Review_Author: Maureen Manning
Book_Author: Susan Harter
Book_Title: The Construction of the Self: A Developmental Perspective
Reference: 1999; New York; Guilford
Date: 5/7/00
Time: 1:50:37 PM
Remote Name: 128.175.143.35
mailto:
Susan Harter’s latest book represents the culmination of years of theory and research on self-concept, which she defines as the perceptions that individuals have of themselves in particular domains (e.g., scholastic competence, behavioral conduct, social acceptance, athletic competence, and physical appearance). While a person’s self-concept refers to his perceptions of specific competencies, a person’s self- worth refers to his overall acceptance of himself. This sense of self-worth is more than merely a sum of the parts; that is, self-worth is a multidimensional rather than unidimensional construct and thus best represented by a profile of perceptions across domains rather than by a total, summative score. Overall self-worth is influenced not only by how individuals objectively describe their competence in each domain, but also by how they subjectively evaluate their competence in that domain (e.g., how satisfied they are with their performance), and by how important they consider it is to be successful in that domain.
According to Harter, a sense of self-worth is both a cognitive and social construction. To demonstrate how it is a cognitive construction, she explains how perceptions of the self change over time. Language and cognitive processes develop with age and thus the way that children describe and evaluate themselves changes. For example, when they are young, children tend to describe themselves in terms of concrete descriptions of their abilities (e.g., “I can ride my bike”). As they grow older, however, they are more likely to describe themselves in terms of traits (e.g., “I’m good at sports”) and more abstract constructs (“I’m an athlete”). In addition, as they grow older, children come to recognize that their competence will vary across domains; that is, they become more aware that they can be skillful in one area but not another rather than assuming that they are “all” good or “all” bad in “all” areas. Furthermore, their sense of self becomes increasingly differentiated over the course of development; that is, the number of domains in which they evaluate themselves increases. For example, adolescents may evaluate themselves in terms of their romantic appeal and their job competence, whereas these domains are less salient for young children. Overall, in presenting self-worth as a cognitive construction, Harter focuses on the similarities among individuals in terms of how they view themselves; these similarities exist because self- perceptions are influenced by developmental processes.
In contrast, in presenting self- worth as a social construction, Harter emphasizes the differences among individuals in terms of how they view themselves; these differences exist because self- perceptions are influenced by socialization experiences. The perceptions that individuals have of themselves are affected by the perceptions that others have of them, and thus positive interactions with parents, peers, and teachers are critical to the development of a positive self- worth. Children internalize the expectations that others have for them and evaluate the extent to which they meet them, thereby making judgments about themselves that connote either approval or disapproval. Furthermore, the degree to which they perceive social support from significant others is key to their feelings of self-worth. In childhood, parental support is critical, whereas in adolescence, parental support remains important but support from a peer group becomes the best predictor of self- worth. Based upon the different expectations that others have for them, and the different levels of support that others provide for them, children develop a “proliferation of selves” that vary as a function of their relationships. Thus, they tend to experience varying feelings of self-worth in their relationships with their fathers, mothers, siblings, close friends, classmates, teachers, etc. Other social influences on self-worth can be seen in the tendency for children to describe themselves in terms of interpersonal qualities and the extent to which they are accepted by others (e.g., they might describe themselves as nice or mean, friendly or unfriendly, popular or unpopular, etc.). Furthermore, children tend to engage in a social comparison process whereby they evaluate their own competencies based on how well they compare to their peers (i.e., whether they are “better” or “worse” at things than their classmates).
Cross-cultural research on perceptions of the self reveals a few similarities. One finding that has been generally consistent across cultures is that males rate themselves higher in terms of athletic competence and physical appearance than do females. Furthermore, perceptions of one’s physical attractiveness tend to correlate highly with perceptions of one’s overall worth as a person. That is, if individuals are satisfied with their physical appearance, they tend to think pretty highly of themselves, but if they are dissatisfied with their appearance, they tend to think pretty poorly of themselves. Harter speculates that the high correlation between physical appearance and self-worth may explained by the greater control individuals feel over when and how competence in other domains is revealed; in contrast, they may feel less control over their physical appearance because it is permanently on display. Furthermore, society tends to place a high emphasis on physical appearance and individuals evaluate their attractiveness in terms of how well they meet these societal standards. Although Harter indicates that the high correlation between perceptions of one’s physical attractiveness and perceptions of one’s overall worth as a person has been consistent across many cultures (including U.S., England, Ireland, Australia, Italy, Canada, Germany, Greece, Holland, and Japan), I must wonder if there are cultures in which this correlation does not hold true. That is, are there cultures in which physical attractiveness is not highly valued? Furthermore, how do standards of physical attractiveness vary across cultures? In looking at Western cultures, we see how the definition of beauty has changed over time. For example, art from the Renaissance period reminds us that women were considered “beautiful” if they had shapely figures, whereas today women are considered “beautiful” if they are stick-thin. In their attempts to emulate these unrealistic, unhealthy models of beauty, many females today fall victim to various eating disorders. Is the same phenonmenon evident in other cultures?
Although she points out the few similarities in self-perceptions across cultures, Harter also highlights the many differences. For example, children from Western cultures tend to report more positive self-concepts across domains than children from Eastern cultures. It is important to note, however, that Western-based self-concept scales have poor reliability when they are used in Eastern cultures because these instruments are not culturally sensitive. That is, the domains and/or items included on the scales may not be meaningful or relevant in a particular culture. Likewise, those domains and items considered relevant to that culture may not be reflected on the scale. For example, group orientation is a domain that may be of importance to a Chinese child’s sense of self yet it is not included on American instruments. Furthermore, the response format of many self- concept measures may not be compatible with the values of other cultures. For example, self-perceptions are commonly measured by asking students to evaluate themselves in terms of how their performance compares to others. The Chinese, however, tend to be modest in their report of personal qualities and frown upon social comparison; thus, they may intentionally underestimate their competence even though their responses may not reflect how they truly feel about themselves. Finally, a positive view of self may not be that critical to one’s functioning in another culture and thus may not be that important a construct to measure. In conclusion, Harter cautions against using standard self-concept measures in other cultures and trying to gain meaningful information from them. Rather, self-concept measures should be tailored to reflect the values of a particular culture, if they are to be used at all.
Harter expands on cultural differences by examining two emotions that are closely tied to the feelings one has about the self - that is, pride and shame. Harter compares and contrasts the functions that these “self- conscious emotions” serve across cultures. For example, pride is typically considered a desirable quality in Western (individualistic) cultures, as it connotes a sense of achievement and encourages people to take personal responsibility for their accomplishments. Pride often enhances one’s sense of competence, increases one’s motivation, and encourages further challenge. Pride can also strengthen social relationships because people are eager both to share their own accomplishments with others and to share in the accomplishments of others; thus, pride creates shared positive experiences. In other cultures, however, pride is viewed as an undesirable trait. For example, in Eastern (collectivistic) cultures, pride may threaten rather than strengthen interpersonal relationships, since it often signals separation from others, fosters comparisons with others, and conveys a sense of superiority. Just as the value attached to pride varies across cultures, the same is true with shame. In Western (individualistic) cultures, shame is normally downplayed and considered an undesirable feeling, since it connotes feelings of incompetence or failure that result when an individual feels he did not measure up to a personal or social ideal. Shame often results from situations that a child perceives as uncontrollable and leads to feelings that the child is inherently worthless. Furthermore, shame has the potential to destroy interpersonal relationships because it motivates people to hide from and avoid others. In Eastern (collectivistic) cultures, however, shame is valued because it inhibits feelings of arrogance, it promotes feelings of humility, and thus it strengthens interpersonal relationships. There is a much greater emphasis on shame in Chinese socialization practices than in the US. In addition, there is an extensive number of shame-related words in the Chinese vocabulary (113). Furthermore, shame in the Chines culture is considered a separate emotion category in its own right, rather than being subsumed under sadness as it is our culture.
After pointing out how pride and shame serve different functions in individualistic and collectivistic cultures, Harter indicates that researchers are beginning to shift away from this dichotomous classification of cultures because it is too simplistic. That is, we tend to assume that Western cultures place a greater emphasis on an individual’s sense of autonomy, whereas Eastern cultures place a greater emphasis on an individual’s sense of connectedness to others. However, describing cultures in terms of these two extremes, that is, as either individualistic or collectivistic, fails to take into account the great variability that exists within each culture. That is, feelings of autonomy and feelings of connectedness are often both present within a culture, although in different ways and to different degrees. Generally speaking, however, either position in its extreme can have disastrous outcomes and thus some sort of balance is needed. Harter recommends moving beyond the typical dichotomy to a trichotomy, which consists of self-focused autonomy, other- focused connectedness, and mutuality. This trichotomy is useful not only for describing cultures but also for describing relationships. That is, in any given relationship, an individual may be focused primarily on his or her own needs, focused primarily on the needs of his or her partner, or focused on obtaining a balance between both partner’s needs. This latter sense of mutuality involves a balance of both autonomy and connectedness and appears to promote the most positive outcomes.
In addition to providing a cultural perspective on how the self is viewed differently across cultures, I enjoyed this book because if offered practical intervention strategies for increasing children’s sense of self-worth. Given that this is such a “hot topic” in the field, schools are often eager to implement programs designed to encourage children to “feel good” about themselves. However, the majority of these programs fail because they are generic, targeted toward the entire class rather than adapted to meet the specific needs of each child. Because self-concept is such a complex construct, one that entails perceptions of one’s competence across domains and perceptions of social support from significant others, a “one size fits all” approach is inappropriate. Rather than seeking to change children’s overall sense of self-worth directly, programs should seek to increase students’ competence in the areas where they are unsuccessful. In addition, interventions should seek to promote perceptions of social support by communicating acceptance and approval to students. Because perceptions of social support from peers has proven even more important than perceptions of support from teachers, the classroom should be structured in such a way to allow students to share their ideas with each other in a nonthreatening, respectful atmosphere. Traditional teaching techniques in which the teacher acts as the expert are unlikely to be successful in this respect and thus situated learning activities may be more appropriate. Finally, research on perceptions of the self in other cultures reminds us that we should strive to promote both feelings of autonomy and feelings of connectedness so that students may achieve a healthy balance between being concerned for themselves and being concerned for others.