have them, or you must communicate in a certain way to fit in wit h a group you want to impress. Comparisons to certain reference groups can explain why te enagers adopt the dress and the slang expressions of their peers, or why cultural identificat ion can influence how to care for an elderly family member or take part in particular holida y celebrations. Research has consistently found that individuals who compare themselves to images in diff erent forms of media such as magazine advertisements, television shows, and commercials also feel dissatisfied with their own bodies (Nabi, 2009). Such findings support Festinger’s ( 1954) social comparison theory. Online interactions are also a source of social comparison. For example, one research study examined how the content of others’ social media profiles could impact users’ social comparison processes (Haferkamp & Kramer, 2011). Using fictiti ous social media profiles, the researchers found that users who viewed profile pictures of i ndividuals who were deemed “very attractive” had a more negative image of their own bodi es than those who viewed profile pictures of individuals who were deemed to be “unattract ive.” When male participants viewed profiles of successful males, they perceived a larger di screpancy between their ideal and their current career paths compared with men who vie wed profiles of less successful males (Haferkamp & Kramer, 2011). As the size and number of our reference groups expand along with the growth of social media, social comparisons a re likely even more significant in shaping self-concept.

Culture

At the broadest level, the culture in which we are raised is a third source of self- concept. Culture, as we discuss in greater detail in Chapter 3, is inherently interrelated with how we communicate, as well as how we form and reinforce views of our self. The impact of culture is reflected in what others— including our parents, authority figures, peer groups, and larger social structures such as th e media, political parties, and organizations— tell us about ideals we should strive for and about ourselves. Culture also helps to shape ou r identity, which we will discuss in more detail in Chapter 3. Culture also influences what it s members consider socially significant and personally valuable. For example, psychologist Bella DePaulo (2007) calls American cultural bias against individuals who are not in roman tic relationships “singlism,” and this prevailing cultural belief could make individuals who a re single (an identity marker) feel as if they do not measure up to those who are in relation ships, thus contributing to a more negative self-

concept. So, because culture is such a major part of who we are, it can also have an impact o n self-concept.

2.2 Self-Expression and Interpersonal Communication

Now that you have a better understanding of the self and the factors that create your self- concept and self- esteem, how do these aspects of the self affect your communication with other people? Refe r to the “Who am I?” list that you created at the beginning of this chapter. How do the categ ories or descriptions of who you are influence how you communicate with others? Why are these categories so central to how you communicate with people? Has your communication from others shaped which descriptions you use in your intrapersonal communication?

So far in this chapter, we have focused on how the messages from others throughout your li fe affect your view of yourself. However, as we have illustrated in this section, just as your i nterpersonal communication with other people affects your view of yourself, the way in wh ich you communicate internally also has an effect on your ability to build positive relations hips with other people. The characteristics, roles, and other measures of self that define wh o you are—your identity— affect your interactions with yourself and with others and will be discussed in Chapter 3, b ut two other important ways in which intrapersonal and interpersonal functions are interr elated are described next.

Biological Sex and Gender

A controversial topic among communication researchers concerns the communication style s of men and women and the question of whether the two sexes really communicate differe ntly. This question is best answered by focusing on how communication scholars characteri ze sex. If we only measure how males and females biologically differ— which the majority of communication researchers do by simply comparing how males and f emales communicate— the differences are almost nonexistent. In fact, a landmark analysis of over 1,000 research s tudies that compared males’ and females’ communication patterns based on their biologica l makeup found that biological sex differences only provide 1% of an explanation for how a nd why we communicate the way that we do (Canary & Hause, 1993). In other words, accor ding to this analysis, whether we are born as a male or a female and how we live biologicall y as a male or a female has little to no influence on how we communicate interpersonally. B ut researchers can also consider male and female differences in communication by focusing on socially and culturally constructed ideas of sex and gender.

Creatas Images/Creatas/Thinkstock

Unlike biological sex, which is physiologically determined, gender orientation is a social co nstruction based upon a combination of several individual, societal, and relational factors.

Gender Orientation

Biological sex and gender orientation are related but different. Biological sex is physiologic ally determined at birth. Gender orientation, on the other hand, is psychologically created a nd is based partially upon a combination of one’s biological sex, group membership, culture , and a host of other individual, relational, and societal factors. Specifically, one’s gender ori entation is a “social, symbolic construction that expresses the meanings a society confers o n biological sex” (Wood & Dindia, 1998, p. 20). In fact, some researchers argue that gender orientation can be a problematic way to consider sex differences between males and female s because it is at least partially based on a society’s gender stereotypes (Canary & Hause, 19 93). For example, the American stereotype that females are relationship- focused and dependent whereas males are strong and independent could be perpetuated w ith a focus on gender (Reeder, 1996). Others note that gender orientation involves identifyi ng with norms, or a group’s expected or standard pattern of social behavior, for feminine an d masculine sex roles (Wheeless & Duran, 1982). This means that some people’s gender can be more influenced by traditional roles and social norms than others. However, because ge

nder takes into account an individual’s physiological makeup (that is, their biological sex) a nd their social environment, it is typically a better representation of individuals than biolog ical sex alone. When directly comparing biological sex and gender in relation to different aspects of interp ersonal communication, gender is consistently a better predictor. For example, researchers found that gender was a more useful concept than biological sex for understanding how ro mantic partners express jealousy (Aylor & Dainton, 2001). Specifically, being more masculi ne was associated with using more destructive, antisocial methods of expressing jealousy, a nd having more feminine characteristics was linked to greater usage of a direct, constructiv e form of jealousy expression called integrative communication. Examples of integrative co mmunication include disclosures, openness, and working with one’s romantic partner to tr y to reach an understanding. In addition, gender is a better predictor than biological sex wh en understanding how individuals maintain their relationships (Stafford, Dainton, & Haas, 2000).

Gender orientation should not be considered as being on a single continuum, with masculin ity and femininity at each extreme and androgyny at the midpoint. Instead, each person fall s on three continuums in terms of their unique gender levels for masculinity, femininity, an d androgyny. For example, being more masculine is consistently linked to the increased use of instrumental and assertive communication in interactions, including accomplishing goal s, influencing others, or finishing a job or task, whereas those who are more feminine use m ore expressive and affiliation messages such as focusing on relational communication, close ness with others, and emotions (Aylor, 2003; Palomares, 2012).

An androgynous individual, who possesses aspects of both masculine and feminine gender orientations, could have more satisfying relationships than either masculine or feminine in dividuals because he or she has the advantage of being able to employ both communication styles with some degree of skill (Ickes, 1985). Note that androgyny is not akin to possessin g both male and female biological sexual organs— it concerns your social gender orientation only. Androgynous individuals are also best able to adapt and be flexible, as well as focus on and be positive toward others, during interpers onal interactions (Wheeless & Duran, 1982).

Different Cultures Versus Gender Similarities Hypotheses

Another way to consider whether males and females are more alike or different in how the y communicate is by understanding two competing ideas: the different cultures and the gen der similarities hypotheses. Linguist Deborah Tannen’s (2001) work, which includes the be stselling book You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation, argues that men and women have different communication styles because they grow up in different worlds or cultures. Tannen supports the different cultures hypothesis of gender, as does John Gray, whose book Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus takes this notion quite literally. Acc ording to this hypothesis, although young boys and girls occasionally play together, they sp end most of their time playing in groups of the same sex. Tannen notes boys’ and girls’ favo rite games are different, and their ways of using language in their games are different as we ll. She states,

Boys tend to play outside, in large groups that are hierarchically structured. Their groups h ave a leader who tells others what to do and how to do it . . . . It is by giving orders and maki ng them stick that high status is negotiated. . . . Boys’ games have winners and losers and el aborate systems of rules that are frequently the subjects of arguments. (Tannen, 2001, p. 4 3)

Girls, on the other hand, says Tannen, engage in games such as jump rope, hopscotch, or pla ying house, where everyone gets a turn, cooperation is required, and there are no winners or losers.

In contrast, Janet Shibley Hyde (2005) and Kathryn Dindia (2006) are two of many propone nts of the gender similarities hypothesis, which states that males and females are much mor e alike than different in terms of how they think, feel, and communicate. Though there are s ome differences between males and females, the differences are quite small and generally i nconsequential. Dindia amusingly portrays the rather minimal size of these differences by t itling a book chapter based on this position, “Men Are from North Dakota, Women Are from South Dakota.” If we consider which hypothesis the bulk of scholarly research supports, in both communication and psychology, the gender similarities hypothesis is overwhelmingly upheld (Canary & Hause, 1993; Hyde, 2005). For example, males and females show little to no difference (or there are multiple alternative explanations for any small to moderate diffe rences that are observed) in terms of self- disclosure, support messages, aggressive communication, interruptions, and smiling (Canar y & Hause, 1993; Hyde, 2005). Thus, though biological sex is a central aspect of the self, bei ng male or being female does not fundamentally alter how we think, feel, or communicate. Overall, we must be cautious about attributing communication differences solely to biologic al sex or even gender. However, when you communicate across gender lines, keep in mind t hat, like culture, socialized gender roles may slightly predispose women and men to interpr et messages differently in certain circumstances. As you have learned thus far in this text, i n interpersonal communication, it is important to check your perceptions with the other pe rson to determine if he or she interprets a message in the same way that you do.

The Self Presented Online

As mediated interactions continue to increase and become more central in our interperson al communication, we are more aware of how we present ourselves online. For example, 67 % and 62% of 18 to 29 year olds use Instagram and Snapchat, respectively, as of April 2019 (Perrin & Anderson, 2019). Such exponential growth and reach of these social networking sites also means that we have new online arenas to help us craft and showcase to others wh o we are as individuals and images and ideals with which to compare ourselves. What is uni que about how we present ourselves online versus offline? According to mediated commun ication researcher Catalina Toma (2012), the nature of Facebook self- presentation is shaped by the following technological parameters, all of which could be app lied to other social media as well:

• There is a large audience, including family members, friends, acquaintances, and even stran gers.

• The asynchronous (that is, the lack of an interaction in real time) nature of social media pro vides extended time to think about and create claims about the self.

• The ability to edit the content of one’s social media profiles allows users to continually alter or refine presented information.

• These unique online parameters create a highly controllable and selective presentation of t he self and should motivate users to design desirable, yet honest, self-presentations. Based on these technological parameters, think of who you are in your social media profiles . How much time and effort do you spend crafting and curating your “online self”? How doe s your online self differ across different social media profiles— is your Facebook self different from your Twitter or Instagram self? How and why? Now th at you know about self-concept, body image, and self- esteem, how do these concepts play into how you present yourself online?

Soon after Facebook launched, three- quarters of students reported that their Facebook profile pages accurately represented wh o they were (Stern & Taylor, 2007). Such authenticity on Facebook is linked with positive p sychosocial outcomes such as decreased stress and greater social connectedness (Grieve & Watkinson, 2016). Subsequently, Toma and Carlson (2015) found that college students beli eve they present themselves positively on their Facebook profiles and also engage in strate gic self- enhancement relevant to dimensions of the self that display their popularity; social media u sers realize that a small amount of self- enhancement is acceptable, but too much can arouse suspicion from other users (Toma & C arlson, 2015).

A review of college students’ Facebook use determined that the majority of student users p osted personal information such as their birthdays, hometowns, sexual orientation, and rel ationship status (Foon Hew, 2011). By reporting this type of information, Facebook users e stablish their online selves by categorizing themselves as members of specific demographic groups—such as by ethnicity, gender, or sexuality—and even co- cultures (described in greater detail in Chapter 3)— such as fans of specific types of music, movies, or teams (Pempek, Yermolayeva, & Calvert, 2009). These online selves can be carefully constructed to reflect cultural and social norms and values and are accomplished by using positive language to describe the user as being o utgoing and socially desirable (Zhao, Grasmuch, & Martin, 2008). In fact, a positive image of one’s self on Facebook significantly boosted students’ self-esteem (Toma, 2012).

However, online identity construction can also be less direct and explicit. For example, the number and quality of one’s online friends is a more direct method for examining online id entity construction (Utz, 2010; Walther, Van Der Heide, Kim, Westerman, & Tong, 2008). Re searchers can also get a glimpse of users’ online personalities via images, status updates, an d posts on friends’ walls (Zhao et al., 2008). Research on “selfie” images posted on social me dia profiles has revealed that editing these photos prior to posting them is motivated by a d esire for a more ideal presentation of one’s self on social media (Chae, 2017). As image- based social networking sites such as Instagram and Snapchat continue to grow in populari

ty (Perrin & Anderson, 2019), these indirect sources of information about an individual’s o nline self continue to expand as well.

What do these findings tell us about our online selves? First, though we believe our online s elves closely reflect who we are offline, there is evidence that we have the motivation and a bility to craft slightly more positive versions of ourselves online. These positive and selectiv e self-presentation options can improve our self- esteem. Second, it is difficult to fully monitor and alter our online identities because there a re many direct and indirect messages that can provide information about the self. Finally, w e don’t yet know how newer sites such as Snapchat help to create and shape online identiti es because researchers have focused almost exclusively on Facebook, with growing interest in Twitter and Instagram. But because there are more sites that are either image- based or focused on a limited number of characters, they are likely different from Facebook in how they create the online self and therefore require further study and a different appro ach. Take a look at IPC in the Digital Age feature to learn more about your Facebook self.