The Development of Self: A Comparison and Analysis of Child Self-Description Using Rosenberg Locus of Self Knowledge
Abstract
The concept of self is an ever developing process which begins from childhood. It accounts for the ability to initially identify ourselves using physical attributes and activities, progressing into descriptions which capture emotions and beliefs only privy to the individual. Open ended self-description questionnaires along with semi structured interviews were conducted with two female children aged eight and sixteen years old. Their responses were analysed and compared to identify whether a developmental trend existed. The results supported Rosenberg’s Locus of Knowledge theory; with age and experience children develop a self-reflexive sense of self separate to their caregivers. Although, methodical choices reduce the possibility of ecological validity.
Introduction
The general consensus amongst western theorists is the concept of ‘self’ as a progressive process. Fundamentally, the acknowledgement of self-existence, which Lewis (1990) refers to as the existential self. The awareness of ‘me’, the person, the ‘self-as-object’ or the ‘categorical self’ as described by James (1892) follows. This stage reflects a child’s ability to identify themselves, identifiable by others and socially categorised according to their relationships, gender and age. Cooley (1902) suggested ‘the looking glass self’ was another way people viewed their identities based upon responses and perceptions of others. Mead (1932) further suggested language and interaction termed, ‘symbolic interactionism’ provided social development permitting a greater understanding of their position within the world around them. Whilst Piaget (1920) considered cognitive development as a child constructing their response to the environment.
Harter (1983) research gained insight into the developmental sequence children commonly establish a contrast between younger and older children. The review of interviews held with children of various ages, suggested younger children described themselves through factual objectiveness, activities and behaviours, whilst older children; attitudes and interpersonal traits. Miell and Ding (2005) describe the stages of self as; the self being an object of knowledge and the subject of experience. Bannister and Agnew (1977), research findings suggested older children develop the ability to psychologically characterize themselves. Through experience they increase subjectivity in self-perceptions and self-explanations. Younger children refer to themselves through knowledge of observed behaviours, physical characteristics, and play.
Bannister and Agnew findings were further developed through Rosenberg (1979) conducting semi structured interviews with eight to eighteen year olds centred on their sense of self. Investigating how children’s self-perceptions changed over time, he divided his findings into categories. The categories helped to determine a child’s perception of their sense of self, social influences and how self evolves. Rosenberg’s findings supported the work of Bannister and Agnew. He also found when judging themselves, younger children signposted their caregivers as the more knowledgeable figure; knowing them better than they knew themselves. With age and experience children become more self- reflective, able to distinguish themselves from others with an inclination to express and explore their feelings and experiences independently.
Rosenberg coined the term ‘Locus of knowledge’ which highlighted the self-description transition from physical terms visible to all, to psychological terms visible only to the individual. This idea will be explored within this report by partially replicating Rosenberg’s research methods and I will thereafter analyse the findings to identify similar developmental trends.
Method
Design
A non-experimental qualitative approach is applied using one to one semi – structured interviews. Conducted on two female participants, the interview consists of structured and open questions with a comparison of the self-descriptions elicited. Both participants received identical instructions.
Participants
One primary school and one secondary school were approached by the Open University in Milton Keynes, England for assistance. Several children and parents gave their consent for participation, however two participants were selected for the module research. Both participants were female. Annie aged eight and Kirsty sixteen years old.
Materials and Apparatus
Materials and apparatus consisted of a ten sentence A4 “Who Am I” self-description sheet. A pencil for participant scribing. A microphone and audio recording equipment. Two category analysis forms and transcripts of each interview. A computer device to compile the findings and comparison report.
Procedure
The research team endeavoured to adhere to the BPS ethics code and principles. Parents were asked to give their written consent on behalf of their child confirmed their child’s participation and permission for the audio-recording and analysis results to be used. Both child participants were informed they could withdraw from the research at any point during the interview if they felt uncomfortable discussing any topics raised.
The interviews were conducted during a normal school day, within their school environments. The locations were purposely chosen due to familiarity. Two members of the module research team conducted the interviews. One researcher interviewed the eight year old children who were accompanied by a teaching assistant and the other the sixteen year olds. The researchers were not provided with any information about the participants.
A producer and sound recorder were present during the interviews to operate and position the audio equipment preventing obstructions during the interview. Recordings were halted whilst participants completed their self-descriptions or background noises were heard. Once the task had been completed or the noise stopped, recording continued.
Both researchers began by issuing the participants with the ‘Who am I?’ self-description sheets based on questions used by Rosenberg (1979) and Harter (1983). An example of the ‘Who Am I?’ description sheet are provided in Appendix 1. Each questionnaire was lined and numbered one to ten, beginning with ‘I…’ Participants were asked to self-describe on each. The descriptions were then discussed during a semi structured interview where participants were asked to expand on their statements. Further questions were asked based on Rosenberg’s research. Self-evaluation questions considered point of pride and shame, whilst self and other questions; addressed individuality. The ideal self-children would like to be and the Locus of Knowledge.
Results
Upon completion the interview recordings were transcribed by the research team. Category analysis forms were used to apply the data to Rosenberg’s categorises, an example is provided in Appendix 2. A category key is provided in Appendix 3. The findings were compared and analysed to identify whether a developmental trend was present. Pie chart self-description analysis are found in Appendix 4.
Table 1: A comparison of Annie and Kirsty’s categories of self-description Category | Percentages For Annie Aged 8 | Percentages For Kirsty Aged 16 | Physical | 60% | 10% | Character | 20% | 10% | Relationships | 20% | 20% | Inner | 0% | 60% |
As can be seen from Table 1, the results indicate a differentiation between the child participants in the physical and inner categories. The finding suggests a developmental trend is present.
Self-Descriptions
Annie displayed a disposition towards identifying herself through physical descriptions such as; ‘doing Harry Potter Lego’, ‘using the TV remote control’ and ‘being good at Maths’. These are all physical activities which Annie enjoys and accounted for 60% of her responses. She associates her activities as self which indicates developmental sequence in progress. In comparison within this category Kirsty’s self-description accounted for 10% of her responses and relates to her body size an aspect which Annie makes no reference.
Kirsty’s disposition leaned towards her Inner. The private inner world of beliefs and emotions to self-describe which accounted for 60% of her responses. The analysis resulted with Annie having no self-descriptions within this category.
Both participants made reference to relationship self-descriptions which accounted for 20% respectively. Although Annie made reference to her pets, a demonstration of interpersonal traits was made. Whilst Kirsty references a broader social aspect of herself, making references such as; ‘I get on well with many people’ and ‘I’m friendly and my friends are like family’.
Both participants make reference to characteristics and traits. Annie considers herself ‘not very good at remembering’. Whilst Kirsty self describes as ‘I work as hard as I can.
Locus of self-knowledge
Further questions were asked to ascertain the level of self-reflexiveness each child had developed. When asked whether Kirsty and her mother would differ in opinion about how well she behaved at home, Kirsty’s response was very sophisticated. She displayed an understanding of how her behaviour could be perceived by her mother ‘they think I’m being moody’ as well as her own behavioural perception ‘but I think I’m being funny’. She goes on to say ‘which, you know, causes perhaps a little bit of conflict’.
Posed with the same question, as Rosenberg stated, Annie’s response ‘Probably my Mum’ sign posts her mother. When probed, Annie does provide reasons for potential differences in opinion which are early signs of separating her own thoughts and feelings from her mothers.
Discussion
The study aim was to investigate the developing sense of self. Rosenberg’s categories were used to analyse and compare the self-descriptions of a younger and older child. The results suggested younger children are more likely to use physical facts, activities and characteristics to describe themselves. In comparison, older children use interpersonal traits linked to their motivations, beliefs and emotions. These findings supported the studies of Bannister and Agnew (1977), in that older children psychological advancement leads to greater subjective self-descriptions. Additionally, the findings supported Cooley (1902) ‘the looking glass self’ theory of identity based upon responses and perceptions of others.
Rosenberg (1979) found a similar pattern in results, in that self-descriptions differ according to age groups. Rosenberg used his results as evidence to suggest a developmental progression could be identified. The results reported within this study further support this theory.
Whilst the findings support Rosenberg’s theory it is important to consider its methodical limitations. The participant sample restricted to two female participants, failed to project male self-descriptions and reflect gender influences. Limiting the participant pool also fails to capture cross culture awareness and social class. Ecological validity is not entirely evident, arguably the study lacks fair representation of the demographics general population.
The semi structured interview conducted by two researchers, resulted in different approaches to the delivery of the questions. It could be argued the subtle differences were introduced to accommodate for the age differences, however a lack of consistency in this area may have reflected in responses and subsequently results. Annie listed less self-described responses than Kirsty. A possible reflection of her age and the development still required to process and communicate more complex language skills. Although a more creative approach could have been taken to encourage Annie through art or play. In addition, there appeared to be no introductions made by the interviewers prior to the interviews taking place. Although the children were in familiar settings there appeared to be no familiarity with the interviewers. It could be argued an introduction reduces anxiety and the possibility of power imbalance due to children viewing researchers as authority figures. Answers flowing from a position of honesty rather than meeting an expectation.
Accurately categorising the self-descriptions may also prove a questionable task. Interpretations of each category can vary from researcher to researcher and generate varying results. It could be argued, converting the responses into percentages created an imbalance in calculations. It should be noted all the results were based on a percentage of the overall number of self-descriptive statements each participant made. Firstly, both participants submitted a number of different responses. Secondly, ensuring a larger sample group who completed or where encouraged to complete all ten self-descriptions could have provided more holistic approach reflecting a broader spectrum of child. Conducting the interviews at different times of the day for example before or after lunch consider performance peak time. Lastly, including additional categories which no longer constrain responses into four categories overly simplifying the analysis of any participant.
Whilst Rosenberg’s concept may have been relevant for his time, the study could be developed further by researching how children today view themselves. This would require consideration for the progression of the internet and social media. Whether the way in which children now communicate and view self, psychologically progresses sooner due to these influences. Further adaption could include male child participants and determine whether gender influences results. Inclusion of several schools will increase the sample size and ecological validity.
Conclusion
In conclusion psychological development amongst children is a progressive maturation process. The locus of knowledge suggests a child initially relies on the knowledge and experience of their caregivers to define their sense of self. The developmental trend identified the usage of physical life aspects to self-describe, progressing onto interpersonal traits. These changes appear to occur through psychological development, interaction with others and personal experiences. The methodical approach posed challenges which subsequently affected the results although they support Rosenberg’s theory. Further research involving male representation, age appropriate interview techniques and larger sample groups would possibly improve the ecological validity of the study.
Word Count 2031
References
Bannister, D. and Agnew, J. (1977) ‘The child’s construing of self’, in Cole, J. (ed.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press.
Cooley, C.H. (1902) Human Nature and the Social Order, New York, Scribner
James, W. (1961) Psychology: the briefer course, New York, NY, Harper and Row
Bannister, D. and Agnew, J. (1977) ‘The child’s construing of self’, in Cole, J. (ed.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press.
Lewis, M. (1990) ‘Social knowledge and social development’, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, vol. 36, pp. 93-116
Mead, G.H (1934) Mind, Self and Society, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press.
Harter, S. (1983) ‘Developmental perspectives on the self-system’, in Mussen, P.H. (ed.) Handbook of Child Psychology, vol. 4, New York, John Wiley and Sons.
Rosenberg, M. (1979) Conceiving the Self, New York, Basic Books.
Sheehy, K and Barnes, P. (2005) in The Open University (2006) Media Kit, ED209: Child Development DVD-ROM (Media Kit Part 2, Audio Band 3), Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Miell, M and Ding, S. (2009) ‘The early development of identity’, in Ding, S. and Littleton, K., in Children’s Personal and Social Development, Oxford/Milton Keynes, Blackwell Publishing/The Open University.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Who am I? Self-description sheet
Appendix 2: Category Analysis sheet
Appendix 3: Category Key
Appendix 4: Pie chart self-description
Appendix 1
Who Am I?
-------------------------------------------------
1.
-------------------------------------------------
2.
-------------------------------------------------
3.
-------------------------------------------------
4.
-------------------------------------------------
5.
-------------------------------------------------
6.
-------------------------------------------------
7.
-------------------------------------------------
8.
-------------------------------------------------
9.
-------------------------------------------------
10.
Appendix 2
Category Analysis Form 1
P | C | R | I | Participant: Annie | Age:8 | Sex: Female | XXX | X | X | | I like doing Harry Potter LegoI love rabbits, guinea pigs and dogsI think one of my hobbies is using the TV remote controlI’m really good at Maths but get stuck on telling the timeI’m not very good at remembering | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | column totals | Overall total = 5 | 60 | 20 | 20 | 0 | Percentages(column total / overall total x 100) |
Category Analysis Form 2
P | C | R | I | Participant: Kirsty | Age: 16 | Sex: Female | X | X | XX | XXXXXX | ‘I can’t change who I am’‘I can only be my best’‘I’ve always been an individual’‘I am not size eight!’‘I’m pretty plain’‘I get on well with many people’‘I’m friendly and my friends are like family’‘I work as hard as I can’‘I may set my goals too high’‘I can only be me and if some people don’t like that, I won’t apologise anymore’ | 1 | 1 | 2 | 6 | column totals | Overall total = 10 | 10 | 10 | 20 | 60 | Percentages(column total / overall total x 100) |
Appendix 3
Category Key
P | Physical | C | Character | R | Relationship | I | Inner |
Appendix 4
Figure 1: Annie Self-Description Analysis
Figure 2: Kirsty Self-Description Analysis
These were very well presented appendices Serena. 