|
Individual self > relational self > collective self - But why? Processes driving the self‐hierarchy in self‐ and person perception
Nehrlich, Andreas D.
;
Gebauer, Jochen E.
;
Sedikides, Constantine
;
Abele, Andrea E.
|
DOI:
|
https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12384
|
|
URL:
|
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jopy.1...
|
|
Additional URL:
|
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29577298/
|
|
Document Type:
|
Article
|
|
Year of publication:
|
2019
|
|
The title of a journal, publication series:
|
Journal of Personality
|
|
Volume:
|
87
|
|
Issue number:
|
2
|
|
Page range:
|
212-230
|
|
Place of publication:
|
Oxford
|
|
Publishing house:
|
Wiley-Blackwell
|
|
ISSN:
|
0022-3506 , 1467-6494
|
|
Publication language:
|
English
|
|
Institution:
|
Außerfakultäre Einrichtungen > Mannheim Centre for European Social Research - Research Department A
|
|
Subject:
|
300 Social sciences, sociology, anthropology
|
|
Abstract:
|
Objective:The self has three parts: individual, relational, and collective. Typically,people personally value their individual self most, their relational self less, and theircollective self least. This self-hierarchy is consequential, but underlying processeshave remained unknown. Here, we propose two process accounts. Thecontentaccountdraws upon selves’agentic–communal content, explaining why the individ-ual self is preferred most. Theteleology accountdraws upon selves’instrumentalityfor becoming one’s personal ideal, explaining why the collective self is preferredleast.Method:In Study 1 (N5200, 45% female,Mage532.9 years, 79% Caucasian), par-ticipants listed characteristics of their three selves (individual, relational, collective)and evaluated those characteristics in seven preference tasks. Additionally, we ana-lyzed the characteristics’agentic–communal content, and participants rated theircharacteristics’teleological instrumentality. Study 2 (N5396, 55% female,Mage534.5 years, 76% Caucasian) used identical methodology and featured an addi-tional 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 evaluateothers’selves, adifferentself-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 inothers.
|
 | Dieser Eintrag ist Teil der Universitätsbibliographie. |
 Search Authors in
You have found an error? Please let us know about your desired correction here: E-Mail
Actions (login required)
 |
Show item |
|
