2.3: Forming the Self
- Page ID
- 136532
How Others Affect the Self
Symbolic Interactionism 
One of the most significant theories in the social sciences to help us understand how the self is formed is symbolic interactionism (Mead, 1934). In short, this theory says that our understanding of ourselves, and indeed the world around us, is shaped by our interactions with others. This means that although we may believe objects, persons, or situations simply appear to have natural meanings, in truth all meanings are a result of communication between people. Even a simple bike ride in the park is based on social interactions from your past. Can you ride without considering actions or events from your past bike rides, or rides you have heard about, read about, or seen on television? Even the meaning of a “good ride” influences your perception. Indeed, the very idea of what constitutes “a bike ride in a park” depends upon all the varied meanings you have acquired through your exchanges with others.
To illustrate this principle, let’s look at a study on the use of marijuana back in the 1950s. The research shows us how our shared meanings of objects and/or events are truly affected by social interaction (Becker, 1953). In the study, people who had never smoked pot were questioned to understand what they knew about marijuana. Becker, the study’s author, found at least three things that new pot smokers learned by interacting with others: first, how to properly use the drug; second, how to recognize physical cues of being “high”; and third, how to judge these physical sensations as actually pleasurable. Becker explained that not only did new smokers not understand how to smoke, but they also did not automatically recognize the effects of the drug upon their bodies. That is, smokers did not know they were “high” until they learned, through interaction, to differentiate such sensations. They needed to be taught to consciously sense the effects of the drug. Perhaps most interesting, the research showed that smokers didn’t immediately define the effects of smoking marijuana as gratifying. Beginners needed to be told they ought to enjoy it. Here then we see that meanings for marijuana—in this case, its use—are surely not natural. Becker shows us that marijuana is understood by smokers—if even enjoyed—because of the exchange of meanings about the drug through communication.
But how might this principle influence the idea of developing your own unique concept of self? Before we answer this question, think of a friend you may have had in the past that had an impact on your judgment of yourself as a person. Did interacting with this person add to your self-esteem? Detract? Did you feel empowered simply by spending time with them—or did you feel criticized, inferior or unimportant? This perspective of yourself, at least as a friend, is a function of what you believe this person believed about you, according to the theory of symbolic interactionism.
Reflected Appraisal
Mead suggests that our self-concept is developed by virtue of how we view ourselves through the “mirror” of others. This process is called reflected appraisal (Mead, 1934). We develop a self by taking on others’ views, as if those other persons were like mirrors reflecting our selfhood back at us. Based upon the ways others communicate with us, the feedback we receive, and the labels others use to define us, we construct the self. In this process, we look at ourselves from the eyes of the “other.” We perceive what we think they think, and then absorb or internalize that picture of ourselves. In the case of a previous instructor, if you believed that they evaluated you as academically gifted, it is quite possible you might believe yourself to be just that.
Take a moment to consider the reflected appraisal you have experienced in your life thus far. It may be interesting to ask these questions: Whose version of myself have I absorbed? Who are my mirrors? Have the mirrors I have used to form myself been positive or negative?
Social Comparison
A superior comparison occurs when you make an assessment that you look better, are more intelligent, are more talented, or more athletic, or any category like this when comparing yourself to someone else. These are a few examples of how a superior comparison manifests. If you receive a performance review at work and one of your co-workers receives an evaluation that is less favorable, you may think you are a better employee than they are. However, we can also engage in an inferior comparison in the same fashion. Inferior comparison means that we feel we don’t measure up to others. Looking at friends or even strangers on Instagram or TikTok may lead us to believe that we are not as intelligent, good, talented, or attractive as others. Our brains are hardwired to engage in comparison. So how can we manage social comparison in our day-to-day lives? When you find yourself comparing yourself to others, ask yourself two questions. First, is this comparison useful for my self-concept? If you compare yourself to your classmates when you get a paper returned from your instructor, comparing your grade to others may help you understand how you are performing in class. However, sometimes comparisons are not useful. If you compare yourself to the physique of other people, you may be setting yourself up for an unfair comparison. Second, ask yourself if the comparison is realistic. For example, are you comparing yourself to real images, or are you comparing yourself to filtered social media images that have been cultivated by media influencers? Ultimately, we can't stop ourselves from engaging in comparisons, but we can become aware of the process and use the questions from above to manage our expectations about ourselves.
When we engage in superior comparisons, we are less likely to tell others about it because to do so may gain us the title of being a braggart, conceited, or full of ourselves. Yet, isn't the idea that we want to have a positive view of ourselves? How do we strike this balance in having a healthy, positive self-concept, without appearing full of ourselves? There is a greater societal expectation of humility. Sometimes that can sound like you are putting yourself down or minimizing your positive qualities when you are complemented. When you are comfortable in who you are you will eventually be able to acknowledge compliments by simply saying "thank you" and not feeling as though you need to put yourself down.
Our brains are hard-wired to engage in comparison. So how can we manage social comparison in our day-to-day lives? When you find yourself comparing yourself to others, ask yourself two questions. First, is this comparison useful for my self-concept? If you compare yourself to your classmates when you get a paper returned from your instructor, comparing your grade to others may help you understand how you are performing in class. However, sometimes comparisons are not useful. If you compare yourself to the physique of other people, you may be setting yourself up for an unfair comparison. Second, ask yourself if the comparison is realistic? For example, are you comparing yourself to real images, or are you comparing yourself to filtered social media images that have been cultivated by media influences? Ultimately, we can't stop ourselves from engaging in comparisons, but we can become aware of the process and use these questions to manage our expectations about ourselves.
The Self and Family 
You have already learned that your self is formed through your interactions with others. We cannot talk about the formation of self without acknowledging the critical impact that family has on us. Family is not necessarily defined by blood relationships, but rather through a system of support and nurturing given to you by whatever family of origin you grow up with. From birth, your primary caretakers provide feedback that influences the development of your self-concept, and thus your self-esteem. Two factors that help to determine your worldview and view of self are identity scripts and attachment styles.
Identity Scripts 
When we are young, our families begin the process of helping us understand what’s important or expected. What becomes instilled in us at a young age can inform our communication behaviors throughout life. Identity scripts are social expectations regarding how members of a particular group behave and communicate as a part of their social identity (Wood, 2017). These scripts may be thought of as "life scripts" because they provide us with rules for living. These rules are important because they frame how we see the world and our role in it. Most often these scripts provide instructions on what a family stands for. These scripts are largely unconscious, even though we may hear them stated throughout the time we live with our families of origin. Identity scripts may sound like this:
- “Live life to the fullest.”
- “Be a good person.”
- “Always tell the truth.”
- “Stand up for yourself.”
- “Don’t waste food.”
- "Don't let opportunities pass you by."
- "Strive to be the best you can be."
- "Take care of others before you take care of yourself."
You could create an endless list of identity scripts for yourself—and we know that you get the point! Although these scripts seem straightforward, what happens if you violate one of the scripts you've been taught? Read this story by one of the authors:
When I was a child my mother used to make this amazing coffee cake. The only part about it we didn't like was the crust at the edge of the cake. When my mom wasn't looking, my brother and I would run to the bathroom and flush the crust down the toilet! To this day I think about that because I grew up hearing the script that it was “wrong to waste food.” Another script I heard growing up is “always tell the truth because lying will get you into more trouble.” I was not a perfect child and there were times I did lie, like telling my mom I didn’t feel well so I could stay home from school. When we don’t conform to the scripts we grow up with and we violate them, we may end up feeling bad about ourselves. However, there is also a multitude of scripts that I have lived my life by that give me peace and joy, and many of those were used in raising my own children, such as “always help others when you can.” I spent 20 years financially supporting a child in the Dominican Republic as a way of fulfilling an important identity script.
Culture is also an integral part of identity scripts. You may have grown up in a religion where if you sin, you need to go to confession to be absolved of sin. Different religions will have identity scripts that shape you. Identity scripts are also influenced by race. Interviews conducted with young Black adults in one study focused on how identity was constructed by the internalization of racism. It revealed that
Black participants in this study did internalize racist scripts in early childhood, but were more adept at resisting negative racial messages in early adulthood. Parenting strategies could have contributed to the internalization of negative cultural scripts given that each respondent reported that their parents did little to shield them from internalizing presumptions of their racial inferiority. Instead, college served as a time when participants were able to develop and redefine their sense of worth and belonging into a more positive racial identity. (Llaguno Velarde, 2018, p. 2)
I hope you understand identity scripts are quite often unique to an individual’s culture. The impact of culture will be explored later in this chapter.
Attachment Styles 
Family not only helps form your self-concept, but it also impacts the future relationships you may have as an adult. Attachment theory examines how our early attachments to primary caregivers affect us. In 1958, psychologist John Bowlby developed the concept of attachment theory based on the bond that infants form with their mother (McLeod, 1970). Although his research focused on the mother–child relationship, not all children are raised by their birth mother. We see the primary caregiver as integral to defining the attachment or bond to the infant. Bowlby’s research defined healthy attachments as those in which a child is secure and has an overall sense of safety. Fulfilling a child's physical, social, and emotional needs is integral to a secure attachment. Thus, attachment theory explains how the caregiver–child relationship emerges and influences subsequent relationship development with others, and ultimately affects how we communicate with others.
Based on this early research, other scholars have continued to explore how romantic attachments develop. Early attachments impact adulthood: attachment styles in infancy influence a person’s development of positive and/or negative views of self and others. Figure \(\PageIndex{3}\) describes four attachment styles that have been posited as evolving from these early attachments we form: secure, fearful-avoidant, anxious-preoccupied, and dismissive-avoidant attachment styles. As shown in the figure,
- Individuals with a secure attachment style have a positive view of self and a positive view of others.
- Individuals with a dismissive-avoidant attachment style have a positive view of self and a negative view of others.
- Individuals with an anxious-preoccupied attachment style have a negative view of self and a positive view of others.
Individuals with a fearful-avoidant attachment style have a negative view of self and a negative view of others.
Secure Attachment 
Individuals who have consistently caring and attentive parents or caregivers develop a secure attachment style. If the caregiving they receive is loving and stable, they develop a positive view of themselves and a positive view of others. Given this style, as people become adults, their approaches to romantic relationships are generally positive. Their communication behaviors mirror this positivity. They find it easy to become emotionally close to others and they report greater relationship satisfaction. Securely attached people are also comfortable being both independent and interdependent with their partners. In addition, when a relationship hits a bump, securely attached individuals have the capacity to communicate well and work on those relationships. However, if a relationship doesn't work out, they are able to grieve and move on rather than ruminate over the dissolution of the relationship for a long time.
Dismissive-Avoidant Attachment 
One of the more difficult-to-understand attachment styles is the dismissive-avoidant attachment style. Here, individuals have a positive view of themselves, but a negative view of others. Early caregiving by parents is characterized by a lack of interest in the child, and the caregiver is more focused on their own needs and comfort than those of the child. Aside from being emotionally unavailable, parents may also be physically unavailable, such as not being at home much. If a parent is unavailable it could be by choice, or it might be by necessity. The parent could have made the choice not to be around by hiring a nanny or child sitter; or, it may be the child is raised by a single parent who cannot be around because they have to work. In any case, the child is encouraged to be particularly independent. The communication from the parent may sound like: "You can do it yourself," "buck up," or "get over it." Parents who foster this kind of attachment do not encourage their children to cry or express their vulnerabilities. Single parents may also be loving and consistent, so it is not the absence of the parent that dictates the outcome. Rather, the attachment style develops as a result of the interactions that occur when parent and child are together.
Anxious-Preoccupied Attachment 
Children that grow up believing that their needs won’t be met (even if that belief is subconscious), may develop an anxious-preoccupied attachment style. The caregiver is inconsistent in their treatment of the child. They may be nurturing one day, and insensitive or uncaring the next day. Children who grow up in homes where their primary caregiver struggles with substance abuse or alcohol might develop this attachment style. Under such conditions, the child has difficulty trusting the parent or might be clingy due to unpredictable behavior. The pattern for this attachment style produces adults who have negative thoughts of themselves, but positive thoughts of others. This may seem counterintuitive since the child experiences the treatment received by their caregiver as inconsistent. However, this result actually makes sense because of the inconsistency. Anxious-preoccupied attachment causes individuals to have negative thoughts about themselves because the caregiver was often insensitive or uncaring, so they feel they don’t deserve love. But, as children, they also had days when they were treated with love and kindness. Thus, they are able to see enough positive behavior in their parent or primary caregiver that they can still form positive attachments.
The communicative outcome of the anxious-preoccupied attachment style is a person who experiences more anxiety and is less secure in relationships. This insecurity can manifest in behaviors such as neediness, possessiveness, and jealousy. They will need continual reassurance that they are loved, and will seek validation. They may also struggle to be alone and have a tendency to think negatively. If you are a person with this attachment style, or you are in a relationship with someone like this, you might see frequent texts to just check in, or questions such as, "Why haven't you answered my text?" There may be questions about who you communicate with, or a request to see your phone.
Fearful-Avoidant Attachment 
The final attachment style we will examine is one that can have the most severe negative impact on one’s sense of self. Fearful-avoidant attachment styles are created when a child experiences physical or emotional cruelty. There could be times when the “care” they receive is life-threatening. Clearly, this poses a dilemma for the child, who rightfully feels the parent should be their safety net. The only way a child can cope with the threat of verbal or physical abuse is to detach from the parent. As a result, they have a negative view of both themselves and others. Most people want intimate relationships in their lives. However, when someone has grown up in fear it is difficult to trust other people. An inner conflict exists in this person. The desire for intimacy is often resisted based on their inability to trust or rely on others. They are often suspicious of others' intentions or actions, so they push people away. This is why expressions of affection are not readily expressed.
Students always ask, “Can your attachment style change?” Yes, it can, for either better or worse. As you experience life and relationships, you can change your attachment style. If you have a dismissive-avoidant style and meet a wonderful person who has a secure attachment style, you can change over time as trust is built. Similarly, if you have a secure attachment style, and end up in an abusive relationship, you can develop a fearful attachment style. Students also ask, “Can you have one attachment style with one person, and a different one with someone else?” The answer is yes, but most of us tend to have one dominant attachment style.
The Self and Society
We have acknowledged that the self is not something created in isolation, by a person alone. But are there aspects of who we are that are impacted by society more than others? One answer to this question might be an examination of social identity categories. Social identity categories set the stage for meaningful life experiences that have cumulative effects. Interpersonal relationships impact and are impacted by such social identity categories as race and ethnicity, gender and sexuality, and socioeconomics or class. In order to understand selfhood, we must examine how societies have a part to play in forming identities. While there are a variety of social identity categories, let’s examine these three.
Race and Ethnicity 
It is not a well-known fact that each human being, no matter which racial category they might claim as their own, shares 99.9 percent of their genetic material. This means there are often more differences found between people of the same racial category than there are between people of different racial categories. The Human Genome Project asserts that race is a social construct, not a biological one (Bonham, n.d.). The American Anthropological Association agrees, stating that race is the product of “historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances” (Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association, 1998, May 17).
It would be an error, however, to argue there is no such thing as racial identity. Just because race is socially constructed does not mean it is not real. Rather, race is a concept that is meaningful only through human meaning-making—that is, through communication. We may talk about how someone living on Earth can stand still. But in reality, we are never actually standing still, given that the Earth is rotating at about 1,000 miles per hour. Of course, the notion of “standing still” is still a useful distinction when we communicate with others. The same can be said of race. While race is not a biologically accurate designation, it has real-world impacts on social perception—in fact, those impacts are undeniable.
Racial identity is a multidimensional construct that includes the strength of one's identification with one's racial group, a sense of attachment to other group members, and evaluation of group membership (e.g., how much the individual likes or dislikes being White, for example), and may include group-relevant attitudes and behaviors (Broman, 2008, March 18, para. 1). Indeed, at different times in history, the classification of race has shifted between race, ethnicity, culture, religion, geography, nationality, and language.
President Barack Obama's comments on racial identity may help us to see the complexities of talking about racial identity:
I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a depression to serve in Patton’s army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slave owners—an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles, and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that and no other country on earth is my story even possible. (National Public Radio, 2008, March 18, para. 8)
The ways that individuals construct meanings around racial identity and its significance influence how one understands selfhood, as well as interpersonal relationships. Therefore, it makes sense to explore the meanings we give race—if only to consider how we want to grow, develop and unfold as a community.
A person’s sense of self may also be influenced by ethnic identity as well as race. Ethnic identity refers to traits that link to ancestry and heritage. To talk of one’s ethnicity we typically include several dimensions:
(1) self-identification, (2) knowledge about the ethnic culture (traditions, customs, values, and behaviors), and (3) feelings about belonging to a particular ethnic group. Ethnic identity often involves a shared sense of origin and history, which may link ethnic groups to distant cultures in Asia, Europe, Latin America, or other locations. (Martin & Nakayama, 2004, p. 160).
While our discussion here is limited, we would be remiss if we did not suggest that social perceptions about race and ethnicity—much like other social identities—can lead to prejudice and/or discrimination. When one considers the impacts of the social and political history of slavery and segregation, for example, Black and indigenous people still experience systematic racism.
“The Talk”: One Way Some Families Discuss Identity and Social Interaction
Questions for Journaling or Discussion
Finally, racial identities, and how we talk about them, might ultimately be the best example of symbolic interactionism. Researchers note that “52 percent of folks who self-categorize as nonwhite in the Census Bureau’s projections for America’s 2060 racial makeup will also think of themselves as white.” Another 40 percent of those who self-categorize as White “will also claim minority racial identity” (Brooks, 2021, July 22, p. A-18). This means the distinctions between races and ethnic identities seem to be blurring. In some ways, they are taking on different social meanings which complicate our very ways of thinking about these classifications.
Gender and Sexuality 
Concepts and definitions that refer to sexual orientation and gender identity are evolving. Many of the terms used in the past to describe LGBTQIA+ people, for example, namely in the mental health field, are now considered to be outdated and offensive. Because identity is such a sensitive area of personhood, the terms we use to describe it seem to shift year to year. This means we must stay attuned to these changes, especially as interpersonal communication creates shifts in how identities are understood and expressed.
The term gender identity was coined in the middle 1960s to describe one’s persistent inner sense of femininity, masculinity, a unique blend of both, or neither. One’s gender identity may be the same as or different from the sex assigned at birth. Gender fluidity describes a person who does not identify with a single fixed gender or has a fluid or unfixed gender identity. Transgender identity is an umbrella term used to account for one whose gender identity does not correspond to one's birth sex (American Psychological Association, Task Force on Gender Identity and Gender Variance (2009) para. 6; The Human Rights Campaign).
Alternatively, according to the American Psychological Association, “Sexual orientation refers to the sex of those to whom one is romantically attracted” (American Psychological Association, 2012, para. 4). The terms "lesbian" and "gay" are used to refer to people who experience attraction to members of the same sex, and the term "bisexual" describes people who experience attraction to members of both sexes. It should be noted that, although these categories continue to be widely used, sexual orientation does not always appear in such definable categories and, instead, occurs on a continuum, or in a more fluid way (ibid., para. 3). Although social views of gender are shifting in the 21st century, it is still true that children are taught different ways of understanding selfhood on the basis of gender identity and gender expression. We experience powerful communication messages that socialize us by way of television, school, play, and family. By and large, we are taught how to be “masculine” or “feminine,” what those categories mean, and the rewards or punishments we may experience if we violate the expectations aligned with them.
Socioeconomics or Class 
Perhaps class identity is the least talked about of the three social categories mentioned in this section. Most people do not discuss class, but it certainly plays an important part in how our selfhood develops. We send and read others’ communicative messages about class in part through objects like high-priced automobiles, fashion, or food. If you think about the question “Where do you live?” you recognize that part of the meaning of such a question can be related to where a person comes from—and this information tells us a bit about the community of people that form the context for our development of self. To say you are from Beverly Hills or Pacific Heights sends a very particular communicative cue. Beyond what types of objects you own or where you live, we also judge an individual’s class identity upon the vocabulary a person uses when speaking, their use of slang, and even linguistic accents.
Our celebrity culture encourages us to aspire to wealth as a key to happiness and self-realization. Counselors report that children today, when asked what they want to be when they grow up, often simply answer, “rich.” Materialism and consumer culture are celebrated in Western/American culture even while we admit that money can’t buy satisfaction. Popular films, television shows, and social media posts often criticize the rich, but declare—albeit covertly—that the opportunities and lifestyles of those at the upper end of the class hierarchy are still the most desirable. In short, we seem to get mixed messages about the value of class status, even though most people aspire to be wealthy.
A number of signs point to the fact that our class hierarchy is becoming less flexible. The American Dream—the notion that hard work and persistence will surely result in prosperity and plentitude—is attractive, but largely a myth when we examine the numbers of people who move from poverty to the top echelons of wealth. In fact, the disparity in the United States between the top income earners and those at the bottom, far from moving toward equalization, is presently increasing each year. Executive pay and the wages earned by an average worker provide a snapshot of this condition. Chief executives of large corporations earn on average 320 times the amount of a typical employee, according to the Economic Policy Institute: “In 1989, that ratio was 61 to 1. From 1978 to 2019, compensation grew 14 percent for typical workers. It rose 1,167 percent for C.E.O.s” (Gelles, 2021, p. 24).
As our society moves toward a greater divide between those who are affluent and those who are not, the promise of opportunities and protections for all—regardless of economic standing—can seem uncertain. In any case, wealth and income play a role in shaping identity since they influence life experiences and thus attitudes and values.
Race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and socioeconomic status all influence our sense of self and communication with others—and certainly impact the context within which interpersonal relationships develop and thrive. These social categories also overlap and are interrelated. The concept of intersectionality, coined by Kimberle Crenshaw, is key to recognizing how forms of inequality that may accompany social identities can overlap, compound, and affect a person’s privilege or disprivilege (Crenshaw, 1995). Crenshaw suggests that often when we view racism, for example, we may not realize how other social identities like gender or sexuality can combine to create complicated webs of prejudice or discrimination. Stereotypes about LGBTQIA+ people, for instance, may merge with those about working class or impoverished people. This “intersection” can multiply inequality—meaning it can become a complicated matrix of prejudice or discrimination.