1. Submitted To: Ma’am Irum Abbasi
Submitted By: Hina Anjum
Submitted On: Sept. 27, 2012
CHAPTER 4
2012
The Self:
Answering the Question “Who Am I?”
ANALYSIS
( F A C U L T Y O F S O C I A L S C I E N C E S - D E P A R T M E N T O F M E D I A & C O M M U N I C A T I O N S T U D I E S )

2. The Self: Answering the Question “Who Am I?”
October 3, 2012
A Formal Analysis of ‘The Self’
In this chapter we learn about the role of norms in social functioning, the nature of
attribution and social explanation, individuals’ concern with others’ evaluations of their
performance, unrealistic optimism and the planning fallacy, the importance of the situation or
context for judgment, the role of stereotyping and discrimination.We can choose various self
presentational tactics, including self-promotion and ingratiation tactics. We face many audiences
and how we present ourselves to others can vary. We attempt to present ourselves to others as
having positive attributes or sometimes we try to make others like us by conveying them we like
them. Self-presentations tactics vary depending on the medium. The internet is a place where we
can seek out general information about the world and become anyone we want to be at any time.
Online interaction allows more latitude for deception than the real world. A focus group study
(Madell & Muncer, 2007) revealed that people feel a greater level of control in asynchronous
communication than in synchronous communication. Because asynchrony allows us to
contemplate our responses which enables us to present ourselves as we would like to be
perceived. We often think we are communicating accurately in text formats, particularly when it
involves sarcasm or humor, but others frequently misunderstand our intentions. As long as we
balance our online interactions with offline communications, we’re likely to maintain a healthy
relationship with this constantly developing technology.
One common method by which we attempt to gain self-knowledge is through
introspection—to privately think who we are and understand why we do what we do. When it
comes to self-queries about why we acted as we did, mistaken results can occur if we do not
have conscious access to the factors that actually influenced our responses, although after the
fact we can and do construct explanations that seem plausible to us. By introspecting about
ourselves we can focus on factors that are not the central ones that drive our responses. Likewise,
we may neglect factors that will moderate our reactions to extreme events in the future, which
results in mispredicting our own likely responses. When we think about our past selves we often
take an observer’s stand point on it, and this leads us to see our past selves in more trait-like
consistent terms.
How we think about ourselves varies depending on where we are on personal-versus-
social identity continuum at any given moment in time. At the personal level, we can be thought
as a unique individual, whereas at the social identity level, we think of the self as a member of a
group. The context can make our different selves differently salient. Both our personal self and
our social selves are equally true. When our different selves come into conflict, it can be an
extremely difficult and painful matter to reconcile them. Self-control is most likely to be

3. achieved when the self is constructed at the most abstract level. Ability to self-control can be
depleted by prior attempts at control. To succeed in changing something about ourselves, we
need to have self-efficacy or feelings that we can accomplish a goal.
Self-esteem is our overall attitude toward us. It can be measured explicitly or implicitly.
One’s attitude can range from positive to negative. Self-esteem is responsive to the treatment we
receive. This is one of the vital reasons for the observed gender difference in self-esteem.
Women are more likely to experience devaluation and discrimination than are men.
Social comparison is a central means by which we evaluate ourselves. To maintain a
positive view of ourselves, we distance ourselves from others who perform better than we do on
valued dimensions and more closer to others who perform worse than us. People generally
manage to evaluate themselves positively. They do so by comparing themselves to others who
are worse off, showing self-serving biases of responsibility for outcomes, unrealistic optimism,
and discrediting negative feedback. People are biased about themselves in ways that flatter them.
They hold beliefs about themselves that are not entirely accurate—that they can do more and the
chances for success are higher for the self than others.
Emotional responses to a negative outcome depend on the attribution made for it. When
the self is seen as a target of pervasive discrimination, it is more harmful for self-esteem than
when it is seen as reflecting a single instance or lone bigot. Stereotype threat occurs when people
believe they might be judged in light of a negative stereotype about their social identity or that
they may inadvertently act in some way to confirm a negative stereotype of their group (Steele,
1997). Stereotype threat effects are difficult to control, and they can be induced easily. When
people experience stereotype threat, they can distance themselves from the task domain, or they
can distance themselves from the group as a whole. Anxiety appears to be the mechanism by
which stereotype threat effects occur. However self-report measures of anxiety often fail to
reveal its importance, but nonverbal measures has illustrated its important role. Stereotype threat
research reveals how our group memberships can affect our self-concepts and performance on
tasks we care deeply about. At the end of analysis of this chapter I have learn how to manage the
self in different contexts, how to manage when there is conflict among our identities and how to
answer the question “Who Am I?”