The self and its pluralities: an analysis from the complexity paradigm
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24310/espsiescpsi.vi7.13396Keywords:
Complexity, Self, Self-referentsAbstract
It is considered shared opinions about the diverse self-referents definitions and terms. This diversity is valued in its real scope, and interpreted as a necessary pluralism to analyze a complex phenomenon such as the self. In this sense, some self-referential analysis from linear and complex perspectives are considered, showing some of their main differences according to an epistemological standpoint. Following this, a theoretical complexity-based model of the self is presented; this model permit to explain the question of diversity in self research, and to set forth some criteria to develop an integrated self conception coming from different theories. Besides, considering self interactive aspect makes to propose an analysis of complex nuances in environmental influences that affect self-referents system; specifically, those related to an interactive power studied in Microphysics, and the asinthotic freedom -which contradicts the classical views about the load of the interaction strength. This analysis is translated into some complex elements in others’ influence in the self.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Baumeister, R.F.; Campbell, J.D.; Krueger, J.I. y Vohs, K.D. (2003). Does High Self-Esteem Cause Better Performance, Interpersonal Success, Happiness, or Healthier Lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1-44.
Baumeister,R.F. Smart, L. y Boden, J.M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5-33.
Boersma, F.J. y Chapman, J.W. (1985). Manual of The Student’s Perception of Ability Scale. Edmonton: University of Alberta.
Bracken, B.A. (1996). Clinical applications of a context-dependent multidimensional model of self-concept. En B.A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self-concept. Developmental and clinical considerations (pp.463501). Nueva York: Wiley.
Brewer, M.B. (2001) The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. En M.A. Hogg y D. Adams, (eds.) Intergroup relations. Essential readins. An Arbor: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis.
Burns, R.B. (1979). The self concept in theory, measurement, development and behaviour. Nueva York: Longman.
Bütz, M.R. (1992). The fractal nature of the development of the self. Psychological Reports, 71, 10431063.
Bütz, M.R. (1993). Practical applications from chaos theory to the psychotherapeutic process, a basic consideration of dynamics. Psychological Reports, 73, 543554.
Bütz, M. R., Chamberlain, L. L. y McCown, W. G. (1997). Strange attractors: Chaos, complexity, and the art of family therapy. Nueva York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Byrne, B.M. (1996). Academic self-concept: its structure, measurement, and relation to academic achievement. En B.A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self-concept. Developmental and clinical considerations (pp. 287-316). Nueva York: Wiley.
Cardenal, V. y Fierro, A. (2003). Componentes y correlatos del autoconcepto en la escala de Piers-Harris. Estudios de Psicología, 24, 101-111.
Codina, N, (1997). Análisis de la realidad social. Situaciones. Barcelona: PPU.
Codina, N. (1998). Autodescripción del self en el TST: posibilidades y límites. Psicologia & Sociedade, 10, 1, 23-38.
Codina, N. (1999). La investigación del self: aproximaciones metodológicas para ordenar un fenómeno complejo. Ponencia al XXVII Congreso Interamericano de Psicología. Caracas, 27 Junio2 Julio.
Codina, N. (2000). Una aproximación cualitativa a la complejidad del self. En D. Caballero, M. T. Méndez y J. Pastor (Eds.), La mirada psicosociológica. Grupos, procesos, lenguajes y culturas. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.
Codina, N. (2004). Aproximación metodológica a la complejidad del self. Revista Interamericana de Psicología, 38, 1, 15-21.
Codina, N. (2003). Identidad social como heterorreferente en el sistema complejo del self. Congreso Interamericano de Psicologia. Lima.
Codina, N. (2005). La complejidad del self y análisis empírico de su borrosidad. Encuentros de Psicología Social, 35-43.
Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R.K., Cooper, M.L. y Bouvrette, S.A. (2003). Contingencies of self-worth in college students: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 85, 894-908.
Crocker, J., & Park, L. E. (2004). Reaping the benefits of pursuing self-esteem without the costs? Response to comments on Crocker & Park (2004). Psychological Bulletin.
Crocker, J. y Wolfe, C.T. (2001). Contingencies of selfworth. Psychological Review, 108(3), 593-623.
Dawes, R.M. (1994). House of cards: Psychology and psychotherapy built on myth. New York: Free Press.
Eiser, R. (1994) : Attitudes, chaos, and the connectionist mind. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Epstein, S. (1981). The self concept revisited. American Psychologist, 403-416.
Fierro, A. (1985). Valoración de cualidades personales por uno mismo y por otros. Análisis y Modificación de Conducta, 11, 29, 425-440.
Flay, B.R. Allred, C.G. y Ordway, N. (2001). Effects of the positive action program on achievement and discipline: Two matched-control samples. Prevention Science, 2, 71-89.
Gallegher, L.A. (2005) Thesaurus Psychological Index Terms. (10 ed.). Washington, American Psychological Association.
Gergen, K.J. (1982). From self to self: What is there to know?. En J.Suls (ed.) Psychological perspectives on the self. Hillsdale, Nueva York: Erlbaum.
Harter, S. (1996). Historical roots of contemporary issues involving self-concept. En B.A. Bracken (Ed.),
Handbook of self-concept. Developmental and clinical considerations (pp. 1-37). Nueva York: Wiley.
Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. Nueva York: The Guilford Press.
Hattie, J. y March, H.W. (1996). Future directions in self-concept research. En B.A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self-concept. Developmental and clinical considerations (pp.421-462). Nueva York: Wiley.
Hewitt, J.P. (1998). The myth of self-esteem. Finding happiness and solving problems in America. Nueva York: St. Martin Press.
Higgins, E. T. (1989). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319-340
Kosko, B. (1993). Fuzzy thinking. The new science of fuzzy logic. Nueva York, NY: Hyperion (Pensamiento borroso: La nueva ciencia de la lógica borrosa. Barcelona: Crítica, 1995).
Marcus, H. y Nurius, P. (1986). Possible Selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954-969.
Marsh, H. W. (1990). SDQ II: Self description questionnaire II. Macarthur, Australia: University of Western Sydney.
Marsh, H.W. (1986). Global self-esteem: its relation to specific facets of self-concept and their importance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1224-1236.
Marsh, H.W. (2001). A multidimensional physical selfconcept: a construct validity approach to theory, measurement and research. Paper presented at 10th Wordl Congress of Sport Psychology, May, Greece
Marsh, H.W. y Hattie, J. (1996). Theoretical perspectives on the structure of self-concept. En B.A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self-concept. Developmental and clinical considerations (pp.38-90). Nueva York: Wiley.
Marsh, H.W. y Shavelson, R.J. (1985). Self-concept: Its multifaceted, hierarchical structure. Educational Psychologist, 20, 107-125.
Mead, G.H., 1934: Mind self and society. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. (Espíritu, persona y sociedad. Desde el punto de vista del conductismo social. México: Paidós)
Mecca, A.M., Smelser, N.J. y Vasoconcellos, J. (1989). The social importance of self-esteem. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Mruk, C. (1995). Autoestima. Investigación, teoría y práctica. Bilbao: DDB.
Munné, F. (1993). Pluralismo teórico y complejidad. Psicothema, Suplemento, 53-64.
Munné, F. (1995). Las teorías de la complejidad y sus implicaciones en las ciencias del comportamiento. Revista Interamericana de Psicología, 29, 1, 1-12.
Munné, F. (1997). Psicologia social e epistemologia: Questào complexa ou complicada?. Entrevista con Frederic Munné, por Antonio da C. Ciampa, Omar Ardans e Maria da Gloria S. Silveira. Sao Paulo, 4 de Julio de 1997. Psicologia e Sociedade, 9, 1/2, 5-30.
Munné, F. (2000). El self paradójico: la identidad como substrato del self. En D. Caballero, M.T. Méndez y J. Pastor, comp. La mirada psicosociológica. Grupos, procesos, lenguajes y culturas. (pp. 743-749). Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.
Munné, F. (En prensa.) El pluralismo teórico y metodológico en la psicología social. Aproximación desde el paradigma epistemológico de la complejidad. Psisoc. Revista Internacional de Psicología Social. 3.
Munné, F. (2004) Transdisciplinariedad y complejidad del grupo humano.Conferencia inaugural Master de Análisis y conducción de grupos. Universidad de Barcelona. 8 noviembre 2004.
Pelham, B.W. (1995). Self-investment and self-esteem: evidence for a Jamesian model of self-worth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 11411150.
Pyczynski,T., y Cox, C. (2004). Can we really do without self-esteem?. Comment on Crocker and Park (2004). Psychological Bulletin, 130, 425-429.
Pyczynski,T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Arndt, J. y Schimel, J. (2004). Why do people need self-esteem? A theoretical and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 435-468.
Regis, D. (1996). Self-concept and conformity in theories of health education. Tesis Doctoral, School of Education, University of Exeter, 1990 modified on 8th May 1996. www.ex.ac.uk/~dregis/PhD/10b.html
Rosenberg, M. (1973). Which Significant Others? American Behavioral Scientist, 16, 829-860.
Rosenberg, M., Schooler, C., Schoenbach, C., y Rosenberg, F. (1995). Global self-esteem and specific selfesteem: different concepts, different outcomes. American Sociological Review, 60, 141-156
Trowbridge, N. (1972). Self-concept and socio-economic status in elementary school children. American Educational Research Journal, 9, 525-537.
Wylie, R. (1979). The self-concept: Theory and research on selected topics. [Ed. rev., Vol. II] Lincoln, Nebraska: University Nebraska Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
All contents published in Escritos de Psicología are protected under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license. All about this license is available in the following link: <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0>
Users can copy, use, redistribute, share and exhibit publicly as long as:
- The original source and authorship of the material are cited (Journal, Publisher and URL of the work).
- It is not used for comercial purposes.
- The existence of the license and its especifications are mentioned.
There are two sets of authors’ rights: moral and property rights. Moral rights are perpetual prerogatives, unrenounceable, not-transferable, unalienable, imprescriptible and inembargable. According to authors’ rights legislation, Escritos de Psicología recognizes and respects authors moral rights, as well as the ownership of property rights. The property rights are referred to the benefits that are gained by the use or the dissemination of works. Escritos de Psicología is published in an open access form and it is exclusively licenced by any means for doing or authorising distribution, dissemination, reproduction, , adaptation, translation or arrangement of works.
Authors are responsable for obtaining the necessary permission to use copyrighted images.
10.png)
ESCRITOS DE PSICOLOGÍA por 