self-awareness and esteem

How people see and define themselves depends on the personal-social identity continuum at a specific point in their lives (Baron, Byrne, & Branscombe, 2005). For example, they may see themselves differently after a big win, at a certain age, after a win, after losing a loved one, or after receiving a big bonus. People think of themselves in terms of differences between themselves and others, which is in terms of intragroup comparison. People might also think of themselves as similar to other members of the group, or based on comparison between groups. People who have a low complex self have more overlap in different parts of the self and vice versa.

Self-definition depends on a specific moment and a specific setting or environment. One’s identity may also depend on how others expect one to be and how one thinks others will treat one. People may choose definitions that reflect poorly or positively on themselves. Different selves (such as the immediate pleasure self versus the more responsible self) can encourage people to achieve different and sometimes opposing goals. A person with body piercings and/or tattoos often claims that he or she is not part of the “mainstream.” People with mental retardation may have only subjective and not objective self-awareness, but not recognize themselves in a mirror. Most people have symbolic self-awareness and can describe themselves. Symbolic self-awareness correlates with the awareness that humans are mortal or with existential terror. Terror management theory suggests ways people deal with death, such as religions, faith, and spirituality.

Self-esteem is made of attitudes towards oneself. It’s easy to assess how people feel about themselves. It’s as easy as asking them questions about what they think of themselves and watching their behavior in action. Most people follow the above-average effect or self-serving biases in which they view themselves more positively than others. Self-efficacy means believing that a goal can be achieved by one’s own actions. Group self-efficacy is also called collective self-efficacy. According to the self-assessment maintenance model, to protect self-esteem, people tend to be around others who perform less well. Some women hang out with some women perceived as less beautiful, to feel better about themselves. This behavior shows a lack of self-esteem and self-confidence. According to social identity theory, people spend time with similar people and with people who perform well, in order to preserve a positive social identity. People with high self-esteem and people who are striving to get better and better like to be around like-minded people and people who are doing better than they are, so they can learn from their knowledge, example, inspiration and mentorship. .

People don’t like a victim, a complainer, or a person who doesn’t take responsibility for their own failures and blames the world, even if others think the failures are really out of their control. Those people who think of victims are perceived as negative. High self-esteem correlates with interpersonal aggression, to defend one’s higher view of oneself. Women, on average, have lower self-esteem than men. This may be due to the media and the pressure on women to look perfect. This average is surely due to the fact that the workforce is overwhelmingly male and the fact that the work environment sometimes practices a gender-based devaluation towards women. Due to the self-reference effect, people choose and prefer objects that remind them of themselves, such as clothes, houses, and cars.
Social comparison allows people to get to know themselves. Upward social comparison can be painful and downward social comparison can be reassuring. The opposite occurs when people compare themselves to the group. The performance of a group member is reflected in the overall vision of the group. People tend to look down on disloyal members of the group in order to protect the group. Some people use ingratiation to be liked, which could also depend on the culture. Some cultures, such as Asian culture or European cultures, may find ingratiating to be the norm, while American culture may interpret ingratiating as bribery or corruption. Self-control allows adaptation to different situational norms.

Prejudice against devalued members of the group can protect self-esteem in an unhealthy way. A person who is discriminated against can become ill, causing anxiety, fear, distractions, and cognitive depletion. The effects of stereotype threat have been produced in devalued groups, throughout history. The performance of dominant groups may also decline, for fear of negative comparison with the devalued and stereotyped group. To counter stereotypes, people distance themselves from the domain of performance, like statistics, or, much more emotionally costly, from their entire group, like American women. Most self-help gurus recommend introspection for self-knowledge, but that recommendation can be misleading. Comparison with society may also be necessary, depending on culture and context. Usually, people do not live alone under a cave, but live in a social environment.

To maximize well-being, it is recommended to find a role model whose achievements are possible, so upward comparison is inspiring. For example, aspiring to be Oprah as a low-income person may be unattainable at first, but aspiring to be rich as a governor is a more attainable goal. Another recommendation is to like those people you want to become, like singers. You like people who love and value you. It is best to avoid prejudice and discrimination. It is also better to avoid blaming others, especially public figures, so as not to have social repercussions. To avoid stereotype threat, if groups are formed, it is advisable to create equally diverse groups. Finally, it is recommended to practice positive thinking about oneself, which is likely to increase self-esteem.

Sociologist Morris Rosenberg created the most valid and reliable self-esteem assessment scale or questionnaire, at least in the United States. If the responses demonstrate strong self-esteem (as in the accurate case of Elena Pezzini), sociology predicts that the examinee is well-adjusted, clean and sober, clear-headed, a full citizen, and somewhat honors educated. If the responses reveal some inner shame, then the respondent is, or has been, a teen parent, who is prone to social deviance and if he or she does not have a substance addiction, it is thanks to strict laws.

Institutions and individuals must understand that high self-esteem is vital to well-being and that its opposite leads to crime, substance abuse, prostitution, murder, rape, and terrorism. In 1990, David Long discovered that kidnappers and suicide bombers suffer from feelings of worthlessness and that their criminal and aggressive acts are nothing more than a desperate test to give an “internal style to a flat mental landscape” (Slater, 2002). Individuals with high self-esteem: they are generally satisfied with themselves, they think they are good, they feel they have a series of good qualities, they can do things as well as most people, they are proud, they feel useful, they feel worthy, at least equal to others, have self-respect, feel successful and have a positive attitude towards themselves.

References
Baron, RA, Byrne, DR, and Branscombe, NR (2005) Social Psychology. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Slater, L. (2002) The problem with self-esteem. New York Times