The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Individual self > relational self > collective self – But why? Processes driving the self-hierarchy in self- and person-perception.

Individual self > relational self > collective self – But why? Processes driving the self-hierarchy in self- and person-perception.
Individual self > relational self > collective self – But why? Processes driving the self-hierarchy in self- and person-perception.
Objective: The self has three parts: individual, relational, and collective. Typically, people personally value their individual self most, their relational self less, and their collective self least. This self‐hierarchy is consequential, but underlying processes have remained unknown. Here, we propose two process accounts. The content account draws upon selves' agentic–communal content, explaining why the individual self is preferred most. The teleology account draws upon selves' instrumentality for becoming one's personal ideal, explaining why the collective self is preferred least. Method: In Study 1 (N = 200, 45% female, Mage = 32.9 years, 79% Caucasian), participants listed characteristics of their three selves (individual, relational, collective) and evaluated those characteristics in seven preference tasks. Additionally, we analyzed the characteristics' agentic–communal content, and participants rated their characteristics' teleological instrumentality. Study 2 (N = 396, 55% female, Mage = 34.5 years, 76% Caucasian) used identical methodology and featured an additional condition, where participants evaluated the selves of a friend. Results: Study 1 reconfirmed the self‐hierarchy and supported both process accounts. Study 2 replicated and extended findings. As hypothesized, when people evaluate others' selves, a different self‐hierarchy emerges (relational > individual > collective). Conclusions: This research pioneers process‐driven explanations for the self‐hierarchy, establishing why people prefer different self‐parts in themselves than in others.
0022-3506
Nehrlich, A.D.
9d97dfb7-5e43-4427-8a9d-2063b3f641d6
Gebauer, Jochen
ed37e5ba-19a2-4b6a-963b-a31e4704059e
Sedikides, Constantine
9d45e66d-75bb-44de-87d7-21fd553812c2
Abele, Andrea E.
c0ce61bd-3566-456e-a457-0ed60362c56f
Nehrlich, A.D.
9d97dfb7-5e43-4427-8a9d-2063b3f641d6
Gebauer, Jochen
ed37e5ba-19a2-4b6a-963b-a31e4704059e
Sedikides, Constantine
9d45e66d-75bb-44de-87d7-21fd553812c2
Abele, Andrea E.
c0ce61bd-3566-456e-a457-0ed60362c56f

Nehrlich, A.D., Gebauer, Jochen, Sedikides, Constantine and Abele, Andrea E. (2018) Individual self > relational self > collective self – But why? Processes driving the self-hierarchy in self- and person-perception. Journal of Personality. (doi:10.1111/jopy.12384).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Objective: The self has three parts: individual, relational, and collective. Typically, people personally value their individual self most, their relational self less, and their collective self least. This self‐hierarchy is consequential, but underlying processes have remained unknown. Here, we propose two process accounts. The content account draws upon selves' agentic–communal content, explaining why the individual self is preferred most. The teleology account draws upon selves' instrumentality for becoming one's personal ideal, explaining why the collective self is preferred least. Method: In Study 1 (N = 200, 45% female, Mage = 32.9 years, 79% Caucasian), participants listed characteristics of their three selves (individual, relational, collective) and evaluated those characteristics in seven preference tasks. Additionally, we analyzed the characteristics' agentic–communal content, and participants rated their characteristics' teleological instrumentality. Study 2 (N = 396, 55% female, Mage = 34.5 years, 76% Caucasian) used identical methodology and featured an additional condition, where participants evaluated the selves of a friend. Results: Study 1 reconfirmed the self‐hierarchy and supported both process accounts. Study 2 replicated and extended findings. As hypothesized, when people evaluate others' selves, a different self‐hierarchy emerges (relational > individual > collective). Conclusions: This research pioneers process‐driven explanations for the self‐hierarchy, establishing why people prefer different self‐parts in themselves than in others.

Text
Nehrlich Gebauer Sedikides Abele in press JOPY_ - Accepted Manuscript
Download (744kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 18 March 2018
e-pub ahead of print date: 25 March 2018

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 420888
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/420888
ISSN: 0022-3506
PURE UUID: 67dc133a-6255-4ac8-a652-9855cba80dab
ORCID for Constantine Sedikides: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-4036-889X

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 17 May 2018 16:30
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 06:23

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: A.D. Nehrlich
Author: Jochen Gebauer
Author: Andrea E. Abele

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×