Critically comparison and contrast two theories that have been used to explicate the formation of the ego construct. Use relevant research to exemplify your reply.
Self scheme allows us to construct a self- construct of one ego, this is frequently a cognitive facet of the ego. This by and large refers to. “ the entirety of a complex, organized, and dynamic system of erudite beliefs, attitudes and sentiments that each individual holds to be true about his or her personal being ” ( Purkey, 1988 ) .
When mentioning to self construct, we automatically think who am i? this is the manner a individual see and specify themselves, for illustration would you specify yourself from a list of features ; I am smart, reasonably, ocular or would u mention yourself as your gender, business, place in society and so on. This shows its of import to understand who you are. How a individual feels about who they are is known as ego regard. Franken ( 1994 ) states that “ there is a great trade of research which shows that the self-concept is, possibly, the footing for all motivated behavior. It is the self-concept that gives rise to possible egos, and it is possible egos that create the motive for behavior. ” ( p. 443 ) Franken ( 1994 ) besides suggests that self-concept is related to self-pride in that “ people who have good self-prides have a clearly differentiated self-concept… . When people know themselves they can maximise results because they know what they can and can non make ” ( p. 439 ) . Self construct is developed and maintained by what others tell us and us reflecting on what they say and what we do. However this does non go on over dark but a life long procedure, this helps immature grownups in be aftering their calling and hereafter based on their abilities and personal accomplishments based on their critical stage during adolescence and the beginning of maturity. Harmonizing to Erik Erikson ( 1968 ) , the ego is developed through what he calls the phase theory of self-importance development.
Psychologist such as societal, personality and educational focal point on ego construct, there is legion sums of surveies and theories that can assist explicate the formation of ego construct. . There are six self concept theories, control theory of societal function theory, self-regulation, self-discrepancy theory, societal comparing theory, self-evaluation care theoretical account and societal individuality theory. this essay will comparing and contrasting two of these theories, the societal individuality theory and societal comparing theory, in order to explicate the formation of societal construct. Finally it will besides research some of the cardinal strength and failings while looking at similarities and differences between the two theories.
Social individuality theory was developed to understand the psychological ground behind favoritism in inter-groups by Tajfel and Turner ( 1979 ) . Tajfel et Al ( 1971 ) attempted to place the minimum conditions that would take members of one group to know apart in favor of the in-group to which they belonged and against another out-group. Social individuality is the person ‘s self-concept derived from sensed rank of societal groups ( Hogg & A ; Vaughan, 2002 ) . To explicate this, it shows that a individual sees positive ego regard when a individual is portion of a squad or group, so in this instance people sense of ego construct is based on ‘us ‘ instead than ‘I ‘ .
Festinger ( 1954 ) developed a societal comparing theory which evaluates one ‘s abilities and sentiment by comparing themselves to others based on cognitive and physical abilities. This suggests that others around us help reason a self- construct of one ego by comparing oneself to another individual. This gives a positive ego regard when sing how we differ. Festinger ‘s early work focused on persons comparing their sentiments with those of others. For illustration when we see equals public presentation it is natural to compare ourselves to them, we merely can non defy this reaction ( Gilborn & A ; other, 1995 ; Staple & A ; Suls, 2004 ) . Already there is similarities between the two theories which can be seen.
Both theories focus on the deductions for Group Formation and Societal Structures. Peoples tend travel out of groups that fail to fulfill their thrust for self-evaluation and conform into groups of similar sentiments and abilities, as them. However the societal individuality theory endeavours to understand inter-group dealingss existent social contexts ( Tejfel 1978 ; Tejfel & A ; Turner 1979 ) . Hogg and Abrams ( 1988 ) argues that people find their ego construct within the classs of which they belong to. Tajfel and Turner ( 1979 ) place particulary of import three variables that was found in ingroup favouritism. 1 ) The extent to which persons identify with an in-group to internalise that group rank as an facet of their self-concept. 2 ) The extent to which the prevailing context provides land for comparing between groups. 3 ) The sensed relevancy of the comparing group, which itself will be shaped by the comparative and absolute position of the in-group. The illustrations ( minimum group surveies ) of Turner and Tajfel ( 1986 ) showed that the basic act of persons categorising themselves as group members was sufficient to take them to expose in-group favoritism. The thought that humans all categorize each other, sometimes subconsciously. Harmonizing to societal place theory people tend to themselves and others in specific societal categorise, based on gender, age, background, faith and so on. This has practical application in many administrations in such respects to policies and ordinances. For illustration the sex favoritism act 1975 and equal chance act 1995. However at the same clip categorizing can hold negative application in society as it can make a division and struggle in groups as one may believe their better so the other. For illustration faith is one of the biggest universe splitter. This can besides originate inquiries, ‘why do people in groups discriminate against each other? ‘ this can dispute by psychologist. However people besides display an out- group homogeneousness prejudice ( Brauer, 2001 ) . This suggests that people by and large view members of out- group being more similar to one another than members of in-group. This can be expressed by placing people as “ White, ” “ Asiatic ” and “ Black ” non gaining each of these cultural group contains sub-groups.
Another similarity of societal comparing theory and societal identify theory is self construct is based of other peoples ‘ opinions. Other people ‘s opinions helps us think good of ourselves. Sociologist Charles H. Cooley ( 1902 ) came up with a thought known as ‘the looking glass ego ‘ . This describes we utilizing others ‘ perceptual experiences of us as a mirror to act upon how we perceive ourselves. George Herbert Mead ( 1934 ) looks farther into this construct, states what defines our self – construct is non how other see us but the manner we imagine how they see us. This can be explain as people fear to take in unfavorable judgments, nevertheless freely accept congratulationss and meditate on the regards. Therefore we may over estimation positive judgements, blow uping our images ( Shrauger & A ; Schoeneman, 1979 ) .
Social comparing and societal individuality is non the lone manner that makes up our self-concept but it is besides our day-to-day experience. Ozer & A ; Bandura, ( 1990 ) found adult females experience less vulnerable, less dying and more in control after calculating psychical accomplishment needed to drive against sexual assaults. This aid us understand that realistic undertaking can be undertaken to win is a positive ego regard and feeling competent. Self esteem come from difficult – earned accomplishment non merely from stating person they making good and how good a individual is.
Culture is another factor that influences self construct which contrasts within both theories. Social comparing theory is chiefly focal point on individuality. Identity is self-contained instead than group designation in individualist states. This applies to those in western civilization. Social individuality theory focuses on corporate ego. Eastern state such as Asia and Africa place a greater value on Bolshevism. Harmonizing to Heine & A ; others ( 1999 ) people have less demand for positive self- respect, alternatively they are more self critical. Kashima & A ; Kashima ( 1998, 2003 ) found that in collectivized states people use the footings ‘I ‘ less when speech production. For illustration a individual might state ‘went to a the menagerie ‘ instead than ‘I went to the menagerie ‘ . This is because of their group individualities.
Self regard is another factor which can be endangering to one ego if it is low. Pigeonholing, favoritism and bias positions play a large function on ego construct and ego esteem. Self regard is based of two factors ; 1 ) personal individuality and 2 ) group individuality ( Tajfel & A ; Turner, 1986 ) . Association with the right in- group helps construct ego esteem nevertheless at the same clip menaces within in- group can be more detrimental so person of the outer group being bias. Self carry throughing prognostication is the most detrimental ways of keeping bias belif even though it is unseeable. This is when an person lives upon the label given to them. Labeling is a opinion made on ego individuality and behavior on an single by description and classs by people who are important others ; person who has authorization or in school it would be the instructors in this instance For illustration, the cultural minority are being called excessively thick to travel into higher instruction as they do non hold the cultural values. From this we can see that societal comparing theory does non analyze ego regard in the same footings as the societal individuality theory.
To reason, most research shows similarities between societal comparing theory and societal individuality attack, there is a large difference which is non clarified. The theories differ when explicating how the ego is formed. Social comparing theory looks at how ‘self ‘ is compared to ‘other single ‘ whereas societal individuality attack looks as how ‘self ‘ is comparison to ‘social groups ‘ .