On William James and the "Self"

James' chapter on the self focuses on the difference between the "I" and the "Me" and also how they contribute to form the self. Within the "Me" there are subclasses such as the empirical me, material me, social me, and spiritual me. James argues that we all have a form of these subclasses working together in unity. Some of these classes are sometimes shown more hierarchal importance than others according to certain situations. I agree with the theory that we have different parts of ourselves. The material me is the most superficial constituent - our clothes, home, and ornaments. "We all have a blind impulse to watch over our body, to deck it with clothing of an ornamental sort, to cherish parents, wife, and babes, and to find for ourselves a house of our own which we may live in and improve" (p. 45). I do not agree with James on the importance of clothes. I do not think clothes play a significant role in the formation of "me." Family, on the other hand, is one of the most critical and human elements that contribute to the formation of self. I believe we have an innate, and evolutionary, instinct to preserve, protect, and cherish family. Next is the social me, the me that requires recognition from others. I feel better when I am recognized and appreciated by others who care about me, or whom I feel are significant in my life. It gives me direction and motivation to continue on my path. "Properly speaking, a man has as many social selves as there are individuals who recognize him" (p. 46). This is a side of us that I sometimes am ashamed of. Why must we change around different people? Why can we not remain true to ourselves in every situation? I realized in the course of this reading that we are not really changing ourselves or conforming, but living according to civilized rules, bounded by regulation. A teacher, by role, deserves respect, and I must be much more humble and willing to listen. A best friend is someone with whom I can be more casual, someone whom I can relax around. In both situations I have not changed who I am. I am still me. I simply am following social restrictions. Finally, the spiritual me: "the entire collection of my states of consciousness" (p. 48). I understand this self less than the others. I think James is referring to my spirit as in the collection of my emotions and desires, the very core of myself. Our sense of self is a dynamic one. It will change and evolve according to experiences and growth. In this I must also say that our sense of self is also a homeostatic one. If you take a "time averaged mean" of your sense of self you will realize that very little has actually changed. I think that we change our self to accommodate to certain situations. James concludes with a description of the self as knower, as thinker, as what we refer to as "I." I think Cooley explains it best when he writes, "It [the "I"] might also, and perhaps more justly, be compared to the nucleus of a living cell, not altogether separate from the surrounding matter, out of which indeed it is formed, but more active and definitely organized." The "I" combines individual ideas to form complex thoughts. It is whom you speak to when thinking to yourself. I think the self-knower is not a different entity but a unified collection of all your thoughts, memories, and emotions. It is the governing body of all your choices and decisions. [Sean Kumar, 2004]

I had a very difficult time when faced with the task of representing myself in just three words. For every word I could come up with, I could think of a counter argument as to why the word would not suit me in a certain situation. For this reason, I considered choosing “conflicted” as one of my words, which concerned me to a certain extent. However, I think James's “Constituents of the Me” (p. 44) - although far from the only explanation - offers some insight as to why it is so difficult to settle on specific words. The words I chose to characterize “the material me,” differed from those I chose to describe “the social me,” and “the spiritual me.” James writes, “I am often confronted by the necessity of standing by one of my empirical selves and relinquishing the rest” (p. 53), and also that “different characters may conceivably at the outset of life be alike possible to a man. But to make any of them actual, the rest must more or less be suppressed. So the seeker of his truest, strongest, deepest self must review the list carefully, and pick out the one on which to stake his salvation” (p. 53). At this point in my life I haven't picked the self “on which to stake [my] salvation.” This being so, there exists what James described as the “Rivalry and Conflict of the Different Mes” (p. 53). Even deeper within the constituents of the me, there is discord between the different social Mes. Many of the words I initially chose held true in describing who I am when I am with close friends or family, but didn't fit in the least to describe who I am with classmates working on a project, or fit the social me who is a working employee, but not the me who is mentoring a younger child. For example, I would consider myself “patient,” in regards to my interaction with my friends and family, but I am quite the opposite when dealing with people I work with or with mere acquaintances. This inconsistency is a result of what James considers “practically…a division of the man into several selves” (p 47), and the consequence is extreme difficulty in deciding on three words that fit your whole self.
     I also find it interesting that James writes “A man has as many social selves as there are individuals who recognize him and carry an image of him in their mind…[and] as the individuals who carry these images fall naturally into classes, we may practically say that he has as many different social selves as there are distinct groups of persons about whose opinion he cares” (p. 46). The irony I recognize is that as a society we tend to look down and condemn people who are “fake,” which we define as being “untrue to oneself,” and which we recognize by their erratic behavior and personalities dependent on whom they are with. The way James defines the social self, they actually are being true to themselves…all of themselves, rather than choosing one “me” on which to “stake his salvation.” Do James's ideas only apply to the differences in the way a security guard treats his prisoners versus how he treats his children? Or can they be applied to a situation where a man is completely different with two groups of friends? If it is reasonable to extend these ideas to situations like this (which I think it is), then is it fair to call a person of whom this is true “fake”? Or are they merely being all of their different selves?[Casey Pete, 2004]

While reading Freud I could not help but continuously compare and connect his theories to those of James. The relationship between the “ego” and the “self” was a constant thought in the back of my mind while I tried to breakdown yet another view about why humans do and feel certain things. Most prominently, is Freud's “ego” his explanation of “self”? There seems to be a strong tie between Freud's “ego” and James's “I,” as well as, between the “id” and the “me." To begin, the cartoon effectively portrayed Freud's general explanation of “the unconscious.” The different factors of mind seem logical and clearly set-up analysis of the ego. When first reading about the superego, I was slightly confused about one aspect of the idea. I am curious about the development of the superego and whether or not it changes over time. When thinking about the point at which the superego, and even the unconscious, exists, I pondered the relationship to the ethical dilemma of abortion. Is the superego something that makes a being human, or does one develop a superego only after he or she has a sense of “self”?
      Reading the passage from Freud's actual work further stimulated my interests in the unconscious and the ego. First of all, the phrase, “the most vivid memory is always distinguishable both from hallucination and from an external perception,” caught my eye (p. 13). I found this interesting because I feel that no matter how vivid a memory may seem, it is always altered, even to the slightest amount, the instant after the memory comes to exist. Freud somewhat accounts for this when he explains that “when a memory is revived the cathexis remains in the mnemic system, whereas a hallucination, which is not distinguishable from perception, can arise when the cathexis does not merely spread over the memory trace…but passes over to it entirely” (p. 13). It seems that he is saying that the essence of the memory can only be seen as it enters the system, but it is immediately altered thereafter. I find this to be true, especially when thinking about how two people can tell different stories when recounting the same event. Further, in his discussion of sensations, pleasurable and unpleasureable, I was initially opposed to his contention that “we interpret unpleasure as implying a heightening and pleasure a lowering of energic cathexis” (p. 15). I connected the word “pleasure” with “excitement” and thought that if a person feels a sense of pleasure he would want more and more of it. However, when I thought more about it I realized that if you feel pleasurable you know what it is that made you that way, so do not need to do much work to feel that sense again. Unpleasurable senses, on the other hand, require that you figure out what brought about the negative feeling. You must then decide how to change it, which requires more energy. I also saw a connection between Freud's thought that “a person's own body attains its special position among other objects in the world of perception” and James's “material self.” It may seem like an obvious point that the body ranks higher then many other things, but I feel it is important to acknowledge this. Last, I found Freud's discussion about the origin of the Oedipus complex remarkable. My only question left unanswered is what happens when one of the parents in not in the picture? Does a child then seek the absent relationship in another adult? And how does this effect the development of the Oedipus complex? [Sophie Schlosser, 2004]

Where to begin? Sigmund Freud has laid the groundwork for our contemporary idea of the psychoanalytical field. Freud first divided the brain into functions: Conscious, Preconscious, and Unconscious. The conscious works to perceive the external environment and it is the level at which all of our though processes occur. The preconscious is where our memories reside, which at any moment may break into the conscious and which can easily be recalled, thus influencing our current thought. Finally the unconscious, the most mysterious and arguably the most significant drive, our sexual desires, our urges and memories which represent the bulk of an individual's past experience all lie in the unconscious. The unconscious threatens to destabilize the mind with its memories and impulses, but these feelings cannot be called into the conscious. They can, however, be noticed in dreams, Freudian slips, and free associations. This step-by-step, organized process makes sense to me. Instead of a flood ideas floating around in my head, my mind is systematically organized and separated, yet also connected. I can call forth ideas that I may need, but also repress things that could potentially hurt me (evolutionary adaptation?). However, is it always good to repress that reservoir of feelings laying in your unconscious? I wouldn't think so. We all have experienced a moment where we break down, our unconscious comes pouring forth saying things you had no idea were within you; usually this is triggered by some sort of external factor. I saw this in my mother after my grandfather died. Her initial reaction was stoic, but then randomly (or maybe not random) a few weeks later she saw his clothing and smelt his presence and immediately broke down into tears. Integrated with this functional system is the tri-brain theory: id, ego and superego. In constant rivalry for power, each force influences your every behavior. It is the ego, however, that makes the decisions and finalizes your behavior. It is the ego that is the captain, and it accordingly represses or accepts the primordial feelings of the id and is guided by the morality of the superego. I believe in this theory. I am constantly in conflict, most of the time unknowingly. After a night of partying, I have an 8:30 am class. Should I wake up, go to class, learn the material, and succeed later on, or should I get my immediate pleasurable sleep? This simple example is something I often deal with, and my ego guides me. We all have the person we would want to be in our mind - that is our ego ideal. For me specifically, I want to be a doctor who is knowledgeable, caring, and understanding. This ideal is one of the constituents that fuels my drive to work hard and succeed in college. [Sean Kumar, 2004]

According to Erikson, adolescence is marked by continuous conflict and confusion. Adolescents look desperately for a role model to follow and trust while at the same time mistrusting and questioning authority. Erikson gives examples of many paradoxes: “He [the adolescent] would rather act shamelessly in the eyes of his elders, out of free choice, than to be forced into activities which would be shameful in his own eyes or in those of his peers” (p. 129). These conflicting thoughts lead to frustration and disdain toward others or toward himself. Pressured by society and our “social clock,” adolescents are almost rushed into finding their true calling, an occupation, and even an intimate partner with which to share his identity “for the social institution which is the guardian of identity…” (p.133). How often have we seen college students infatuated with one field just randomly drop it and move on to another, change majors, create new cliques of friends, and even on a superficial level change a sense of style? Erikson says this process is natural and even healthy because those who resolve it have confirmed a solid sense of identity and have a high sense of confidence in society. It is through these trials of identity confusion that an adolescent eventually forms a sense of self. Interestingly, Erikson differs from Freud when describing the evolution of self. Freud advocated the levels of consciousness as our guiding forces deciding the formation of our identity. Freud specifically focused on the unconscious, the engine of our identity, constantly fueling our mind with ideas and thoughts that influence our very behavior without our complete knowledge. Our innate, primordial, biological drives laying paradoxically active and dormant in our minds are the primary factors influencing our identity. Erikson, on the other hand, believes that the most important force driving human behavior and the development of personality are our social interactions with society, peers, and intimate partners, and how one relates his identity to his role in society, his "purpose." I have a difficult time ruling out Freud's more biological and instinctual theory on the formation of self because it is clear that often behavior cannot simply be explained by how one relates to society. There seems to be some sort of underlying factor (the unconscious) guiding behavior. Clinical cases of phobias or traumatic experiences are excellent examples of the power of the unconscious. I also believe that Erikson is correct that society, especially now, plays a critical role in identity formation. It is most likely a combination of Erikson's psychosocial theory and Freud's level of consciousnesses that contribute to the formation of self. The key here is integration. If one can manage to integrate one's primordial needs with society's pressures and one's own desires, then I believe an individual has formed a strong identity. [Sean Kumar, 2004]

Erikson states that “beyond identity” could come to mean “there is more to man's core than identity, that there is in fact in each individual an 'I,' an observing center of awareness and of volition, which can transcend and must survive the psychosocial identity” (p. 135). I learned in a social psychology class that identity can be defined as “the most public aspect of the self; the self we enact.” One can have multiple identities, and our psychosocial identities are formed from our social worlds. I agree with Erikson that all individuals have an “I” at the center of their awareness, or, as William James stated, the “I” is the self as knower, completely conscious of his environment; however, I disagree that the “I” is the center of volition, or preference. Although some may say that we make our own decisions about things, I do not think we make these decisions entirely ourselves, which leads to my argument that the psychosocial identity survives and transcends the “I.” When we begin to form our identities, we use influences from our social relationships to characterize who we are. I child might say he is funny, but where did he get that characteristic of his identity? He may have thought on his own that he is indeed funny, but I think that for him to have had that thought about himself, someone had to have told him he was funny, or perhaps he always made people laugh and from this reaction believed he in fact was funny. His environment and relationships influenced this comical aspect of his identity. Thus, our social structure limits/restrains and encourages the views we have of our self which in turn shapes our identities, which influences our “I.” Would Erikson be apt to say our psychosocial identity coincides with our “me” because it is what the “I” is conscious of?

“The ancient question 'Who Am I' leads inevitably to the equally important question of 'Whose am I' for there is not self outside of relationship.” --Parker Palmer [Jennifer Glenn, 2004]

“I think I can! I think I can! I think I can!” This quote from The Little Engine that Couldwas used in the Disney movie Dumbo, an animated tale of a young elephant that explores the “self-esteem” issue. As a young elephant with abnormal ears, Dumbo struggled not only to fit in his community but to accept his unusual appearance. Although he encountered great difficulties, a friend helped him to overcome both the harsh environment and his negative view of himself. In realizing his special gift inherent in his ears, he grew to appreciate his abnormality and live without regrets.
     So the question arises: was Dumbo made simply for entertainment purposes?
     I believe the creators designed the achievements of this special elephant to educate children about their perception of themselves. Dumbo's ability to overcome societal antagonism would hopefully illustrate the importance of self-confidence and individuality; in other words, Dumbo enlightened children about their “self-esteem.” Dumbo demonstrated that to be successful, one must feel good about one's self and shun social criticism. Even Socrates agreed with this notion, as he believed that the athlete who listens to those without understanding would harm himself (Crito, p. 71).
     Why would someone bother to write a story such as Dumbo? In the February 17, 1992, Newsweek article entitled, “Hey, I'm Terriffic!” Dave Ehlen says that “self-esteem is a basic building block on which personal effectiveness is based” (p.178). This idea seems to be built on the foundations of Erick Erikson, a stage theorist who believed that the concept of trust/mistrust is fostered at an early age in child development. Erikson believed that a healthy environment helps to foster a child's trust in others. He also proposed that the issue of industry/self-doubt is confronted early in the developmental process. At this time the child learns to trust his own abilities or fear his lack of competence. If a child is not acknowledged for his successes, nor encouraged to overcome his failures, his self-esteem is put at risk. James Weiss indicated in the Newsweek article that “a sense of self, grounded in a sense of personal competence and supported by people who think I am a valuable and worthy person, is a requisite for productive learning to occur” (p. 179).
     Clearly, the concern over “self-esteem” is at the forefront in the psychology community. If a child believes in himself, he is more likely to succeed. If he receives continual praise from his mentors, his feeling of self-confidence and self-appreciation will be well protected from the overpowering environment (“Sorting Out the Self-Esteem Controversy”). Thus, it seems appropriate for children to watch movies like Dumbo, which foster the notion that individuals can succeed in the face of adversity if they have confidence in their own abilities. [Jeremy Klein, 2004]

It is quite evident the debate over self-esteem and its potential impact on academic achievements and healthy lifestyles has taken the academic community by storm. But the issues of self-esteem, although not yet labeled as such, had been thoroughly analyzed by intellectuals centuries ago. Aristotle in particular seemed to be closest to modern-day self-esteem theorists in his analytic approach to his study of human nature. Aristotle believed that all human beings seek pleasant things, but only those with virtue receive pleasure from doing virtuous deeds. Aristotle additionally stressed the importance of temperance - a temperate person finds no pleasure in vices, but instead seeks only virtuous things, all in moderation. Thus, a virtuous person is simply content with himself; he is not conceited, for that would not uphold his condition of temperance, nor bashful, for that would be a deficiency of his character.
     Do these insights of Aristotle hold any bearing in our contemporary discussion of self-esteem? I believe it does. Alfie Kohn writes that “feeling good about oneself is linked to a variety of constructive life choices.” (p. 274) Logically, this correlates to Aristotle's theory - to do good, one must do good things; and feeling good results from such actions. Kohn further writes that “even if low self-esteem were initially associated with delinquent behavior, this very behavior might then serve to enhance self-esteem” (p. 274). When Kohn says “enhance,” I interpret it as an increase of pleasure. As Aristotle would declare, an evil-doer would find doing evil pleasant because everyone's actions are aimed to achieve happiness. But finding pleasure does not make someone virtuous; he who has virtue instead finds pleasure in doing virtuous things. People who do delinquent acts are thus not virtuous. However, since these evil-doers are aware of their actions, they are also aware of their lack of virtue. To avoid feelings of pain, they convince themselves that such evil-doing brings them pleasure. Thus, criminals [and bullies] are aware of their vices; instead of trying to fix their evil tendencies through habituation, they learn to accept who they are, and even feel good about it. Does this mean they have good self-esteem? They may feel like they do, but the foundation of their self-esteem is not supported by a just character. As such, children must learn at an early age not that they possess high self-esteem, but instead how to acquire and maintain a good [i.e., virtuous] self-image.
     To tell [without reason] a child that they are the best and perfect angels is harmful for their character. Encouragement such as this promotes arrogance, which is a vice. Even Kohn agrees, as he writes that “self-esteem programs fix each child's attention on his or her separate self.” (p. 277) Instead, constructive criticism and positive reinforcement should be offered, so as to fix any non-virtuous behavior and to maintain virtues. In this way, children may learn how to be virtuous and may build a stable self-esteem that leads to pleasure but is still guided by reason. For those who have virtue will be content with themselves. [Jeremy Klein, 2004]

From a very early age, I have been involved in athletic competition, namely baseball. Although each coach I have had over the years approached the game differently, all shared the basic understanding that winning and losing is a team experience. Everyone is familiar with the phrase, “There is no I in team.” But whenever a coach says this, all the kids wittingly reply, “but there is a me.” Is it bad that athletes adopt this mindset at such an early age - the mindset that individual achievement plays a significant role in a team's success?
     Bandura and others have studied self-efficacy and its role in personal achievement. Bandura concluded that “the types of outcomes people anticipate depend largely on their judgments of how well they will be able to perform in given situations” (p. 141). In other words, to believe that you can succeed is half the battle of victory. Without confidence in one's own capabilities, it remains difficult to perform at one's best. To not believe is to doubt oneself, and doubt encourages reliance on others.
     Every coach that I have had over the years understood this concept and promoted individual self-confidence. Although they all believed that sports should be a team effort, not one of them could refute the importance of individual achievement. As such, every coach would always tell his players, “it only takes one.”
     About 10 years ago, I was up in the bottom of the 9th, two outs, and the bases were loaded. With my team down by two, and all the hopes of a championship riding on my shoulders, my dad/ head coach called a timeout. What he said was the simple truth: “do it now, or wait until next season. It only takes one! Now go do it!” I went up to the plate and, standing confident, swung at the first pitch and won the game. I believed in myself, and I used this confidence to propel me [and my team] to victory. My personal experience supports Zimmerman's conclusion that “students' self-beliefs about academic capabilities do play an essential role in their motivation to achieve” (p. 144). Success is achieved by action, but action is encouraged by confidence. Thus success relies more on self-belief because it dictates what we do and how well we perform. [Jeremy Klein, 2004]

Bandura suggested that “the types of outcomes people anticipate depend largely on their judgments of how well they will be able to perform in given situations” (p. 140). What I like most about this statement is that it reflects case-specific analysis. To me, the idea behind self-efficacy beliefs, specifically that they are not tested using generalizations, is appealing. The idea of self-efficacy is similar to James's theories on the “Self,” which I accepted far easier than beliefs about self-esteem. The idea of focusing on “performance capabilities rather then personal qualities” is broken down into several parts. Further, when assessing self-efficacy, you ask questions about academic scenarios that are specific as regards their subject and environment. In addition, you are able to evaluate a student's self-efficacy level, generality, and strength. Zimmerman then explain how self-efficacy beliefs can help predict familiar and specified tasks, which makes sense because people feel differently in different situations. Once a person has encountered a certain scenario, when she comes across a comparable scenario in the future she is likely to remember what happened the first time. This relates to James's idea of the “Social Me” in that people put on different acts when they socialize with different groups of people. The usefulness of self-efficacy recognition is further supported by Pajares, who “demonstrated that the predictiveness of self-efficacy measures increases as a function of both their specificity and correspondence to a skill” (p. 142).
      Moreover, I also see the whole idea of case-specificity in James's beliefs about the self, primarily the “Me” and the “I.” First of all, the “Me” is broken down into three separate areas, which helps develop the idea that a person is not only one thing, but rather there are different areas of recognition that work cohesively. Then there is the “I” that essentially sorts everything out to make a decision. This sorting is case-specific in that the knower combines the many inflows to produce the decision. Self-esteem is far from case-specific and therefore is not very useful when it comes to predicting academic behavior. As shown in numerous cases, is difficult to make any actual conclusions from assessing responses to things in general. Also, high self-esteem for one person may result in destructiveness, while in another person it may result in achievement. This becomes clear in the continuous debate over whether children who hurt others (for example, are involved in school shootings) have high or low self-esteem. It is impossible to base methods for improvement on such an ambiguous idea.
      I am unclear about how actual intelligence comes into play when assessing self-efficacy. Evidence supports the view that self-efficacious students show higher achievement and more desire to challenge themselves, but what if these kids are simply smarter? Essentially, what is the link between actual intelligence, or IQ, and self-efficacy beliefs? [Sophie Schlosser, 2004]

Pajares's study of the relationship between self-efficacy and invitations proved enjoyable. Each student had a unique past experience that shaped their current self-efficacy beliefs and actual competence. I found the intentionally disinvited student, Jane, to be the most intriguing. I was amazed at her ability to cultivate her writing skills despite the negative comments from her teacher. However, what I was most captivated by was the teacher's absurdly negative attitude toward what was obviously not an abysmal writing ability. This sentence forced me to investigate possible reasons pertaining to why the teacher was so harsh: “Jane does not understand why her teacher was so critical and unkind about her writing, or why she chose to belittle rather than instruct” (p. 21). I came upon an article written by Peter Doolittle of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University discussing teacher self-efficacy. I found the relationship between student self-efficacy and teacher self-efficacy to be quite informative. “A review of [teaching self-efficacy] studies by Kagan (1992) found that self-efficacious teachers were more apt to use praise, rather than criticism, to persevere with low-achieving students, to be task oriented, to be more accepting of students, and to raise their achievement levels. In contrast, low-efficacy teachers devoted less class time to class-related activity, spent more time criticizing students, and gave up on 'problem students' more quickly” (p. 17). I wonder if Jane's teacher did not believe in her abilities to teach, and therefore used Jane as her scapegoat. [Rachel Einstein-Sim, 2004]

Pajares suggests that Mary may have further exceeded boundaries if she had “been more consistently and intentionally” (p. 17) encouraged in her writing skills. While I believe if that had happened she may indeed have accomplished more, I also wonder at what point such encouragement or expectations are so high as to put excessive pressure on a student so that they may feel they might fail or so that they feel compelled to succeed to a greater degree for the satisfaction of others but no longer for the satisfaction of the self and thus develop a dislike for that subject or task.
      While I think John's lack of development in writing due to the “disinvitation” of his father (p. 20) is unfortunate, I also think it is important to ask if every student should be in an environment in which certain skills should be developed. In other words, if John is going to be a PE instructor, is it OK for him to have less developed skills in writing, just as Mary might excel in writing but have less developed athletic skills? Furthermore, is it possible or feasible for all students to equally develop, or to be provided an equal opportunity to equally develop, the same skills?
      I wonder if Freud's theory on repressed thoughts and feelings can explain a portion of these students' performances. I say this because I seriously doubt that every time John sat down to write something – whether it be a school paper or a short note – he consciously recalled his father's comment about him misspelling his name on the card and that he should “learn to throw a football” (p. 19). However, according to Freud, that would be a thought – as well as the associated feelings it elicited in John at the time – that might be filed away somewhere in his mind but unconsciously still has an impact and keeps coming back to affect John's actions and self-efficacy. [Wendy Moses, 2004]

The claim made by Wigfield and Eccles that “during …adolescence, perceptions of physical appearance and social acceptance relate most strongly to children's feelings of self worth” (p. 163) rings true for anyone who can remember the first year of middle school. At a time of growth spurts, developing muscles, developing chests, the rapid fire application and removal of braces, and physical changes in every direction, appearance is bound to reign superior over any other component of self-concept. Erikson identifies this period as a time of “identity crisis.” During adolescence, teenagers struggle to “integrate the disparate aspects of self” (p. 162) or, as DiFonzo and Lerner wrote in Adolescent Identity Formation, “achieving a sense of identity is the major emotional and social task of adolescence and involves defining who one is, what one's values are, and which direction one will pursue in life” (p. 16). Beyond being preoccupied with the physical changes taking place in their bodies, outward appearance, or what James would identify as a component of the “Material Me,” is the easiest to change. Adolescents often experiment with different “looks,” changing hair styles, colors, make-up, clothing, and jewelry in their quest to define, redefine, and eventually find an identity for themselves. Their constantly changing outward appearance and their fixation on appearance is a visible demonstration of the conflict in an adolescent's mind.
     Cooley's “Looking Glass Self” helps to determine the pervasive role of social acceptance in an adolescent's feeling of self worth. Teenagers who are searching to form an identity look to how their peers perceive them in order to form a concept of who they are. If they are socially accepted, and their peers view them in high regard, they will have a positive self image and a higher self worth, whereas the reverse will be true in an opposite situation.
     “One of the challenges for middle school educators is that the perceived importance of school often decreases during adolescence because many adolescents begin to see social activities as more important to them at this time, and like those activities much more than academic tasks” (p. 164). The fear is that if students do not believe school and education to be of great importance, they will lose their academic motivation and concentrate on those areas which they perceive to be important, such as looks and sociability. Some schools have met this challenge with strictly enforced dress codes and uniforms, attempting to put everyone on an equal level. However, as we discussed after reading James, our self is much more than what is inside our head. It extends to our clothing and possessions. To limit students' expression through their clothes can dampen their search for identity leading to further crisis down the road. The goal for middle schools ought to be to find a balance between reinforcing the importance of education in the minds of students and allowing them to express themselves and interact in a natural social environment that they may begin a journey to discover their true selves. [Casey Pete, 2004]

In the conclusion of their discussion on the development and implications of perceived goal orientations, Anderman et al. present data that suggest that as students get older and make their way through higher levels of education, their goal orientations take on a U-shaped function. In other words, students begin with a mastery goal orientation in elementary school, tend to show decreases in mastery goal orientation and increases in performance goal orientation in middle school, and, as they progress through high school, again begin to show more of a mastery goal than a performance goal orientation. My hypothesis for this finding is that as students grow older and experience higher levels of education, the material they are learning becomes more meaningful to them as regards their future and therefore helps facilitate the adoption of a mastery goal orientation. By the time students reach the college level, the area of study in which they focus is primarily of the student's choosing, and the financial burden of going to school rests more heavily on the student and his or her family. This "personalization of education" for the student makes learning more important because it now clearly serves as a direct precursor for future success. With the stakes being so much higher for the student, the motivation to learn because the information is important becomes the strongest driving force for continuing education.
      I found a related study, “Predicting high school students' cognitive engagement and achievement: Contributions of classroom perceptions and motivation,” which was conducted by Greene et al. (2004) and was published in issue 29 of Contemporary Educational Psychology. In the conclusion, Greene et al. state that, “although previous research had supported the influence of perceived classroom goal structures on student goal adoption and self-efficacy (Anderman & Midgley, 1997; Blackburn, 1998; Roeser et al., 1996), the present findings are the first to support the claim that perceptions of classroom tasks as meaningful, relevant, and interesting (motivating tasks) also influence the extent to which students perceive current learning as instrumental to their future success” (p.484). For me, this means that high school students are more likely to hold mastery goals if the curriculum in the classroom is presented in such a way that it is viewed as important for the students' interests and future goals. So, in math class, when one raises the question to the teacher, “Why do I need to know any of this stuff?” rather than telling the student some cheesy answer like, “Math can be implemented in almost every aspect of life,” the teacher could instead develop a set of projects that are fun and entertaining and at the same time show how math can be used in a multitude of important, practical applications.
      In Emile, Rousseau suggests that the best way for man to learn is through nature and that a student can be truly motivated to want to learn through building a curiosity of the world as it is in nature. He states in paragraphs 563 and 564 of Book III:

No book but the world, no teaching but that of fact. The child who reads does not think, he only reads. He is not being taught; he is only learning words. Make your child attentive to the phenomena of nature; soon you will make him curious. But to nurture his curiosity, never hasten to satisfy it. Put questions within his reach and let him solve them himself. Let him know nothing because you have told him, but because he has learnt it for himself. Let him not be taught science, let him invent it.

      For Rousseau, the only way students are going to be motivated to learn is through their curiosity. Curiosity can only come through some kind of intrinsic motivation to know something about a subject because extrinsic motivation, which relates to performance goals, is motivation based on rewards and recognition—neither of which come from simply being curious. Therefore, if students are allowed to explore their interests in school, and learn more from experimentation and individual analysis, they are more likely to remain curious and in turn, be motivated to learn for learning's sake. [Amber Duvall, 2004]

In the study of self efficacy, Zimmerman sets up four types of experiences which are able to influence a student's self-efficacy (p. 143). Among these is “verbal persuasion,” which involves someone attempting to alter a student's self efficacy by telling the student his or her beliefs about the student's ability. It seems appropriate to place praise, a generally “success-contingent” extrinsic reward, under this category. Logically, it seems as though hearing one is good at something would encourage one to be more interested and more motivated. Chance argues that intrinsic rewards “are insufficient for learning.…The teacher must supplement intrinsic rewards with extrinsic rewards. This means not only telling students when they have succeeded, but also praising, complimenting, applauding, and providing other forms of recognition for good work (p. 120). Although Kohn's main arguments were against tangible extrinsic rewards (which Chance also recognizes as potentially harmful), he also seems to believe there is a danger in verbally praising students. Chance and Zimmerman both recognize this danger in the area of encouragement. Zimmerman writes that “verbal persuasion has [a] …limited impact on students' self efficacy because outcomes are described, not directly witnessed, and thus depend on the credibility of the persuader” (p. 143). Chance then applies this to his analysis of verbal encouragement, concluding that “the power of encouragement is ultimately dependent on the occurrence of the implied consequences. If the teacher tells Billy he can do it and if he tries and fails, future urging by the teacher will be less effective” (p. 120). It seems students will be discouraged from an activity if they are told they are capable and then fail, or if their beliefs of their success or effort conflict with what their superior has told them.
      Both authors agree in the potential harm of encouragement and punishment, but what is to be said of an occasional “good job” or “way to go”? Chance seems to be in favor, deeming this praise an “information reward…[and] even researchers who criticize contractual rewards do not normally object to informational rewards”(p. 126). I agree, and believe it is possible that a complete lack of praise in the classroom will extend to students an “unintentional disinvitation” to learn. In a description of a student unintentionally disinvited from writing, Pajares writes, “His parents did not express disappointment with his average grades in English ('they sort of took it for granted') and showed no interest in his written work” (p. 19). On the other hand, in the same study, “a mother's invitation encouraged increased effort and renewed pride in one child” (p. 20). It seems plausible then that praise, as a verbal persuasion, can lead to invitations for self-efficacy, whereas lack of praise can lead to disinvitations. Praise is a powerful tool, and no one will deny that it must be used carefully, some will argue, sparingly. But I believe that a certain amount is necessary to develop confident, eager, and interested learners. [Casey Pete, 2004]

On Aronson and "stereotype threat"

To examine the trend of underachievement among African American and Latino students, we must first discover the source of the problem. Joshua Aronson writes that “even in the absence of differential treatment, stereotypes can spoil a person's experience - in school or in many social situations - just by suggesting to the target of a stereotype that a negative label might apply to one's self or one's group” (p. 281). The simple knowledge that a stereotype exists is often enough to produce characteristic behavior in line with that particular stereotype. If African American students are aware of the image of intellectual inferiority that many whites consider to be true for blacks, they will wonder whether the stereotype is true for them and will begin to worry whether their behavior reflects this negative view. If a teacher reinforces this notion by avoiding asking the student challenging questions or by lowering the standards, the teacher is in fact hindering the student's ability to perform. In a sense, these minority groups begin to believe the prejudices imposed on them. Whether it is poor school performance or delinquent criminal behavior, these groups often confirm the very behaviors that they are trying to disprove.
      Aronson notes that there is a body of research which shows that minorities may be “hyperaware” of the negative expectations placed on their groups. These groups will inevitably fall into a particular stereotype because they are so preoccupied with others' beliefs about them that they cannot perform to the best of their abilities. Charles Cooley writes that “the thing that moves us to pride or shame is not the mere mechanical reflection of ourselves, but an imputed sentiment, the imagined effect of this reflection upon another's mind” (p. 3). If Cooley and Aronson are correct that the judgments of others have a significant impact on our "selves" and our actions, how can educators reduce this impending threat in the academic arena? Once again, schools can implement programs that emphasize the belief that intelligence is malleable. According to Anderman, classrooms that focus on task mastery goals are those in which “the teacher and students define success in terms of progress and improvement, place a high value on effort and learning, feel a sense of satisfaction from taking on challenges, and view mistakes as part of the learning process” (p. 198). This type of learning environment emphasizes a student's effort rather than performance. These programs would significantly reduce the risk of stereotypical behavior among minority groups. [Jessica Levin, 2004]

Deci and Ryan explored the concept of motivation in the context of two behaviors, autonomous and controlled behaviors. Autonomous behaviors are “freely pursued and wholly endorsed by the self” and controlled behaviors are “pressured and directed” (p. 63). They showed that if students perceive their behavior to be controlled, they will effectively lose interest and motivation to continue with the task. Similarly, if students perceive their behavior to be of their own accord, or autonomous, they will accordingly be more willing to apply effort to the task and be intrinsically motivated. The authors write that “people would prefer to feel like an 'origin' rather than a 'pawn' with respect to the regulation of their behavior” (p. 64). Deci and Ryan, like Dweck, showed that intrinsic motivation positively affects a child's conceptual understanding, achievement, and interest, whereas extrinsic motivations do the opposite. Thus, we see again that supporting and enhancing intrinsic motivation is a large part of getting a child to succeed. Deci and Ryan suggest that the best way to enhance this intrinsic motivation is by supporting autonomous behavior. They cite that this is best done by “acknowledging and recognizing the student's desires and feelings and moves on from there” (p. 68). Furthermore, they give an example of this support: “Using an autonomy-supportive style, adults accept that a student might find the material boring or that it is not optimal for his or her skill level, and then the adults might explain why the material is important or they might adjust the difficulty level, as seems appropriate at the time. The idea quite simply, concerns being responsive to the student rather than simply being demanding of him or her” (p. 69). This is such a simple idea, and yet it is so infrequently seen. It seems to me that most adults tend to hold the view that they are the adults and the children are just children and must behave according to the adults' wishes. In my experience in schools, teachers do not ask a child how he feels or what he wants. Instead, teachers simply demand things of their students and "lay down the law." It often seems, especially for the most rebellious students, that the more a teacher pushes or demands, the more students misbehave in an effort to prove their independence. This seems counterproductive and nothing more than a battle of wills. Such an environment certainly is not conducive to learning or teaching. Deci and Ryan seem to have caught onto something quite obvious.
      A former guest on an Oprah Winfrey show, Ron Clark is a teacher in Harlem. He is a white man who did not have any intentions of being a teacher when he was going through school. Through the course of events, Clark ended up teaching and soon heard about the need for good teachers in East Harlem. So he moved from his position in North Carolina to pursue this opportunity. Clark was not being paid any more than the other teachers in the school and thus had no additional extrinsic rewards for doing this. He simply wanted to help. Clark employs a unique teaching style in his classroom that coincides with the ideas cited by Deci and Ryan. He teaches with autonomy supportive methods—they are the entire foundation to his teaching. Clark believes that students deserve as much respect for who they are as he does, even though he is the adult and the teacher. When he first arrived at the school, Clark would spend his lunch hour learning to Double Dutch with the children instead of spending his time in the teachers' lounge. He showed the students that he had a vested interest in their personalities, their interests, and their culture. The students were excited when Clark learned how to do the activity that they had taught him, Double Dutching. The students not only bonded with Clark, but they got to see first hand how rewarding (intrinsically) it was to succeed. In this case the success was not academic, but Clark knew that the children needed something positive to build on. And he carried this foundation to his classroom. The curriculum in his classroom is largely based on what is happening in his students' lives. He tries to engage them in any way possible to hold their interest. He said that, through his curriculum, he “tries to help them become complete individuals and to love life.” He does this by “modeling behavior that he expects from them.” This and the entire respect system that he upholds in his classroom is a good example of how to support autonomous behavior and create intrinsic motivation as well as identified and integrated extrinsic motivation. Clark does not tell these children what to do or how to behave. He does not control them by commanding them or disciplining them. Rather, he works with them. For example, when children misbehave, Clark will take them aside and ask them what they think they did wrong. Clark will then ask them what they think are various ways of handling the situation, and what would be the most appropriate. Once they have come to an agreement on the best form of behavior, he allows them to return to class and try again. This way, the children perceive that their adjusted behavior is autonomous, and they put more effort into maintaining it.
      This is exactly what Deci and Ryan were suggesting in the chapter. Clark effectively “provided the conditions for all of his students to experience satisfaction of the needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness” (p. 79). His classroom facilitates learning instead of forcing it on the children, which Deci and Ryan said was the best way to support autonomous behavior. If Clark can overcome the seemingly insurmountable feat to get students in East Harlem to achieve academic and personal successes, then teachers across the nation should be able to do likewise. Clark has proven that it is all in the teaching methods. Even if teachers are pressured into teaching for tests, as Deci and Ryan showed, this method of teaching creates enough desire for knowledge among the students that teaching the necessary information for a test should then come easily. If the right atmosphere is fostered in a classroom, learning and teaching can become fluid and natural instead of a forceful chore. But is this feasible? Realistically, it takes effort, energy, and a strong desire for teachers to emulate Clark's style of teaching. It is simply easier, as Deci and Ryan said, for teachers to continue being bullies and authority figures rather than actually apply the necessary effort to motivate their students. [Stephanie Wooster, 2004]

On Sternberg and "successful intelligence"

Sternberg argues that “one's ability to achieve success depends on one's capitalizing on one's strengths and correcting or compensating for one's weaknesses through a balance of analytic, creative, and practical abilities in order to adapt, shape, and select environments” (pp. 227-228). It seems like one of the most important underlying issues incorporated in this notion of successful intelligence is that of a child's socialization. In my human socialization class we have studied Bronfenbrenner's ecological model of the environment in which there are four layers: the microsystem refers to relations between child and immediate environment; the mesosystem consists of the connections among the child's immediate settings; the exosystem includes the social settings that affect but do not contain the child; and the macrosystem includes the overarching ideology of the culture. From this ecological model, society has a major influence on the intellectual ability of an individual. As seen from the studies in the chapter, one's family or cultural context depicts what is necessary for one to learn in order to be successful or survive. Lev Vygotsky would agree on the importance of this sociocultural context enhancing intelligence. His sociocultural theory posits that children “acquire their culture's values, beliefs, and problem-solving strategies through collaborative dialogues with more knowledgeable members of society” (Social Personality Development - Shaffer, p. 88). Thus the knowledge one seeks is the knowledge to adapt, shape, and select environments. From Vygotsky's view, children are active learners who “possess environmental information to answer questions, interpret the causes of their own and other's behavior, and acquire culturally valued attributes and modes of thinking” (SPD, p. 97). The learning is continuous or malleable (Dweck) because it “emphasizes gradual acquisition of social-information-processing skills and of other culturally valued attributes” (SPD, p. 97). This type of active learning incorporates analytical, creative, and practical intelligence. For example, through analytical intelligence, children learn “tools of intellectual adaptation,” which are Vygotsky's methods for thinking and problem-solving strategies children use to interact with competent members of society; in creative intelligence, socialization is consistently changing and children are having to adapt to their culture, which causes them to have to learn to cope with new modes of thinking; and through practical intelligence, since Vygotsky's theory is sociocultural, children are actively influenced by their environment and they learn the skills and values necessary to adapt, shape, and select their environment. Vygotsky's sociocultural theory is a cognitive perspective that incorporates Sternberg's successful intelligence, bringing it outside of the head and into “the ability to achieve success in life, given one's personal standards, within one's sociocultural context” (p. 227). [Jennifer Glen, 2004]

In his chapter on intelligence, Sternberg addresses the inadequacy of general intelligence assessments and argues for the concept of successful intelligence which includes analytical, practical, and creative abilities. There is something to be said for Sternberg's theory, as the general intelligence assessments with which we are familiar fail to properly assess one's ability in these areas. We know that people have many different ways of thinking, and research indicates that “when students are taught in a way that fits how they think, they do better in school” (p. 241). These findings seem obvious, yet there are few educational programs that cater to creative and practical thinkers. Why should they be at a disadvantage?
      One of the most interesting components of Sternberg's argument was his claim that each aspect of his successful intelligence theory (analytical, creative, practical) “could be taught” (pp. 235, 237, 239). He even provided details of the actual circumstances under which these components of education can be taught. This theory relates directly to Dweck's discussion of fixed versus malleable intelligence. The belief that intelligence is fixed suggests that we are only born with a certain capacity to learn and therefore some people are naturally going to be more intelligent than others. Malleable intelligence suggests that knowledge increases with experience and can readily be altered through time and effort. Sternberg advocates a malleable view of intelligence, as he suggests that the different components of his theory can be acquired and modified over time. Unfortunately, as we have discussed in class, most people do not accept the idea of malleable intelligence. Dweck claims, however, that those who do accept this notion are more motivated and ultimately more successful. Perhaps the acceptance of this idea in conjunction with Sternberg's theory could improve overall academic achievement, as students would not only believe that they have the potential to improve their intelligence, but also they would be recognized for their abilities in additional areas (analytical, practical, and creative intelligence).
      In describing his theory for successful intelligence, Sternberg seeks to differentiate his approach from current theories of intelligence. He specifically contrasts his work with that of Jean Piaget, a prominent developmental psychologist who explained that cognitive development proceeds through a series of stages. Sternberg states that “one's ability to achieve success depends on one's capitalizing on one's strengths and correcting or compensating for one's weaknesses through a balance of analytical, creative, and practical, abilities in order to adapt to, shape, and select environments” (p. 227). This idea seems to fit with Piaget's model in which people develop schemas and either assimilate information into existing schemas or alter existing schemas to accommodate new information. Assimilation and accommodattion seem similar to adapting, shaping, and selecting discussed by Sternberg. Is it possible that a combination of these two theoretical viewpoints would provide us with a more descriptive manner in which to define the construct of intelligence? [Rachel Wilensky, 2004]

On Rhodewalt and Tragakis and "self-handicapping"

On Maslow and "the hierarchy of growth"

In his theory of human motivation, Maslow provides a hierarchy of needs that he suggests humans seek to fulfill throughout the course of their lives. Included in this hierarchy are physiological needs, safety needs, love needs, and esteem needs, all of which lead up to the ultimate need to self actualize. As I read through Maslow's description of each level in the hierarchy, I was reminded of Erikson and his description of the crises we encounter as we learn and grow. Maslow's first two levels encompass the conflicts Erikson suggests that children experience in the first few years of life. Erikson suggests that children begin to experience the world so that they may decide if it is a trustworthy and safe place. Maslow says something quite similar in his description of the safety needs. He suggests that humans (children in particular) prefer “a safe, orderly, predictable, organized world which they can count on, and in which unexpected, unmanageable or other dangerous things do not happen” (p. 378). The upper levels in Maslow's hierarchy also have a relationship to Erikson's later stages of development, as both philosophers emphasize the human desire for love and confidence.
      The primary difference between Erikson and Maslow is that Maslow's theory outlines the levels of human motivation throughout life and Erikson's stages of development are specific to different developmental stages in one's life. According to Maslow, we do not fulfill our need for safety within a certain time frame; rather we seek to maintain a feeling of safety during our entire life. However, although Erikson provides approximate ages within which each stage should take place, he acknowledges that these stages continue throughout the course of one's life. Maslow's hierarchy of human needs reiterates this idea, suggesting a general order for which the needs should be fulfilled but acknowledging that certain needs are more important for some people than for others. He claims that the proposed order is not “fixed” (p. 386).
      It is interesting that these two theories overlap so much because Maslow criticizes Freud a few times in his manuscript, and Erikson's theory was an extension of psychoanalytic theory. What does this say about these two theories? Both are highly regarded and studied in psychology. I think that their overlap first suggests that the psychoanalysts were not as far off as many like to believe (myself included). In addition, the overlap in these two theories are important for psychology, as a combination of the two philosophies may lead to a better understanding of motivation and its development over time, which could ultimately lead to a more effective approach to motivating students in school. [Rachel Wilensky, 2004]