Chapter 3: Nature of the Social Self Section Summary
Nature of the Social Self
 The social self can be thought of as having three primary components: the individual self, the relational self, and the collective self, which may differ in prominence across individuals.
The social psychological study of the self usually begins with William James.
In his book The Principles of Psychology (1890), James introduced numerous selfrelated concepts and distinctions that continue to inspire research today.
Students always have strong opinions on whether personality traits are inherited or learned. I like to foster the debate by saying that there is evidence for both. I mention Eysenck’s work with the concept of introversion and extraversion as an example of one trait that may indeed be biologically determined. He found a high correlation between activity of the brain and whether one will be extraverted or introverted (higher activity in brains leads one to seek less stimulation and therefore shy away from social interactions as a result, which we label introversion).
One interesting discussion point here is to ask students if they believe that their personality traits can ever be changed or modified. Most will say no, but you can ask, for example, if one can decide to be extraverted and seek out social interactions. Can one do it? If yes, how? If no, why not?
I also ask students how many of them have siblings. Then, I follow that up with asking them to consider how having a sibling shaped their self-concept. What sorts of learning, observational or otherwise, took place when they were children with their siblings that contributed to their self-concept formation? Students are fascinated with birth order research, so this is a good point to have a brief discussion of the literature (for example, Zajonc) on the relationship of birth order to personality trait development and achievement. I ask students if they believe birth order causes these personality and achievement differences or if it is merely a correlation.

In talking about social comparison theory, I ask my students to consider how their self-understanding would be different if they did not have knowledge of other students’ performance or abilities on a self-relevant dimension. This presents an interesting thought experiment for students and quickly demonstrates how influential social comparison is on our self-concept. As much as we like to think of ourselves as unique islands, our self-concept is quite dependent on how we compare ourselves with others in our environment. When talking about gender, I pose the question, Are gender differences in interests, abilities, personality traits, behaviors, and goals driven by genetics or by social influences, such as socialization differences? Here, students voice their beliefs about gender differences (the eternal
“why men and women are so different” debate), and their gender stereotypes also come out. I emphasize that there is little to no credible evidence that suggests that these gender differences are genetically determined (that is, linked to the sex chromosome). Rather, a more parsimonious explanation is the different way we socialize boys versus girls in our society. I give examples of how children initially do not distinguish between “boy toys” and “girl toys,” but parents, television, and their friends do make that distinction; and those artificial barriers can block a child’s natural curiosity and enjoyment in playing with a toy that is loved, and in so doing, exploring the whole world (not just the boy or girl world).