Psychologically theory of Identity - Cognitive-psychology - Mind Scape Today
Psychologically theory of Identity.
Psychologically theory of Identity.Identity is motivational in that people want self-respect and work hard to reduce self-loathing. Because importance, most schools of psychology have addressed this topic. But agreed theory has been difficult to achieve. One reason lies in the complexity of a key observation: self-concepts can vary across the person’s different states of mind. A theory of multiple self-schemas is necessary to explain this observation. The more a person can organize these multiple self-schemas into a coherent whole, the more likely that individual is to experience a sense of identity cohesiveness and continuity over an extended time.
Most psychologists define the sense of identity as a conscious experience of the self as one who perceives, thinks, feels, and exists over time. Locke (1690) centered on key property: a sense of sameness over time. (Erikson, 1959; Lichtenstein, 1977). According to the central thesis of this chapter-multiple, available schemas of self this sense of sameness is sometimes illusory. But also according to the theory to be presented, the sense of sameness is realistic and not illusory; it is derived from the superordinate configuration that can associate multiple self-schemas. People can change by forming supra-ordinate integration; they can progress from a scattered sense of vagrant identity to an abiding harmony.
Most psychologists define the sense of identity as a conscious experience of the self as one who perceives, thinks, feels, and exists over time. Locke (1690) centered on key property: a sense of sameness over time. (Erikson, 1959; Lichtenstein, 1977). According to the central thesis of this chapter-multiple, available schemas of self this sense of sameness is sometimes illusory. But also according to the theory to be presented, the sense of sameness is realistic and not illusory; it is derived from the superordinate configuration that can associate multiple self-schemas. People can change by forming supra-ordinate integration; they can progress from a scattered sense of vagrant identity to an abiding harmony.
SELF-SCHEMAS
A self-schema is an organized compendium of meanings that a person attributes to his or herself. It is a patterned aggregation of elements, not a random multiplicity of attributes. A self-schema is an ordered constellation of associated beliefs (Jacobson, 1964; Schilder, 1950; singer and Salovey, 1991). The connected and associated beliefs of a particular self-schema make up a structure of nonconscious knowledge, which can be realistic or unrealistic in both contents and linkages between contents.
Repertories of unconscious self-schematized knowledge exist, with more or less active units. Activated self-schemas influence working models. Working models combine with perceptions to organize representations into conscious experiences. Self-observation of self-experiencing; in reflective consciousness, then leads to a sense of current identity. This experience can match or mismatch with the memory of a prior sense of identity.
Conscious experience includes concepts about the self in the past, present, and future. In various states, a person can hold different views of past identity. Less surprisingly, he or she can also imagine various future selves. Some futures are idealized, others realistic; some are desired, others dreaded. Moreover, in shimmering states of mind, contrasting self-concepts can be consciously experienced. This is often due to the organizing activity of two or more self-schemas.
Self-schemas are a pattern of nonconscious associations between various belief units about self-attributes. These schematized attributes could be potential declarative knowledge, such as “I am a saintly mother.” In other instances, procedural knowledge is schematized, leading to a particular style of expressing, gesturing, and moving. The procedural knowledge could lead to enactive representations such as a saintly posturing of the face, hands, and body.
One of many categories of meaning in self-schema is a cognitive map of the physical self and its somatic usage. The somatic styles of an individual often vary in different moods; this can be observed in the systematic variance in walk, gesture, voice, and facial expression. Observers can infer another person’s self-schemas from such observations and by listening to reports of his or her consciously visualized or kinesthetically felt body sensations. Observers can then describe that person’s body image as part of his or her self-schemas.
Another category of beliefs within self-schemas includes the roles and intentions of self. Roles of self are often embedded in expectations about roles for other people. Scripts for how the self can or does, react to others are included in such role-relationship models. Scripts of action sequences are associated with roles and body images. Values, rules, and self-regulatory styles are also categories in self-schemas. All these elements in the associations of beliefs that form a self-schema are summarized here:
One of many categories of meaning in self-schema is a cognitive map of the physical self and its somatic usage. The somatic styles of an individual often vary in different moods; this can be observed in the systematic variance in walk, gesture, voice, and facial expression. Observers can infer another person’s self-schemas from such observations and by listening to reports of his or her consciously visualized or kinesthetically felt body sensations. Observers can then describe that person’s body image as part of his or her self-schemas.
Another category of beliefs within self-schemas includes the roles and intentions of self. Roles of self are often embedded in expectations about roles for other people. Scripts for how the self can or does, react to others are included in such role-relationship models. Scripts of action sequences are associated with roles and body images. Values, rules, and self-regulatory styles are also categories in self-schemas. All these elements in the associations of beliefs that form a self-schema are summarized here:
· Body image
· Roles of self
· Associated memories of self;
· Emotional response style;
· Scripts of action sequences;
· Values and rules;
· Self-regulatory style; and
· Future intentions and plans.
· Roles of self
· Associated memories of self;
· Emotional response style;
· Scripts of action sequences;
· Values and rules;
· Self-regulatory style; and
· Future intentions and plans.
These are all mental contents that might differ from one self-schema to another. In addition, linkages between contents, such as body image and role, could differ from one self schema to another.
People vary in their degree of development of a complex sense of identity. At the level of self-schemas, complexity, and differentiation are a matter of how well the person has combined smaller networks of associations into larger systems of meanings that are self-related. In other words, people differ in the degree to which they have integrated several self-schemas into a superordinate schema.
A superordinate schema is a schema of many schemas, a higher system combining lower systems of associated beliefs. In down figure shows linking across self-schemas to form superordinate self-knowledge. People who have more superordinate self-schemas can have more integrated self-organization. But conflicted components within the superordinate schema can limit that integration.
In any particular state of mind, a person could derive his or her conscious sense of identity formed information in just one self-schema. Another experience of identity could be formed from a superordinate schema combining several possible selves. If these possible selves are not conflicted, the result can be a richer and more differentiated episode of self-reflected.
In down figure showed depicts a theory about a hierarchy of self-schematization. This theory indicates how people may vary in level of superordinate schemas schematization. Some people have developed only singular self-schemas, and these may even be dissociated from one another. Others have formed superordinate schemas.
In down figure showed depicts a theory about a hierarchy of self-schematization. This theory indicates how people may vary in level of superordinate schemas schematization. Some people have developed only singular self-schemas, and these may even be dissociated from one another. Others have formed superordinate schemas.
HIERCHICAL NESTING OF SELF SCHEMAS.
These reduce the likelihood of dissociation, even under stress. Some people have many contradictions across schemas, even within a superordinate network o personal meanings. They may be mature but still quite conflicted. Other people have less antithetical alternative roles for themselves. Their character's logical maturity is likely to seem more mellow and harmonious.
This assertion deserves repetition in its negative form. People with few superordinate schemas, and with antithetical self-schemas, are vulnerable to explosive shifts in state. Under stress they are vulnerable and in conscious memory are apt to dissociate their various identity experience. They tend to use defensive control processes that disavow or distort reality instead of those that lead to a dose-by-dose style of coping with emotional challenges.
Further explanations are presented here in the context of two simplified, fictional examples, derived from composites of many clinical observations.
