The model that we are proposing recognizes the diffi culty in treating self-knowl- edge, self-regulation, and self-esteem as independent constructs. Rather, the model that we will outline below (see Figure 3.1) attempts to integrate these three elements into a dynamic process framework that accounts for how individuals deal with self-relevant social information and how this in turn infl uences how they think and feel about themselves. (See also Rhodewalt & Tragakis, 2003, for ear- lier thoughts on the importance of self-regulation to self-esteem; and Mischel &
Morf, 2003, for a description of the self as a motivated cognitive-affective-action system.) Later, we will discuss how problems at various points in this process can leave the self-system fragile and vulnerable, which will ultimately have important implications not only for how individuals react in particular situations, but also for the quality of their interpersonal relationships, mental and physical health, and well-being in general.
The self-regulation model that is depicted in Figure 3.1 owes much to earlier conceptualizations of the self as both a “theory” (Epstein, 1973) and a “digest”
of information that guides and informs self-regulation (Higgins, 1996), as well as to theories of self-esteem that focus more on its importance as information or
“monitor” (e.g., sociometer theory; Leary & Baumeister, 2000) rather than simply
RT4509X_C003.indd 53
RT4509X_C003.indd 53 1/3/2008 11:34:44 AM1/3/2008 11:34:44 AM
something a person possesses. These elements are contained in what we label the Knowledge-Organization System, the Regulation-Action System, and the input- feedback component Self-Esteem. These units interact and operate in a social context that provides Social Feedback to the individual. We will describe each ele- ment of the model in the following sections but note here that the model is viewed as a complement and extension of existing perspectives on self-esteem rather than an alternative to them.
The self-regulation process starts when a social cue signals that impending events are self-relevant. This may include a variety of situations and events and usually involves the behavior of other people who are more or less important to the individual. The self-system, through its knowledge-organization function, plays an important role in terms of what captures the individual’s attention and how it is perceived and interpreted in relation to existing conceptions that may be activated.
Knowledge- Organization
System (self-theory, digest)
Regulation- Action System (strategies, enactment) Social Information (self-relevant cues:
context, events, feedback, reactions)
Self-Esteem Monitor
choose/manipulate situation, self- present, defend
guide, operate filter, test, adjust
receive, activate
test output feedback
input
Figure 3.1 A dynamic model of the self and interpersonal self-regulation, emphasizing the role of self-esteem in the process.
RT4509X_C003.indd 54
RT4509X_C003.indd 54 1/3/2008 11:34:45 AM1/3/2008 11:34:45 AM
Thus, self-knowledge serves as a lens or fi lter for incoming social information (e.g., the “self-theory” [Epstein, 1973], “personal constructs” [G. Kelly, 1955], or “self- schema” [Markus, 1977]). The specifi c elements of self-knowledge that are ulti- mately activated in the situation (and the interpretations that are made) then feed in to plans and strategies for action directed through a process of self-regulation.
It is important to acknowledge the self-system’s role, through various interpersonal self-regulatory strategies, in choosing and shaping the situations that provide the information to be dealt with. Thus, the self-system is far from a passive entity, and works by actively operating on information received from the environment (reactive regulation), while also actively manipulating the information it is exposed to (proactive regulation). The important dynamic interaction between self-knowl- edge and self-regulation is linked by a hierarchical structure of motives and goals that give meaning to the specifi c elements of self-knowledge and direct the situa- tions that are ultimately chosen, the strategies and actions that are pursued, and the standards of progress (success/failure) that are monitored (e.g., Cantor, 1990;
Dweck, Higgins, & Grant-Pillow, 2003).
This process sometimes fl ows smoothly, while at other times it may run into problems. Because of this, the system needs a gauge or “monitor” in the form of (state) self-esteem that indicates the degree of overall effectiveness of the knowl- edge and regulation components at any given time in response to situational con- tingencies (most often involving “threats” or challenges to self-construction). This
“effectiveness”, however, is not judged in an objective sense, but is monitored in accordance with what has been defi ned as important to the individual, includ- ing certain domains, broad motives, and more specifi c goals, current concerns, life tasks, possible selves, and other standards. Ideally, the level perceived on this monitor will provide important information for potential adjustment to parts of the system, leading to more effective functioning in similar future situations. The effective functioning of the process (as well as the individual’s potential for learning and adjusting as a result of indications from self-esteem outcomes) is importantly infl uenced by the specifi c content and organization of self-knowledge elements, the adaptiveness of the self-regulatory strategies employed, and the individual’s ability (both generally and situation-based) to enact the chosen strategies. Thus, the monitoring function of the self-system (and its relation to self-esteem) is not simply based on the general positivity of one’s self-knowledge (what some may refer to as “global” self-esteem), but on one’s ability to regulate effectively the self in relation to other people and important goals.
As we will outline later in the chapter, disruptions or vulnerabilities at any point in this system will often produce varying levels of success in goal-directed behavior over time and in different contexts, leading to the fl uctuations in (state) self-esteem levels that are seen by many as a hallmark of the “fragile” self (e.g., Kernis, 2003). The nature of these vulnerabilities (and the strategies and behavior patterns they lead to) may allow researchers to differentiate groups of individuals who go about this process of “applying” the self-system to their environment in characteristic ways (e.g., Downey & Feldman, 1996; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001).
The last part of the chapter will apply this framework to additional examples of
“fragile” selves and offer future directions for research involving the model.
RT4509X_C003.indd 55
RT4509X_C003.indd 55 1/3/2008 11:34:45 AM1/3/2008 11:34:45 AM