self analysis psychology essay example

Home — Essay Samples — Sociology — Self Identity — Self-Analysis: Shaping Identity and Personal Development

Self-analysis: Shaping Identity and Personal Development

Categories: Childhood Development Self Identity

About this sample

Words: 462 |

Published: Jan 31, 2024

Words: 462 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Personal background and experiences, strengths and weaknesses, values and beliefs, emotional intelligence, goals and aspirations.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

Expert in: Psychology Sociology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1666 words

3 pages / 1200 words

2 pages / 1039 words

1 pages / 2634 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Self Identity

When writing a my personal identity essay, it is important to consider the philosophical question of what sets us apart from others. This question is a matter of personal identity and can be a matter of life and [...]

Social goals and personal goals are two distinct but interconnected aspects of an individual's life. While social goals pertain to the collective well-being of society, personal goals are specific to an individual's aspirations, [...]

In the contemporary society, personal identity and self-expression are subjects of great significance. People constantly search for ways to define themselves and establish their individuality. This quest for self-expression is [...]

This essay has explored the concept of self-identity and its importance in shaping an individual's life and well-being. Developing a positive self-identity helps individuals to improve their psychological well-being and [...]

Growing up in a multiracial family can be confusing, especially if one’s family history has been kept a secret for years. This is the problem for James McBride, whose lifelong struggle of self-identity kept him from truly [...]

How do you present yourself to the world online and offline? Are you the same person Online and Offline? Which version of you is most true? These questions have made me think about the difference between our online self vs [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

What Is Self-Knowledge in Psychology? 8 Examples & Theories

Another provocative question is, “Why do I act the way I do?”

If you’ve asked yourself similar questions, you are not alone.

When we don’t know ourselves or act in ways we don’t understand or aren’t fond of, it may be a signal that change is in order. But how do we change, and what needs changing?

Einstein once reflected, “How many people are trapped in their everyday habits: part numb, part frightened, part indifferent? To have a better life, we must keep choosing how we’re living” (Cooper, 2001, p. 131).

Ignorance, fear, and indifference do not provide the impetus for gaining self-knowledge or effecting positive change.

Conversely, self-analysis leads to self-knowledge, which is the necessary first step in initiating positive change (Schaffner, 2020).

Let’s explore how self-knowledge facilitates self-improvement and provides other benefits.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Strengths Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will help your clients realize their unique potential and create a life that feels energizing and authentic.

This Article Contains:

What is self-knowledge in psychology, why is self-knowledge important, how can self-knowledge lead to self-mastery, self-knowledge vs self-awareness, self-knowledge, self-identity, & self-concept, 2 real-life examples of self-knowledge, 6 theories about self-knowledge, resources from positivepsychology.com, a take-home message.

Self-knowledge in psychology is “actual genuine information one possesses about oneself” (Morin & Racy, 2021, p. 373). This includes information about our emotional state, personality traits, relationships, behavioral patterns, opinions, beliefs, values, needs, goals, preferences, and social identity (Morin & Racy, 2021).

Self-knowledge results from self-reflective and social processes (Morin & Racy, 2021).

However, self-knowledge isn’t derived solely from introspection. According to Brown (1998), there are five sources that contribute to the reservoir of self-knowledge.

1. Physical world

This category of information is limited to physical information such as height, weight, and eye color.

2. Social comparisons

This source of self-knowledge occurs when comparing ourselves with others. Subcategories include upward and downward comparisons, in which we compare ourselves with someone better off and worse off, respectively (Brown, 1998).

3. Reflected appraisals

This source of self-knowledge stems from others’ evaluations of us. The term denotes the fact that we see ourselves reflected through the eyes of others (Brown, 1998).

4. Introspection

This source of self-knowledge is derived through inward observation of thoughts, feelings, motives, and desires. Introspection is interwoven with and integrally connected to self-knowledge.

5. Self-perception

In this category of self-knowledge, we learn about ourselves through observing and examining our own behavior.

Schaffner (2020) includes two additional sources of self-knowledge:

6. CBT-style approaches

Another source of self-knowledge emanates from a rational analysis of our negative thought processes through approaches similar to and including Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT).

7. Mindfulness techniques

Mindfulness-based techniques help us assess and enhance our emotional intelligence skills, building self-knowledge (Schaffner, 2020).

In sum, self-knowledge is obtained through a combination of the physical, social, and psychological world.

Indeed, “People who do not see themselves accurately are likely to bungle their lives” (Begley, 2020).

Key aspects at risk due to lack of self-knowledge include life partner choices, education and career choices, and where and how to live (Morin & Racy, 2021).

Deficits in self-knowledge lead to over-estimation of subjective strengths, which can cause lower life satisfaction and poor academic performance (Morin & Racy, 2021).

Schaffner (2020) lists five reasons self-knowledge is essential for psychological growth.

It satisfies the desire to learn and make sense of experiences.
It prevents discord between self-perceptions and others’ perceptions of us.
It emancipates us from the irrational whims of our unconscious.
It facilitates proactive responses rather than reactivity.
It is a necessary first step for positive change.

Huseyin (2017) suggests that self-knowledge demands us to develop a balanced suspicion of our feelings.

Other benefits include having less work frustration, less insecurity and envy, and less stress about money. In addition, we gain the ability to take responsibility for our emotions and have more empathy and compassion (Huseyin, 2017).

Download 3 Free Strengths Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will equip you or your clients with tools to discover and harness their unique strengths.

Download 3 Free Strengths Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

Because self-knowledge includes honest self-assessments and other acquired information, we can use it to make positive changes and master aspects of our lives.

Self-knowledge is essential for “giving a meaningful narrative to our past, present, and future actions, a sense of continuity over time, a sense of being both unique and similar to others” (Bukowski, 2019).

Knowing ourselves enhances our ability to live coherent and fulfilling lives. In addition, it allows us to understand our basic motivations and fears, and enhances our control of our emotions (Schaffner, 2020).

Conversely, the inability to recognize our feelings leaves us vulnerable and at their mercy (Schaffner, 2020).

Stellar self-knowledge motivates us to pursue ambitious projects, relationships, and other challenges. Lack of insight can inhibit great aspirations (Begley, 2020).

Psychosocial domains ripe for change

Three domains ripe for change include blind spots, self-deception, and conflict triggers.

1. Blind spots

Blind spots are unconscious processes that “typically bias the access to and formation of self-knowledge” (Bukowski, 2019).

In this video, we learn that Brian Wagner views the world differently than most and uses his gift to help others identify their personal blind spots and overcome their self-limiting beliefs.

2. Self-deception

Baumeister (2010) describes self-deception as a kind of wishful thinking. In this state, we believe what we want to believe, bereft of rigorous justifications. Various biases serve as a vehicle for self-deception.

3. Conflict triggers

Conflict triggers are words or actions performed by another that are perceived as offensive and create conflict (Wilmot & Hocker, 2011). Taibbi (2019) suggests these triggers stem from unhealed wounds from our past.

Why few people seek self-knowledge

Exploring unknown aspects of ourselves is risky, as it may reveal information that contradicts our current self-beliefs .
Our culture is more interested in success and advancement than introspection (Huseyin, 2017).
A variety of closely related terms distract information seekers, forming barriers to self-knowledge (Bukowski, 2019). Terms such as self-awareness, self-concept, and self-identity dilute the field of self-knowledge.

Let’s analyze some of these terms to provide greater clarity.

Self-knowledge refers to information about subjective tendencies, such as our emotional state, personality traits, and behavioral patterns (Morin & Racy, 2021).

Psychologists view self-awareness as a stepping stone on the path toward self-knowledge (Alicke, Zhang, & Stephenson, 2020).

Goleman (1997) states that in self-awareness, the mind investigates experiences and the corresponding emotions. This investigation can be both nonreactive and nonjudgmental.

Goleman (1997, p. 47) simplifies the concept of self-awareness by defining it as being “aware of both our mood and our thoughts about that mood.”

Some benefits of self-awareness include enhanced emotional intelligence, empathy, and listening skills (Berger, 2018).

Strong empathy and listening skills are instrumental in communication and for building robust and enriching interpersonal relationships.

In addition, self-awareness boosts critical thinking and decision making. These are skills often associated with effective leaders (Berger, 2018).

Increase your self-awareness with one simple fix – Tasha Eurich

According to Sheldon Stryker, identity is “a ‘part’ of one’s self that is ‘called up’ while interacting with others” (Appelrough & Desfor-Edles, 2008, p. 478).

The number of identities associated with a person corresponds with the roles they participate in, such as child, parent, employee, friend, and spouse (Appelrough & Desfor-Edles, 2008).

Identity salience refers to how the person organizes their identities hierarchically, as not every identity has the same meaning or status (Appelrough & Desfor-Edles, 2008).

Self-concept is the image we develop about ourselves, which, contrary to self-knowledge, may or may not be reality based (Morin & Racy, 2021). Self-concept may be ascertained using assessments such as the Self-Concept Questionnaire. This tool asks 48 questions assessing domains of self, such as moral, intellectual, social, physical, educational, and temperamental.

Self-concept is developed based on beliefs about self, whereas self-knowledge is derived from various sources of information, including external evidence (Morin & Racy, 2021).

A lack of clarity, stability, and consistency of self-concept is associated with low self-esteem , chronic self-analysis, high neuroticism, low agreeableness, and low conscientiousness (Morin & Racy, 2021).

Naomi Osaka

The courageous actions of tennis star Naomi Osaka demonstrate self-knowledge. Osaka has won multiple Grand Slams and is among the world’s highest paid female athletes (Kelly, 2021).

Osaka made the difficult decision to put her mental health before her career and public image by declining to participate in the 2021 French Open press conferences (Kelly, 2021).

As public fervor grew, Osaka withdrew from the tournament and was subsequently fined $15,000 and given a stern lecture on tournament code infractions (Kelly, 2021).

It appears that Osaka knew herself physically, mentally, socially, and professionally. She was forthcoming on social media about suffering from protracted bouts of depression following her first Grand Slam win in 2018 (Kelly, 2021).

She took initiative to prioritize caring for herself over her career, despite social scrutiny. Osaka is a rare example of how self-knowledge can be used to make critical, sometimes life-altering decisions.

Viktor Frankl

Viktor Frankl was a 20th-century psychiatrist and psychotherapist who, as a Holocaust survivor, emerged from horrific circumstances to create logotherapy and author numerous books (Frankl, 2006).

He was born in Vienna, Austria, in 1905 and received his MD and PhD from the University of Vienna. Frankl’s (2006) early work focused on depression and suicide.

After years of waiting, Frankl received his visa allowing emigration to the United States. However, the decision necessitated that he leave his parents, wife, and siblings behind. After contemplation, Frankl allowed the visa to lapse (Schatzman, 2011).

In 1942, Frankl was sent to the Theresienstadt concentration camp along with his family. He was the only member of his family to emerge from imprisonment (Schatzman, 2011).

Frankl’s body of work, early achievements, and life-transforming decisions signify self-knowledge proficiency and reflect his goals, values, beliefs, and social identity.

Various models and theories seek to explain self-knowledge. Below are concepts explaining how self-knowledge is acquired.

1. The unmediated observation model

The unmediated observation model, most notably associated with Descartes, posits that we attain self-knowledge through our own unmediated thoughts, separate from outside input or sources. This model is typically used for comparing other philosophical models (Gertler, 2003).

2. The transparency model

The transparency model involves making up your mind and rationally reflecting on and reaching a conclusion about the state of the world.

Using this model, we gain knowledge not just about our beliefs, but about any judgment-sensitive attitude. One attraction of transparency is the intimate connection between self-knowledge and agency (Jongepier, 2021).

3. Social constructionism

Social constructionism is a way of understanding ourselves and our world through the use of language to create a shared reality (Gergen, 2009). Constructionists theorize that meaning is created in relation to others.

4. The “looking-glass self”

This model, posited by sociologist Charles Horton Cooley, asserts that our sense of self is developed through interactions with others.

In this theory, our appearance is reflected through the other person. We then make a hypothesis about their judgment of us and have a resulting emotion regarding that judgment (Appelrough & Desfor-Edles, 2008).

5. Narrative self

Narrative self is necessary for introspective reasoning and autobiographical memory reconstruction. It includes two branches of thinking:

Paradigmatic mode, which accesses logical explanations in order to build a rational explanation of reality
Narrative mode, which uses meaningful interpretations of ourselves to create a coherent explanation of our identity

These narratives combine the past, present, and future events into a coherent sequence (Bukowski, 2019).

6. Self-perception theory

This theory, proposed by Daryl Bem, suggests that people learn about themselves by observing behavior and making inferences (Baumeister, 2010).

17 Exercises To Discover & Unlock Strengths

Use these 17 Strength-Finding Exercises [PDF] to help others discover and leverage their unique strengths in life, promoting enhanced performance and flourishing.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

We have an array of resources to boost self-knowledge for yourself and your clients. Below is a list of recommended courses, articles, and free worksheets from around our site.

Mindfulness X© course

This course was developed to increase mindfulness through analysis of the underlying workings of habitual thought patterns. The combined psychology, research, and practice behind mindfulness help participants better understand the workings of the mind, adding to self-knowledge.

Emotional Intelligence Masterclass©

Emotional intelligence is the ability to manage and interpret emotional encounters. Individuals with high emotional intelligence skills tend to handle everyday stress better (Gohm, Corser, & Dalsky, 2005), have meaningful and close relationships (Schutte et al., 2001), and higher levels of wellbeing (Fernandez-Berrocal, Alcaide, Extremera, & Pizarro, 2006).

Emotional intelligence provides a deep understanding of subjective emotional tendencies, adding to self-knowledge. This masterclass is an invaluable course for practitioners, as it includes high-quality material for practitioners to provide science-based training sessions.

This worksheet invites clients to discover who they are by considering how others and different temporal versions of themselves might respond to questions about their identity.

For instance, clients will consider how their closest friends and family likely perceive them. They will also consider what they would communicate about their present-day identity to past and future versions of themselves.

Personal Values Worksheet

Personal values refer to the beliefs, principles, and ideas that reflect the core of each individual. They bring meaning to our actions and shape our preferences, behaviors, and decisions.

This worksheet helps clients explore what they view as meaningful and important, serving as a basis to determine how they might focus their energy and time.

Replacing Negative Self-Talk

This exercise acknowledges the role of self-talk in making sense of our lives. Participants are encouraged to reframe negative self-talk into positive self-talk , making a positive change in their daily narrative.

Track and Measure Success

Because we remember the things that went wrong better than our successes, it is useful to track wins to add to your personal success story. This worksheet helps keep track of successes, adding to the self-knowledge base.

Self-Assessment for Assertiveness Self-Discovery

One of the numerous benefits of self-knowledge is that it can help enrich assertiveness skills. This worksheet prompts participants to explore various positive aspects of themselves to bolster confidence and self-efficacy .

87 Self-Reflection Questions for Introspection

This self-reflection article provides definitions, questions, and exercises that allow us to know ourselves more holistically.

17 Strength-Finding Exercises

If you’re looking for more science-based ways to help others develop their strengths, this collection contains 17 strength-finding tools for practitioners. Use them to help others better understand and harness their strengths in life-enhancing ways.

In this blog post, we’ve discussed several benefits and justifications for gaining self-knowledge.

Self-knowledge is essential for personal growth, decision making, and accurate self-assessment. It is the opposite of ignorance and helps us make sense of our experiences.

Importantly, self-knowledge is an essential tool to help in the change process. Change is hard. It requires intentionality and courage.

We humans spend a good amount of life avoiding the pain and discomfort associated with change.

The journey to gain self-knowledge seeks to dislodge us from our comfort zone to explore aspects of ourselves generally ignored or avoided.

The question I ask myself is, “How will I feel ten years from now if I choose not to look at all aspects of myself?”

Nelson Mandela stated,

“There is no passion to be found playing small—in settling for a life that is less than the one you are capable of living.”

Cooper, 2001, p. xvii

Although change may be difficult, healing, creativity, resilience, and passion are forged through change.

I believe waiting underneath our self-protective layers is a hidden wholeness.

So, who are you and what are you capable of? Aren’t you curious now?

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Strengths Exercises for free .

Alicke, M., Zhang, Y., & Stephenson, N. (2020). Self-awareness and self-knowledge. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology . Retrieved June 29, 2021, from https://oxfordre.com/psychology/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.001.0001/acrefore-9780190236557-e-743
Appelrough, S., & Desfor-Edles, L. (2008). Classical and contemporary sociological theory . Pine Forge Press.
Baumeister, R. F. (2010). The self. In R. F. Baumeister & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Advanced social psychology: The state of the science (pp. 143-175). Oxford University Press.
Begley, S. (2020, May 18). How much self-knowledge is too much? Mindful. Retrieved June 9, 2021, from https://www.mindful.org/how-much-self-knowledge-is-too-much/
Berger, B. (2018, May 22). Know thyself: Examining the benefits of self-reflection. Institute for Public Relations. Retrieved June 7, 2021, from https://instituteforpr.org/know-thyself-examining-the-benefits-of-self-reflection/
Brown, J. D. (1998). The self. Routledge.
Bukowski, H. (2019). Self-knowledge. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.) Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 61–76). Springer.
Cooper, R. K. (2001). The other 90% . Three Rivers Press.
Fernandez-Berrocal, P., Alcaide, R., Extremera, N., & Pizarro, D. (2006). The role of emotional intelligence in anxiety and depression among adolescents. Individual Differences Research , 4 , 16–27.
Frankl, V. E. (2006). Man’s search for meaning . Beacon Press.
Gergen, K. J. (2009). An invitation to social constructionism (2nd ed.) Sage.
Gertler, B. (2003). Self-knowledge. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2020 ed.). Retrieved July 19, 2021, from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/self-knowledge/
Gohm, C. L., Corser, G. C., & Dalsky, D. J. (2005). Emotional intelligence under stress: Useful, unnecessary, or irrelevant? Personality and Individual Differences , 39 (6), 1017–1028.
Goleman, D. (1997). Emotional intelligence. Bantam.
Huseyin, R. (2017, August 29). Why self-knowledge is hard to come by and what to do about it . Art of Wellbeing with Rezzan Huseyin. Retrieved May 31, 2021, from https://www.artofwellbeing.com/2017/08/29/self-knowledge/
Jongepier, F. (2021). The value of transparent self-knowledge. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 24 , 65–86.
Kelly, J. (2021, June 1). Tennis star Naomi Osaka stood up for herself, bravely shared her mental health issues and walked away from the French Open. Forbes. Retrieved June 21, 2021, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2021/06/01/tennis-star-naomi-osaka-stood-up-for-herself-bravely–shared-her-mental-health-issues-and-walked-away-from-the-french-open/
Morin, A., & Racy, F. (2021). Dynamic self-processes. In J. Rauthmann (Ed.), The handbook of personality dynamics and processes (pp. 336–386). Elsevier.
Schaffner, A. K. (2020, May 25). What’s so great about self-knowledge? Psychology Today. Retrieved May 31, 2021, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-art-self-improvement/202005/whats-so-great-about-self-knowledge
Schatzman, M. (2011, October 23). Obituary: Viktor Frankl. Independent . Retrieved June 22, 2021, from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/ obituary-viktor-frankl-1237506
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Bobik, C., Coston, T. D., Greeson, C., Jedlicka, C., … Wendorf, G. (2001). Emotional intelligence and interpersonal relations. The Journal of Social Psychology , 141 (4), 523–536.
Taibbi, R. L. (2019). Healing the past in the present. Psychology Today. Retrieved July 1, 2021, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fixing-families/201907/healing-the-past-in-the-present
Wilmot, W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (2011). Interpersonal conflict . McGraw-Hill.

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

Hello, today I was very happy to see your excellent and detailed content after two months of searching and in my research I finally got the convincing reason I needed. thank you.

Enjoyed reading this article, how is it referenced?

Here’s how you’d reference this in APA 7th:

Wilson, C. R. (2021, July 22). What is self-knowledge in psychology? 8 Examples & theories. PositivePsychology.com . Retrieved from https://positivepsychology.com/self-knowledge/

– Nicole | Community Manager

Hello. I really liked this article. I am a psychologyst and it was very interesting stopping by here. If you could send the references used, because some authors I didn’t hear about. It would be a pleasure to study more about them.

Thank you and congrats for.

If you scroll to the very end of the article, you will find a button that you can click to reveal the reference list.

Hope this helps!

I’m so glad it was useful. Thanks for reading it!

I appreciate your trouble and I gained a lot, Chris!

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Reparenting: Seeking Healing for Your Inner Child

In our work as therapists, we often encounter the undeniable truth: we never truly outgrow our inner child. A youthful part within us persists, sometimes [...]

30 Best Self-Exploration Questions, Journal Prompts, & Tools

Life is constantly in flux – our environment and ‘self’ change continually. Self-exploration helps us make sense of who we are, where we are, and [...]

Inner Child Healing: 35 Practical Tools for Growing Beyond Your Past

Many clients enter therapy because they have relationship patterns that they are tired of repeating (Jackman, 2020). They may arrive at the first session asking, [...]

How to Cite
Language & Lit
Rhyme & Rhythm
The Rewrite
Search Glass

How to Write a Self-Analysis Essay

Self-analysis essays force you to think critically and honestly about yourself and your work. These essays are often assigned at the college level as a way to reflect on yourself and your progress as a writer. They’re also used after group projects to gauge your personal contributions. Although they may sound difficult, self-analysis essays follow a basic structure. Practicing true introspection is the hard part.

Formatting Your Essay

Your self-analysis essay may vary in length from two to seven pages, depending on the assignment. It should follow the basic structure of a personal essay. You’ll need an introduction that states your thesis -- your central idea or theme. You’ll need at least three subsequent sections -- one for your strengths as a writer, one for your weaknesses and another for your future goals. Your conclusion should restate your thesis and sum up what you’ve learned about yourself. Each section may be a single paragraph or multiple paragraphs. Though the essay will be written in the first-person voice, use topic sentences to transition from one section to the next. For example, “Having acknowledged my natural talent for grammar, I would like now to address my weaknesses as a speller” could serve as a transitional topic sentence linking your strengths and weaknesses sections.

Establishing Your Thesis

The first honest moment of your self-analysis comes in the formulation of your thesis. You must answer the question of how you’ve performed in recent work. More than just rating yourself, you’ll need to provide a qualitative statement. If your essay is in response to a group project, the University of North Carolina at Wilmington recommends describing how your contributions hindered or helped the group. You might write, “My difficulty with research hindered the final presentation of our project by leaving out crucial information.” If you’re writing in response to a prior essay, you might state how you handled the material: “The topic was challenging, but I researched it thoroughly and presented a compelling argument.” Your thesis will guide the rest of your essay, so be honest and precise.

Outlining Strengths and Weaknesses

Your essay must dig into specific strengths and weaknesses -- the qualities you believe contributed to the outcome stated in your thesis. Teachers don’t want a litany of blame; they want students to be truthful about their shortcomings and to offer ideas for improvement. For instance, if you need help organizing your thoughts, presenting your findings in a more logical order, then state this in your section about personal weaknesses. If you’re particularly good at describing experiences in vivid detail, a natural storyteller, then don’t shy away from highlighting this strength in the appropriate section. Writing instructor David T. Burkam encourages students to think about what excites them in the writing process and what terrifies or intimidates them.

Setting Personal Goals

This last section of your essay should transition from self-analysis to self-improvement. Be specific. If you struggle with redundancy and a lack of vocabulary, state how you will consult a thesaurus for your next assignment to diversify your word choice. If reflecting on a group project, describe what you will do differently in the future to better help your partners, such as, “I won’t procrastinate, and I will turn in my research on time.” In your conclusion, revisit your thesis, but also sum up what you’ve learned through personal reflection. Your essay should be both reflective and proactive.

University of North Carolina at Wilmington: Self-Analysis Paper
University of Michigan: Student Self-Assessment of Writing in a First-Year Writing Course

Scott Neuffer is an award-winning journalist and writer who lives in Nevada. He holds a bachelor's degree in English and spent five years as an education and business reporter for Sierra Nevada Media Group. His first collection of short stories, "Scars of the New Order," was published in 2014.

PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
EDIT Edit this Article
EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
Browse Articles
Learn Something New
Quizzes Hot
This Or That Game
Train Your Brain
Explore More
Support wikiHow
About wikiHow
Log in / Sign up
Education and Communications
Personal Development
Self Discovery

How to Conduct a Self Analysis

Last Updated: March 18, 2024 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Trudi Griffin, LPC, MS . Trudi Griffin is a Licensed Professional Counselor in Wisconsin specializing in Addictions and Mental Health. She provides therapy to people who struggle with addictions, mental health, and trauma in community health settings and private practice. She received her MS in Clinical Mental Health Counseling from Marquette University in 2011. There are 19 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 240,970 times.

You are always growing and changing based upon your personality and life experiences. Therefore, it’s important to periodically take time out to conduct a self-analysis. Self-analyses help you to reflect on where you are in various aspects of your life. Armed with this information, you are better prepared to make necessary adjustments as you move forward in life.

Assessing Your Self-Esteem

Step 1 Reflect on your childhood experiences.

As a child, did I feel listened to or was I harshly criticized?
Was I spoken to respectfully or was I ignored, criticized, or teased?
Did I get appropriate attention and affection or was I neglected?
Was I physically, verbally, or sexually abused?
Were my accomplishments recognized?
Were my shortcomings and failures accepted or was I berated?
Was I always expected to be perfect?

The inner voice is not actually a voice that you hear with your ears. Instead, it is the collection of thoughts that you experience. These thoughts are often so deeply embedded in the subconscious that you may not even recognize them when they occur. Instead you’ll probably just experience a change in mood.
Your inner voice is either affirming or self-defeating. [3] X Research source People with healthy self-esteem usually experience an accepting and reassuring inner voice. However, people with low self-esteem generally experience a harsh, punitive, and critical inner voice.
Journaling can be tough for some people, especially if you write about past traumas that you have not fully processed. If you find that journaling is upsetting you or causing you difficulty handling everyday life for the day or week after attempting to journal, talk with a counselor who can help you journal productively while keeping you healthy.

Step 3 Write down what you were thinking.

Automatic thoughts originate in the subconscious so sometimes they are difficult to pinpoint. You can start by asking yourself “What made me feel this way.” Then dig deeper by asking yourself probing questions like “What does that say about me?” “Why did that make me feel that way?”
The first few answers are often superficial responses. Keep asking yourself “What else?” until you are able to probe into the deeper automatic thoughts.
For example, if a co-worker said something that made you angry, you may initially write down “Andrea said that what I did was wrong.” “That made me angry.” “She tried to make me look like I was incompetent.” And after asking yourself several times “What else?” you may eventually pinpoint a thought that you didn’t realize was there, such as “I’m not as good at this as everyone else.”

All-or-none thinking occurs when a person thinks that one misstep makes his or her or the situation a failure. For example, if you make one error at work you may think that you're a failure at your job.
Disqualifying the positive is when a person only focuses on what they have done wrong and ignores or forgets about all of the good that they have done. For example, a person may focus on getting one problem wrong on a test when they have correctly answered the rest of the questions.
Jumping to conclusions is when a person makes a judgment without having all of the facts. For instance, if you see your best friend running in a direction away from you in a parking lot, you may assume that your friend is trying to avoid you. However, they may have been late for an appointment and not noticed you.
Labeling happens when a person applies a label to themself (or someone else) rather than acknowledging the action or behavior. For example, instead of thinking, “I could have handled that differently” you may think, “I’m a bad person.”

Step 5 Examine if you have healthy or low self-esteem.

The Victim: This person acts like they are helpless and waits for others to come to the rescue. They tend to use self-pity or indifference to mask underlying fears of failure. They tend to be unassertive, may be an underachiever, and excessively relies on others for reassurance.
The Imposter: This person acts as if they are happy and all is well when they're really petrified of failure. This person needs to always be successful in order to be happy, often leading to perfectionism, competition, and burnout.
The Rebel: This person tries to downplay others, particularly people of authority. They live in constant anger about not being good enough and tends to focus on not being hurt by the criticism of others. This can lead to blaming other people for their own problems and they may frequently oppose authority.

Understanding Your Personality Type

Step 1 Take out a piece of paper and place it in front of you.

2 Draw five lines vertical across the paper. Make sure that the lines are evenly spaced. You will be writing in the boxes that these lines create, so make sure that there is adequate space in between the lines.
Keep in mind that these “Big Five” traits are not personality types but dimensions of personality. For example, someone may be high in “Agreeableness” (friendliness) but low on “Extraversion” (sociability.) This person is probably not very social, but he or she is in fact quite friendly.
The “Emotional Stability” dimension is also sometimes referred to as the “Neuroticism” trait. Neuroticism is on the other end of the Emotional Stability-Neuroticism spectrum.
Similarly, Sometimes the “Openness to Experience” dimension is referred to as “Intellect.” The terms are interchangeable.
Extroversion reflects a keen interest in other people and external events. Highly extroverted people tend to be very confident and have no problem exploring uncharted territories. People who are low in extroversion are often referred to as “introverts” and tend to prefer solace and quiet environments.
Neuroticism reflects anxiety level. People who are high in this dimension tend to experience negative emotions stronger than their counterparts. If you find yourself worrying and freaking out a lot, then you may want to rate yourself as high in this area.
Openness to Experience indicates a person’s willingness to adjust their thinking when new information arises. If you are high in this area then you are probably unconventional and “free spirited.” If you are low on this dimension, then you are probably more conventional and concrete with your thinking patterns.
Conscientiousness refers to how much a person considers other people when making decisions. It also reflects one’s level of self-control. If you are high on this dimension then you are probably disciplined, well organized, and function well with autonomy. If you are low in this area then you are probably quicker to follow your impulses and do well in environments that are fluid and constantly changing.
Agreeableness indicates the degree to which a person is compatible with other people. It also reflects how much a person cares about others. If you are high in this area then you are probably quite empathetic and can quickly and easily understand other people. You are probably often described as “nice” and “tender hearted.” If you are low in this area then you put less emphasis on emotions when determining how to behave. There is generally a gender difference on this trait with women generally being higher and men generally being lower.

Step 5 Think about how these five traits influence your personality.

People can be high or low in each dimension. However, 45 different personality combinations emerge when all of the different possible combinations are combined.

Writing a Self-Assessment for Work

Reviewing your emails is a good way to remember some of the things that you accomplished earlier in the year that you may otherwise forget to include.
If there is a place where your work is documented on a regular basis, such as a log or computer data entry system, you may be able to jog your memory by reviewing that documentation.
Ask yourself questions to help with your self-reflection. For example, you could ask “Did my efforts further the company’s mission?” or “In what ways did I take on leadership roles?”

Step 3 Use the STAR approach if you're having a hard time pinpointing your accomplishments.

Identify the (S)ituation: Briefly describe a situation when you felt very proud of your job performance.
Describe the (T)ask that was at hand regarding this situation. What is it that you had to do?
Describe the (A)ction that you took in order to complete the task.
Highlight the (R)esults that was achieved through your action.

Step 4 Write down the areas that you would like to improve on.

Although you are using this opportunity to do some self-reflection, reviewing your supervisor’s feedback from recent performance evaluations could help you to get some honest feedback on your performance.

Step 5 Make a list of 5-6 goals that you would like to accomplish over the next year.

Measuring Your Stress Levels

What values do you find very important? Kindness? Honesty? Success? Family time?
Does your behavior conflict with these values? For instance, let’s say that you value family time. Do you find yourself spending enough time with your family or are you prevented from doing so by other things?
Do your job, relationships, friendships, or other areas of your life conflict with these values? For instance, let’s consider the same example above. Is your job preventing you from spending time with your family?

Finances: Do you have enough money to cover your basic needs such as housing, food, clothing, and transportation?
Family: Are their issues with your spouse or children or are you a caregiver to an elderly family member?
Health: How is your health and the health of your loved ones?

Thinking and learning slows down
Accidents increase
Health challenges, including elevated risk of diabetes and increased risk of death
Increased depression and forgetfulness
Lower libido
Premature aging and weight gain
Impaired judgment

Step 6 Consider how you can work on decreasing your stress level in these areas.

Seeking Help from Others

Step 1 Consult a counselor or therapist.

People go to therapy for a variety of reasons, from past traumas to wanting to learn to cope with everyday life. There is no "bad" reason to seek counseling, and it's a sign of strength and self-care to seek help when you could benefit from it. [19] X Trustworthy Source American Psychological Association Leading scientific and professional organization of licensed psychologists Go to source
A therapist also provides a safe, welcoming space for you to explore your own thoughts and feelings in. She will not judge you or make you feel silly for having thoughts. This type of environment can be very productive for self-discovery.

Step 2 Look for an expert in cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT).

CBT has been demonstrated as a helpful treatment for a range of conditions, including anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders. Even people with chronic pain may be helped by CBT.

Step 3 Search for a trauma specialist if you have had past traumas.

CBT is a very common treatment for people with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Other types of treatment include exposure therapy, where you learn to overcome the trauma by talking about it repeatedly, and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy, where you focus on bodily stimuli as you think or talk about your traumatic memories. [21] X Research source

Step 4 Find someone you feel comfortable with.

Psychiatrists are medical doctors. They can diagnose conditions, prescribe medication, and offer therapy. Because of their specialized and extensive training, they are often rather expensive to see, but they are excellent for people who may have more severe disorders.
Psychologists have doctorate degrees in Psychology, such as Ph.D. or Psy.D. In some states, they can prescribe medication, but most cannot. They can diagnose conditions and offer therapy.
Licensed clinical social workers (LCSWs) have a master's degree in Social Work and have had extensive clinical experience to earn their license. They can offer therapy and a variety of other services that connect you with community resources.
Psychiatric nurses are registered nurses (R.N.s) with specialized training in psychiatry and therapy. They can usually prescribe medications and can offer therapy.
Marriage and Family therapists (MFTs) have a master's degree in marriage and family therapy. They have training and clinical experience in offering therapy, but cannot prescribe medications.
Licensed Professional Counselors (LPCs) have a master's degree in a professional counseling field. They have training and clinical experience in offering therapy, but cannot prescribe medications. LPCs tend to have a wide range of counseling areas, such as career counseling, in addition to mental health counseling.

Expert Q&A

Regular self-analyses are important so that you can honestly assess your strengths and areas for further development. Such self-assessments will help you to develop healthier and more effective goals. You can also come to a greater understanding of your core values and beliefs by conducting a self-analysis, which will help you live a life that is fulfilling and in line with those values. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
Your self-analysis may bring some of your insecurities to the forefront of your consciousness. That’s okay. The goal is to acknowledge them so that you can move forward. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
Make sure that your self-analyses focus on yourself. Do not use them as opportunities to blame others. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

↑ https://cmhc.utexas.edu/selfesteem.html
↑ https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/monitoring-your-mood
↑ https://www.psychalive.org/critical-inner-voice/
↑ https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentID=4552&ContentTypeID=1
↑ https://www.hhs.texas.gov/sites/default/files/documents/doing-business-with-hhs/provider-portal/behavioral-health-provider/cognitive-behavioral-therapy-resources/evaluating-your-thoughts.pdf
↑ https://www.simplypsychology.org/big-five-personality.html
↑ https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/big-5-personality-traits
↑ https://www.hr.virginia.edu/uploads/documents/media/Conducting_a_Self_Evaluation.pdf
↑ https://www.dm.usda.gov/employ/employeerelations/docs/PerfAccomplishmentsSelfAssessment.pdf
↑ https://www.responsiveclassroom.org/self-assessment-goal-setting-go-hand-hand/
↑ https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2017/05/employee-stress
↑ https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dont-delay/201004/are-your-goals-value-congruent
↑ https://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_9_May_2013/6.pdf
↑ https://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/42/3/508.full
↑ https://www.nhs.uk/livewell/tiredness-and-fatigue/pages/lack-of-sleep-health-risks.aspx
↑ https://www.apa.org/helpcenter/psychotherapy-myths.aspx
↑ https://www.apa.org/ptsd-guideline/patients-and-families/cognitive-behavioral
↑ https://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/treatment/therapy-med/treatment-ptsd.asp
↑ https://mhanational.org/types-mental-health-professionals

About This Article

Conducting a self-analysis can help you reflect on where you are in your life and how to best move forward. Consider if you have healthy or low self-esteem. Healthy self-esteem is when you believe you're worthwhile and valuable, whereas low self-esteem is when you see yourself in a negative light and lack confidence in your abilities. Keeping track of your moods can also help you learn more about your self-esteem and thought patterns. If you have healthy self-esteem, you’ll usually experience an accepting and reassuring inner voice. However, if your self-esteem is low, then your inner voice may be harsh or critical. By journaling about your shifts in moods or thoughts, you can discover a lot about your deeply imbedded thoughts and feelings toward yourself and the world around you. To learn how to understand your personality type, keep reading! Did this summary help you? Yes No

Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Eslin Pereira

May 8, 2018

Did this article help you?

Nathan Goodman

Apr 2, 2017

Jul 9, 2017

Joshua Hellsing

Jun 27, 2016

Jul 12, 2016

Featured Articles

Watch Articles

Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Do Not Sell or Share My Info
Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Level up your tech skills and stay ahead of the curve

Chapter 6: Thinking and Analyzing Rhetorically

6.7 What is self analysis?

Emilie Zickel

The final assignment in your English 100 or 101 course at Cleveland State University will include a reflective essay in which you describe your growth as a writer over the course of the semester. This activity of reflecting on your growth and performance is what is called a metacognitive activity: one in which you think and write about your learning.

Writing a formal reflective essay may be a new thing for you, so this chapter will provide an overview of why we write reflections on our learning and how to approach a reflection assignment.

How is reflective writing in the academic setting different from journaling or writing in a diary?

If you write in a diary or a journal, recording your thoughts and feelings about what has happened in your life, you are certainly engaging in the act of reflection. Many of us have some experience with this type of writing. In our diaries, journals, or other informal spaces for speaking – or writing- our mind, write to ourselves, for ourselves, in a space that will largely remain private.

Your reflection essay for college courses will contain some of those same features:

The subject of the reflective essay is you and your experiences
You can generally use first person in a reflective essay

But writing academic reflections, like the one that is due for the English 100/101 portfolio assignment, is a bit different from journalling or keeping a diary:

What can be gained from metacognitive activities that ask you to reflect on your learning and your performance as a writer?

One of the major goals in any First-Year Writing class is to encourage students’ growth as writers. No one is expected to be a perfect writer at the end of the semester. Your instructor’s hope, however, is that after 16 weeks of reading, writing, and revising several major essays, you are more confident, capable, and aware of yourself as a writer than you were at the beginning of the semester. Reflecting on the process that you go through as you write – even if your writing is not perfect – can help you to identify the behaviors, strategies, and resources that have helped you to be successful or that could support your future success. In short, reflecting on how you write (or how you have written during a particular semester) can be quite powerful in helping you to identify areas where you have grown and areas where you still have room for more growth.

How can I write a reflective essay?

As with any essay, a reflective essay should come with its own assignment sheet. On that assignment sheet, you should be able to identify what the purpose of the reflective essay is and what the scope of the reflection needs to be. Some key elements of the reflective essay that the assignment sheet should answer are:

What, exactly, the scope of the reflection is. Are you reflecting on one lesson, one assignment, or the whole semester?
Do you have detailed guidelines, resources, or reference documents for your reflections that must be met?
Is there a particular structure for the reflection?
Should the reflection include any outside resources?

If you are struggling to find the answers to these questions, ask your professor!

Another wonderful resource for writing a reflective essay comes from Writing Commons , in the article “Writing an Academic Reflection Essay” . This article offers great information about the following:

What it means to be “academic” or “critical” and at the same time personal and reflective
How you can achieve focus in a reflective essay
What “evidence” is in a reflective essay

A Guide to Rhetoric, Genre, and Success in First-Year Writing by Emilie Zickel is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Feedback/Errata

Comments are closed.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Front Psychol

“I” and “Me”: The Self in the Context of Consciousness

James (1890) distinguished two understandings of the self, the self as “Me” and the self as “I”. This distinction has recently regained popularity in cognitive science, especially in the context of experimental studies on the underpinnings of the phenomenal self. The goal of this paper is to take a step back from cognitive science and attempt to precisely distinguish between “Me” and “I” in the context of consciousness. This distinction was originally based on the idea that the former (“Me”) corresponds to the self as an object of experience (self as object), while the latter (“I”) reflects the self as a subject of experience (self as subject). I will argue that in most of the cases (arguably all) this distinction maps onto the distinction between the phenomenal self (reflecting self-related content of consciousness) and the metaphysical self (representing the problem of subjectivity of all conscious experience), and as such these two issues should be investigated separately using fundamentally different methodologies. Moreover, by referring to Metzinger’s (2018) theory of phenomenal self-models, I will argue that what is usually investigated as the phenomenal-“I” [following understanding of self-as-subject introduced by Wittgenstein (1958) ] can be interpreted as object, rather than subject of experience, and as such can be understood as an element of the hierarchical structure of the phenomenal self-model. This understanding relates to recent predictive coding and free energy theories of the self and bodily self discussed in cognitive neuroscience and philosophy.

Introduction

Almost 130 years ago, James (1890) introduced the distinction between “Me” and “I” (see Table Table1 1 for illustrative quotes) to the debate about the self. The former term refers to understanding of the self as an object of experience, while the latter to the self as a subject of experience 1 . This distinction, in different forms, has recently regained popularity in cognitive science (e.g., Christoff et al., 2011 ; Liang, 2014 ; Sui and Gu, 2017 ; Truong and Todd, 2017 ) and provides a useful tool for clarifying what one means when one speaks about the self. However, its exact meaning varies in cognitive science, especially in regard to what one understands as the self as subject, or “I.”

Quotes from James (1890) illustrating the distinction between self-as-object (“Me”) and self-as-subject (“I”) and a quote from Wittgenstein (1958) illustrating his distinction between the use of “I” as object and as subject.

The goal of this paper is to take a step back from cognitive science and take a closer look at the conceptual distinction between “Me” and “I” in the context of consciousness. I will suggest, following James (1890) and in opposition to the tradition started by Wittgenstein (1958) , that in this context “Me” (i.e., the self as object) reflects the phenomenology of selfhood, and corresponds to what is also known as sense of self, self-consciousness, or phenomenal selfhood (e.g., Blanke and Metzinger, 2009 ; Blanke, 2012 ; Dainton, 2016 ). On the other hand, the ultimate meaning of “I” (i.e., the self as subject) is rooted in metaphysics of subjectivity, and refers to the question: why is all conscious experience subjective and who/what is the subject of conscious experience? I will argue that these two theoretical problems, i.e., phenomenology of selfhood and metaphysics of subjectivity, are in principle independent issues and should not be confused. However, cognitive science usually follows the Wittgensteinian tradition 2 by understanding the self-as-subject, or “I,” as a phenomenological, rather than metaphysical problem [ Figure Figure1 1 illustrates the difference between James (1890) and Wittgenstein’s (1958) approach to the self]. By following Metzinger’s (2003 , 2010 ) framework of phenomenal self-models, and in agreement with a reductionist approach to the phenomenal “I” 3 ( Prinz, 2012 ), I will argue that what is typically investigated in cognitive science as the phenomenal “I” [or the Wittgenstein’s (1958) self-as-subject] can be understood as just a higher-order component of the self-model reflecting the phenomenal “Me.” Table Table2 2 presents some of crucial claims of the theory of self-models, together with concise references to other theories of the self-as-object discussed in this paper.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-09-01656-g001.jpg

An illustration of James (1890) and Wittgenstein’s (1958) distinctions between self-as-object (“Me”) and self-as-subject (“I”). In the original formulation, James’ (1890) “Me” includes also physical objects and people (material and social “Me”) – they were not included in the picture, because they are not directly related to consciousness.

Examples of theories of the self-as-object (“Me”) in the context of consciousness, as theories of the phenomenal self, with representative quotes illustrating each position.

“Me” As An Object Of Experience: Phenomenology Of Self-Consciousness

The words ME, then, and SELF, so far as they arouse feeling and connote emotional worth, are OBJECTIVE designations, meaning ALL THE THINGS which have the power to produce in a stream of consciousness excitement of a certain particular sort ( James, 1890 , p. 319, emphasis in original).

James (1890) chose the word “Me” to refer to self-as-object. What does it mean? In James’ (1890) view, it reflects “all the things” which have the power to produce “excitement of a certain particular sort.” This certain kind of excitement is nothing more than some form of experiential quality of me-ness, mine-ness, or similar - understood in a folk-theoretical way (this is an important point, because these terms have recently acquired technical meanings in philosophy, e.g., Zahavi, 2014 ; Guillot, 2017 ). What are “all the things”? The classic formulation suggests that James (1890) meant physical objects and cultural artifacts (material self), human beings (social self), and mental processes and content (spiritual self). These are all valid categories of self-as-object, however, for the purpose of this paper I will limit the scope of further discussion only to “objects” which are relevant when speaking about consciousness. Therefore, rather than speaking about, for example, my car or my body, I will discuss only their conscious representations. This limits the scope of self-as-object to one category of “things” – conscious mental content.

Let us now reformulate James’ (1890) idea in more contemporary terms and define “Me” as the totality of all content of consciousness that is experienced as self-related. Content of consciousness is meant here in a similar way to Chalmers (1996) , who begins “ The conscious mind ” by providing a list of different kinds of conscious content. He delivers an extensive (without claiming that exhaustive) collection of types of experiences, which includes the following 4 : visual; auditory; tactile; olfactory; experiences of hot and cold; pain; taste; other bodily experiences coming from proprioception, vestibular sense, and interoception (e.g., headache, hunger, orgasm); mental imagery; conscious thought; emotions. Chalmers (1996) also includes several other, which, however, reflect states of consciousness and not necessarily content per se , such as dreams, arousal, fatigue, intoxication, and altered states of consciousness induced by psychoactive substances. What is common to all of the types of experience from the first list (conscious contents) is the fact that they are all, speaking in James’ (1890) terms, “objects” in a stream of consciousness: “all these things are objects, properly so called, to the subject that does the thinking” (p. 325).

The self understood as “Me” can be understood as a subset of a set of all these possible experiences. This subset is characterized by self-relatedness ( Figure Figure2 2 ). It can be illustrated with sensory experiences. For example, in the visual domain, I experience an image of my face as different from another person’s face. Hence, while the image of my face belongs to “Me,” the image of someone else does not (although it can be experimentally manipulated, Tsakiris, 2008 ; Payne et al., 2017 ; Woźniak et al., 2018 ). The same can be said about my voice and sounds caused by me (as opposed to voices of other people), and about my smell. We also experience self-touch as different from touching or being touched by a different person ( Weiskrantz et al., 1971 ; Blakemore et al., 1998 ; Schutz-Bosbach et al., 2009 ). There is even evidence that we process our possessions differently ( Kim and Johnson, 2014 ; Constable et al., 2018 ). This was anticipated by James’ (1890) notion of the material “Me,” and is typically regarded as reflecting one’s extended self ( Kim and Johnson, 2014 ). In all of these cases, we can divide sensory experiences into the ones which do relate to the self and the ones which do not. The same can be said about the contents of thoughts and feelings, which can be either about “Me” or about something/someone else.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fpsyg-09-01656-g002.jpg

A simplified representation of a structure of phenomenal content including the metaphysical “I,” the phenomenal “Me,” and the phenomenal “I,” which can be understood (see in text) as a higher-level element of the phenomenal “Me.” Each pair of nodes connected with a yellow line represents one type of content of consciousness, with indigo nodes corresponding to self-related content, and black nodes corresponding to non-self-related content. In some cases (e.g., pain, emotions, interoceptive, and proprioceptive sensations), the black nodes are lighter and drawn with a dashed line (the same applies to links), to indicate that in normal circumstances one does not experiences these sensations as representing another person (although it is possible in thought experiments and pathologies). Multisensory/multimodal interactions have been omitted for the sake of clarity. All of the nodes compose the set of conscious thoughts, which can be formulated as “I experience X.” In normal circumstances, one does not deny ownership over these thoughts, however, in thought experiments, and in some cases of psychosis, one may experience that even such thoughts cease to feel as one’s own. This situation is represented by the shape with a dashed outline. Moreover, in special cases one can form meta-delusions, i.e., delusions about delusions – thoughts that my thoughts about other thoughts are not my thoughts (see text for description).

Characterizing self-as-object as a subset of conscious experiences specifies the building blocks of “Me” (which are contents of consciousness) and provides a guiding principle for distinguishing between self and non-self (self-relatedness). However, it is important to note two things. First, the distinction between self and non-self is often a matter of scale rather than a binary classification, and therefore self-relatedness may be better conceptualized as the strength of the relation with the self. It can be illustrated with an example of the “Inclusion of Other in Self” scale ( Aron et al., 1992 ). This scale asks to estimate to what extent another person feels related to one’s self, by choosing among a series of pairs of more-to-less overlapping circles representing the self and another person (e.g., a partner). The degree of overlap between the chosen pair of circles represents the degree of self-relatedness. Treating self-relatedness as a matter of scale adds an additional level of complexity to the analysis, and results in speaking about the extent to which a given content of consciousness represents self, rather than whether it simply does it or not. This does not, however, change the main point of the argument that we can classify all conscious contents according to whether (or to what extent, in that case) they are self-related. For the sake of clarity, I will continue to speak using the language of binary classification, but it should be kept in mind that it is an arbitrary simplification. The second point is that this approach to “Me” allows one to flexibly discuss subcategories of the self by imposing additional constraints on the type of conscious content that is taken into account, as well as the nature of self-relatedness (e.g., whether it is ownership of, agency over, authorship, etc.). For example, by limiting ourselves to discussing conscious content representing one’s body one can speak about the bodily self, and by imposing limits to conscious experience of one’s possessions one can speak about one’s extended self.

Keeping these reservations in mind two objections can be raised to the approach to “Me” introduced here. The first one is as follows:

simple (1) Speaking about the self/other distinction does not make sense in regard to experiences which are always “mine,” such as prioprioception or interoception. This special status may suggest that these modalities underpin the self as “I,” i.e., the subject of experience.

This idea is present in theoretical proposals postulating that subjectivity emerges based on (representations of) sensorimotor ( Gallagher, 2000 ; Christoff et al., 2011 ; Blanke et al., 2015 ) or interoceptive signals ( Damasio, 1999 ; Craig, 2010 ; Seth et al., 2011 ; Park and Tallon-Baudry, 2014 ; Salomon, 2017 ). There are two answers to this objection. First, the fact that this kind of experience (this kind of content of consciousness) is always felt as “my” experience simply means that all proprioceptive, interoceptive, pain experiences, etc., are as a matter of fact parts of “Me.” They are self-related contents of consciousness and hence naturally qualify as self-as-object. Furthermore, there is no principled reason why the fact that we normally do not experience them as belonging to someone else should transform them from objects of experience (content) into a subject of experience. Their special status may cause these experiences to be perceived as more central aspects of the self than experiences in other modalities, but there is no reason to think that it should change them from something that we experience into the self as an experiencer. Second, even the special status of these sensations can be called into question. It is possible to imagine a situation in which one experiences these kinds of sensations from an organ or a body which does not belong to her or him. We can imagine that with enough training one will learn to distinguish between proprioceptive signals coming from one’s body and those coming from another person’s (or artificial) body. If this is possible, then one may develop a phenomenal distinction between “my” versus “other’s” proprioceptive and interoceptive experiences (for example), and in this case the same rules of classification into phenomenal “Me” and phenomenal “not-Me” will apply as to other sensory modalities. This scenario is not realistic at the current point of technological development, but there are clinical examples which indirectly suggest that it may be possible. For example, people who underwent transplantation of an organ sometimes experience rejection of a transplant. Importantly, patients whose organisms reject an organ also more often experience psychological rejection of that transplant ( Látos et al., 2016 ). Moreover, there are rare cases in which patients following a successful surgery report that they perceive transplanted organs as foreign objects in themselves ( Goetzmann et al., 2009 ). In this case, affected people report experiencing a form of disownership of the implanted organ, suggesting that they may experience interoceptive signals coming from that transplant as having a phenomenal quality of being “not-mine,” leading to similar phenomenal quality as the one postulated in the before-mentioned thought experiment. Another example of a situation in which self-relatedness of interoception may be disrupted may be found in conjoint twins. In some variants of this developmental disorder (e.g., parapagus, dicephalus, thoracopagus) brains of two separate twins share some of the internal organs (and limbs), while others are duplicated and possessed by each twin individually ( Spencer, 2000 ; Kaufman, 2004 ). This provides an inverted situation to the one described in our hypothetical scenario – rather than two pieces of the same organ being “wired” to one person, the same organ (e.g., a heart, liver, stomach) is shared by two individuals. As such it may be simultaneously under control of two autonomous nervous systems. This situation raises challenging questions for theories which postulate that the root of self-as-subject lies in interoception. For example, if conjoint twins share the majority of internal organs, but possess mostly independent nervous systems, like dicephalus conjoint twins, then does it mean that they share the neural subjective frame ( Park and Tallon-Baudry, 2014 )? If the answer is yes, then does it mean that they share it numerically (both twins have one and the same subjective frame), or only qualitatively (their subjective frames are similar to the point of being identical, but they are distinct frames)? However, if interoception is just a part of “Me” then the answer becomes simple – the experiences can be only qualitatively identical, because they are experienced by two independent subjects.

All of these examples challenge the assumption that sensori-motor and interoceptive experiences are necessarily self-related and, as a consequence, that they can form the basis of self-as-subject. For this reason, it seems that signals coming from these modalities are more appropriate to underlie the phenomenal “Me,” for example in a form of background self-experience, or “phenomenal background” ( Dainton, 2008 , 2016 ), rather than the phenomenal “I.”

The second possible objection to the view of self-as-object described in this section is the following one:

simple (2) My thoughts and feelings may have different objects, but they are always my thoughts and feelings. Therefore, their object may be either “me” or “other,” but their subject is always “I.” As a consequence, even though my thoughts and feelings constitute contents of my consciousness, they underlie the phenomenal “I” and not the phenomenal “Me.”

It seems to be conceptually misguided to speak about one’s thoughts and feelings as belonging to someone else. This intuition motivated Wittgenstein (1958) to write: “there is no question of recognizing a person when I say I have toothache. To ask ‘are you sure it is you who have pains?’ “would be nonsensical” ( Wittgenstein, 1958 ). In the Blue Book, he introduced the distinction between the use of “I” as object and as subject (see Table Table1 1 for a full relevant quote) and suggested that while we can be wrong about the former, making a mistake about the latter is not possible. This idea was further developed by Shoemaker (1968) who introduced an arguably conceptual truth that we are immune to error through misidentification relative to the first-person pronoun, or IEM in short. For example, when I say “I see a photo of my face in front of me” I may be mistaken about the fact that it is my face (because, e.g., it is a photo of my identical twin), but I cannot be mistaken that it is me who is looking at it. One way to read IEM is that it postulates that I can be mistaken about self-as-object, but I cannot be mistaken about self-as-subject. If this is correct then there is a radical distinction between these two types of self that provides a strong argument to individuate them. From that point, one may argue that IEM provides a decisive argument to distinguish between phenomenal “I” (self-as-subject) and phenomenal “Me” (self-as-object).

Before endorsing this conclusion, let us take a small step back. It is important to note that in the famous passage from the Blue Book Wittgenstein (1958) did not write about two distinct types of self. Instead, he wrote about two ways of using the word “I” (or “my”). As such, he was more concerned with issues in philosophy of language than philosophy of mind. Therefore, a natural question arises – to what extent does this linguistic distinction map onto a substantial distinction between two different entities (types of self)? On the face of it, it seems that there is an important difference between these two uses of self-referential words, which can be mapped onto the experience of being a self-as-subject and the experience of being a self-as-object (or, for example, the distinction between bodily ownership and thought authorship, as suggested by Liang, 2014 ). However, I will argue that there are reasons to believe that the phenomenal “I,” i.e., the experience of being a self-as-subject may be better conceptualized as a higher-order phenomenal “Me” – a higher-level self-as-object.

Psychiatric practice provides cases of people, typically suffering from schizophrenia, who describe experiences of dispossession of thoughts, known as delusions of thought insertion ( Young, 2008 ; Bortolotti and Broome, 2009 ; Martin and Pacherie, 2013 ). According to the standard account, the phenomenon of thought insertion does not represent a disruption of sense of ownership over one’s thoughts, but only loss of sense of agency over them. However, the standard account has been criticized in recent years by theorists arguing that thought insertion indeed represents loss of sense of ownership ( Metzinger, 2003 ; Billon, 2013 ; Guillot, 2017 ; López-Silva, 2017 ). One of the main arguments against the standard view is that it runs into serious problems when attempting to explain obsessive intrusive thoughts in clinical population and spontaneous thoughts in healthy people. In both cases, subjects report lack of agency over thoughts, although they never claim lack of ownership over them, i.e., that these are not their thoughts. However, if the standard account is correct, obsessive thoughts should be experienced as belonging to someone else. The fact that they are not suggests that something else must be disrupted in delusions of thought insertion, i.e., sense of ownership 5 over them. If one can lose sense of ownership over one’s thoughts then it has important implications, because then one becomes capable of experiencing one’s thoughts “as someone else’s,” or at least “as not-mine.” However, when I experience my thoughts as not-mine I do it because I’ve taken a stance towards my thoughts, which treats them as an object of deliberation. In other words, I must have “objectified” them to experience that they have a quality of “feeling as if they are not mine.” Consequently, if I experience them as objects of experience, then they cannot form part of my self as subject of experience, because these two categories are mutually exclusive. Therefore, what seemed to constitute a phenomenal “I” turns out to be a part of thephenomenal “Me.”

If my thoughts do not constitute the “I” then how do they fit into the structure of “Me”? Previously, I asserted that thoughts with self-related content constitute “Me,” while thoughts with non-self related content do not. However, just now I argued in favor of the claim that all thoughts (including the ones with non-self-related content) that are experienced as “mine” belong to “Me.” How can one resolve this contradiction?

A way to address this reservation can be found in Metzinger’s (2003 ; 2010 ) self-model theory. Metzinger (2003 , 2010 ) argues that the experience of the self can be understood as underpinned by representational self-models. These self-models, however, are embedded in the hierarchical representational structure, as illustrated by an account of ego dissolution by Letheby and Gerrans (2017) :

simple Savage suggests that on LSD “[changes] in body ego feeling usually precede changes in mental ego feeling and sometimes are the only changes” (1955, 11), (…) This common temporal sequence, from blurring of body boundaries and loss of sense of ownership for body parts through to later loss of sense of ownership for thoughts, speaks further to the hierarchical architecture of the self-model. ( Letheby and Gerrans, 2017 , p. 8)

If self-models underlying the experience of self-as-object (“Me”) are hierarchical, then the apparent contradiction may be easily explained by the fact that when speaking about the content of thoughts and the thoughts themselves we are addressing self-models at two distinct levels. At the lower level we can distinguish between thoughts with self-related content and other-related content, while on the higher level we can distinguish between thoughts that feel “mine” as opposed to thoughts that are not experienced as “mine.” As a result, this thinking phenomenal “I” experienced in feeling of ownership over one’s thoughts may be conceived as just a higher-order level of Jamesian “Me.” As such, one may claim that there is no such thing as a phenomenal “I,” just multilevel phenomenal “Me.” However, an objection can be raised here. One may claim that even though a person with schizophrenic delusions experiences her thoughts as someone else’s (a demon’s or some malicious puppet master’s), she can still claim that:

Yes, “I” experience my thoughts as not mine, but as demon’s.” My thoughts feel as “not-mine,” however, it’s still me (or: “I”) who thinks of them as “not-mine.”

As such, one escapes “objectification” of “I” into “Me” by postulating a higher-level phenomenal-“I.” However, let us keep in mind that the thought written above constitutes a valid thought by itself. As such, this thought is vulnerable to the theoretical possibility that it turns into a delusion itself, once a psychotic person forms a meta-delusion (delusion about delusion). In this case, one may begin to experience that: “I” (I 1 ) experience that the “fake I” (I 2 ), who is a nasty pink demon, experiences my thoughts as not mine but as someone else’s (e.g., as nasty green demon’s). In this case, I may claim that the real phenomenal “I” is I 1 , since it is at the top of the hierarchy. However, one may repeat the operation of forming meta-delusions ad infinitum (as may happen in psychosis or drug-induced psychedelic states) effectively transforming each phenomenal “I” into another “fake-I” (and consequently making it a part of “Me”).

The possibility of meta-delusions illustrates that the phenomenal “I” understood as subjective thoughts is permanently vulnerable to the threat of losing the apparent subjective character and becoming an object of experience. As such it seems to be a poor choice for the locus of subjectivity, since it needs to be constantly “on the run” from becoming treated as an object of experience, not only in people with psychosis, but also in all psychologically healthy individuals if they decide to reflect on their thoughts. Therefore, it seems more likely that the thoughts themselves cannot constitute the subject of experience. However, even in case of meta-delusions there seems to be a stable deeper-level subjectivity, let us call it the deep “I,” which is preserved, at least until one loses consciousness. After all, a person who experiences meta-delusions would be constantly (painfully) aware of the process, and often would even report it afterwards. This deep “I” cannot be a special form of content in the stream of consciousness, because otherwise it would be vulnerable to becoming a part of “Me.” Therefore, it must be something different.

There seem to be two places where one can look for this deep “I”: in the domain of phenomenology or metaphysics. The first approach has been taken by ( Zahavi and Kriegel, 2016 ) who argue that “all conscious states’ phenomenal character involves for-me-ness as an experiential constituent.” It means that even if we rule out everything else (e.g., bodily experiences, conscious thoughts), we are still left with some form of irreducible phenomenal self-experience. This for-me-ness is not a specific content of consciousness, but rather “refers to the distinct manner, or how , of experiencing” ( Zahavi, 2014 ).

This approach, however, may seem inflationary and not satisfying (e.g., Dainton, 2016 ). One reason for this is that it introduces an additional phenomenal dimension, which may lead to uncomfortable consequences. For example, a question arises whether for-me-ness can ever be lost or replaced with the “ how of experiencing” of another person. For example, can I experience my sister’s for-me-ness in my stream of consciousness? If yes, then how is for-me-ness different from any other content of consciousness? And if the answer is no, then how is it possible to distil the phenomenology of for-me-ness from the metaphysical fact that a given stream of consciousness is always experienced by this and not other subject?

An alternative approach to the problem of the deep “I” is to reject that the subject of experience, the “I,” is present in phenomenology (like Hume, 1739/2000 ; Prinz, 2012 ; Dainton, 2016 ), and look for it somewhere else, in the domain of metaphysics. Although James (1890) did not explicitly formulate the distinction between “Me” and “I” as the distinction between the phenomenal and the metaphysical self, he hinted at it at several points, for example when he concluded the Chapter on the self with the following fragment: “(...) a postulate, an assertion that there must be a knower correlative to all this known ; and the problem who that knower is would have become a metaphysical problem” ( James, 1890 , p. 401).

“I” As A Subject Of Experience: Metaphysics Of Subjectivity

Thoughts which we actually know to exist do not fly about loose, but seem each to belong to some one thinker and not to another ( James, 1890 , pp. 330–331).

Let us assume that phenomenal consciousness exists in nature, and that it is a part of the reality we live in. The problem of “I” emerges once we realize that one of the fundamental characteristics of phenomenal consciousness is that it is always subjective, that there always seems to be some subject of experience. It seems mistaken to conceive of consciousness which do “fly about loose,” devoid of subjective character, devoid of being someone’s or something’s consciousness. Moreover, it seems that subjectivity may be one of the fundamental inherent properties of conscious experience (similar notions can be found in: Berkeley, 1713/2012 ; Strawson, 2003 ; Searle, 2005 ; Dainton, 2016 ). It seems highly unlikely, if not self-contradictory, that there exists something like an objective conscious experience of “what it is like to be a bat” ( Nagel, 1974 ), which is not subjective in any way. This leads to the metaphysical problem of the self: why is all conscious experience subjective, and what or who is the subject of this experience? Let us call it the problem of the metaphysical “I,” as contrasted with the problem of the phenomenal “I” (i.e., is there a distinctive experience of being a self as a subject of experience, and if so, then what is this experience?), which we discussed so far.

The existence of the metaphysical “I” does not entail the existence of the phenomenal self. It is possible to imagine a creature that possesses a metaphysical “I,” but does not possess any sense of self. In such a case, the creature would possess consciousness, although it would not experience anything as “me,” nor entertain any thoughts/feelings, etc., as “I.” In other words, it is a possibility that one may not experience self-related content of consciousness, while being a sentient being. One example of such situation may be the experience of a dreamless sleep, which “is characterized by a dissolution of subject-object duality, or (…) by a breakdown of even the most basic form of the self-other distinction” ( Windt, 2015 ). This is a situation which can be regarded as an instance of the state of minimal phenomenal experience – the simplest form of conscious experience possible ( Windt, 2015 ; Metzinger, 2018 ), in which there is no place for even the most rudimentary form of “Me.” Another example may be the phenomenology of systems with grid-like architectures which, according to the integrated information theory (IIT, Tononi et al., 2016 ), possess conscious experience 6 . If IIT is correct, then these systems experience some form of conscious states, which most likely lack any phenomenal distinction between “Me” and “not-Me.” However, because they may possess a stream of conscious experience, and conscious experience is necessarily subjective, there remains a valid question: who or what is the subject of that experience?

The question of what exactly is the metaphysical subject of experience can have different answers. There has been a long history of theories of the self ( Barresi and Martin, 2011 ) and some of them directly address this issue. Platonic or Cartesian notions of the soul are good examples of an approach providing one answer to this question: conscious experience is subjective, because there exists a non-material being (self, soul) which is the subject of this experience (see Table Table3 3 ). Other solutions tend to either define the self in less metaphysically expensive ways ( Johnston, 1987 ; Strawson, 2000 ; Dainton, 2008 ), define it as a formal feature of consciousness ( Searle, 2005 ), or deny the need to postulate its existence ( Metzinger, 2003 ). What is crucial here, however, is that the problem of the metaphysical self is a different issue and requires a different methodology, than the problem of the phenomenal self.

Examples of theories of the self-as-subject (“I”) in the context of consciousness, as theories of the metaphysical self, with representative quotes illustrating each position.

What sort of methodology, then, is appropriate for investigating the metaphysical self? It seems that the most relevant methods come from the toolbox of metaphysics. This toolbox includes classical philosophical methods such as thought experiments and logical analysis. However, methodology of metaphysics is an area of open discussion, and at present there are no signs of general consensus. One of the most debated issues in this field, which is especially relevant here, is to what extent the methodology of metaphysics is continuous with the methodology of natural sciences (see Tahko, 2015 , Chapter 9 for an overview). The positions span the spectrum between the claim that science and metaphysics are fully autonomous on the one side and the claim that metaphysics can be fully naturalized on the other. Discussing this issue goes way beyond the scope of this paper. However, if these two areas are at least to some extent related (i.e., not fully autonomous), then one may argue that scientific methods can be at least of some relevance in metaphysics and consequently for investigations of the metaphysical “I.”

One example in which empirical results seem to be able to influence theoretical investigations of the metaphysical self is through imposing constraints on philosophical theories. For example, because the metaphysical self is inherently related to consciousness, we should expect that different theories of consciousness should place different constraints on what a metaphysical self can be. Then, if one theory of consciousness acquires stronger empirical support than the others, we can also treat this as evidence for the constraints on the self that this theory implies.

Let us look at an example of IIT to illustrate this point. According to IIT ( Oizumi et al., 2014 ; Tononi et al., 2016 ) the content of conscious experience is defined by the so-called informational “complex” which is characterized by maximally integrated information (which can be measured by calculating the value of Φ max ). This complex then defines the stream of conscious experience. However, what happens if there is more than one such complex in one person? In this case, as Tononi et al. (2016) wrote:

According to IIT, two or more non-overlapping complexes may coexist as discrete physical substrates of consciousness (PSCs) within a single brain, each with its own definite borders and value of Φ max . The complex that specifies a person’s day to day stream of consciousness should have the highest value of Φ max – that is, it should be the “major” complex. In some conditions, for example, after a split-brain operation, the major complex may split. In such instances, one consciousness, supported by a complex in the dominant hemisphere and with privileged access to Broca’s area, would be able to speak about the experience, but would remain unaware of the presence of another consciousness, supported by a complex in the other hemisphere, which can be revealed by carefully designed experiments. ( Tononi et al., 2016 , p. 455)

This fragment suggests that in IIT the metaphysical “I” can be understood as tied to a complex of maximally integrated information. In this case, a split-brain patient would possess two metaphysical selves, because as a consequence of an operation her or his brain hosts two such complexes. On the face of it, it seems to be a plausible situation ( cf. Bayne, 2010 ). However, in the sentence which immediately follows, Tononi et al. (2016) suggest that:

simple An intriguing possibility is that splitting of the PSC may also occur in healthy people during long-lasting dual-task conditions – for example, when driving in an auto-pilot like manner on a familiar road while listening to an engaging conversation ( Tononi et al., 2016 , p. 455)

The implications of this possibility are much more severe, because it postulates that in a matter of minutes or seconds a complex can dynamically divide into several complexes, and individual complexes can merge into one major complex. How do the complexes understood in this way then relate to the metaphysical “I”? Unfortunately, IIT is silent about this issue, but there seem to be at least two responses to this question. First, one may argue that the self does not need to be limited to one complex, but that the same metaphysical “I” can be present in all of the simultaneous streams of consciousness (complexes). However, this solution is at odds with both common-sense intuition and IIT itself. It would presuppose not only an extremely disunified view of consciousness, but even lead to self-contradictory consequences. The metaphysical “I” can be thought of as the metaphysical fact that any given stream of consciousness is subjectively experienced by some “self” (regardless of what that self might be). However, in a disunified view of an organism’s consciousness this metaphysical “I” would at the same time a) be the subject of experience of all of the complexes within this organism, and b) be the subject of experience of only one of these complexes while being blind to the others (as claimed by IIT: two complexes are not “co-conscious” with each other). It presents a contradiction and strongly suggests that the metaphysical “I” cannot be underpinned by multiple independent complexes. It leaves us with the second option, which is to bite the bullet and accept that IIT implies that the metaphysical “I” persists either as long as a given complex, or for an even shorter period of time, for example for just up to a few seconds, as suggested by Strawson (2000 , 2010 ). It means that if IIT (and the analysis outlined above) is correct then the metaphysical “I” turns out to be radically different from our intuitive understanding of subject-of-experience as persisting continuously life-long stream of consciousness. However, if empirical evidence in support of the current version of IIT becomes strong enough, it may suggest that our common-sense intuitions about self-as-subject may be mistaken. On the other hand, different theories of phenomenal consciousness (and even different versions of IIT) may imply different constraints on the metaphysical “I,” and the extent to which they are supported by empirical evidence may suggest a way to say something about what the subject of conscious experience is.

Overall, assuming that metaphysics is not fully independent from science, the relevant methodology for investigating the metaphysical “I” is a combination of toolboxes of metaphysics and empirical science. This contrasts with the phenomenal “Me,” where the relevant toolkit includes methods from phenomenology and science. The second point, which has been illustrated with an example of IIT, is that it is important to explicitly spell out the implications of different theories of consciousness in regard to what is the subject of conscious experience, as it may provide the best way forward towards solving this issue.

Understanding Predictive Coding Theories Of The Self

Recently, there has been a huge number of attempts to explain the self through the framework of predictive coding (PC) and the free energy principle (FEP). In this final section of the paper, I will use PC theories of the self as a working example demonstrating practical consequences of implementing the Jamesian distinction between “Me” and “I.” I will suggest that PC theories of the self target different dimensions of self-as-object, understood as a hierarchical structure of self-models ( Metzinger, 2003 , 2010 ), and as such provide a valuable framework to understand the self. However, I will also explain why PC and the FEP do not allow us to say much about self-as-subject (the metaphysical “I”).

According to PC, the brain can be understood as an inference machine which hosts and continuously updates a probabilistic model of the world, which it uses to infer hidden causes behind the sensory data (for a more detailed introduction see: Friston et al., 2006 ; Friston, 2009 , 2010 ; Friston and Kiebel, 2009 ; Hohwy, 2013 ; Clark, 2016 ). It accomplishes this by continuously issuing predictions and comparing them with sensory data, with the discrepancy between predictions and data being propagated further up the hierarchy as prediction errors. As such, PC postulates that the brain can be seen as a hierarchical structure of generative models (which are responsible for issuing predictions). Prediction errors which arise at lower levels serve as data to be compared with predictions at the higher levels. This view of the mind inverts the classical feedforward view in which perception is a predominantly bottom-up process. In PC, instead, perception is mostly driven by top-down predictions, with bottom-up prediction errors serving the function of feedback helping to choose model with the most explanatory power. Moreover, in an extension of PC, which is known as active inference, action is also understood as a way of maximizing the fit of one’s internal models to reality. The main idea behind active inference is that rather than changing the model in order to better fit the data, one can act on the world and change it according to predictions issued by the currently dominating model. As a consequence, the whole perception-action cycle can be understood as driven by one overarching goal, i.e., long-term minimization of prediction errors.

The FEP is a further generalization of PC. It postulates that all living organisms operate under the principle to minimize the so-called “variational free energy,” which is an information theoretical measure which roughly can be understood as a measure of uncertainty ( Friston et al., 2006 ; Friston, 2009 ). One of the main claims of this theory is that organisms which act according to FEP (i.e., they act in a way to minimize free energy in the long term) will, in effect, implicitly approximate Bayesian inference. It means that they will combine their prior knowledge (represented by their model of the world) with the incoming sensory input in a mathematically optimal way.

Both PC and the FEP have recently gained huge popularity and motivated a number of theories attempting to explain various aspects of cognition within this framework. It includes numerous attempts to understand different facets of the self, such as sense of bodily ownership ( Apps and Tsakiris, 2014 ), sense of self in agency and perception ( Hohwy, 2007 ), the influence of interoception on self-consciousness ( Seth et al., 2011 ; Seth, 2013 ), social aspects of the self ( Moutoussis et al., 2014 ; Friston and Frith, 2015 ), the relationship with minimal phenomenal selfhood ( Limanowski and Blankenburg, 2013 ), and even psychodynamical interpretations of the self ( Carhart-Harris and Friston, 2010 ; Fotopoulou, 2012 ). The most comprehensive treatment of the self from the PC perspective ( Hohwy and Michael, 2017 ) also exemplifies most of the crucial points made by other PC theories of the self. At the beginning of their paper Hohwy and Michael (2017) describe the self in the following words:

simple We use a general computational framework for brain function to develop a theory of the self. The theory is that the self is an inferred model of endogenous, deeply hidden causes of behavior. (…) we discuss why such a set of hidden endogenous causes should qualify as a self. ( Hohwy and Michael, 2017 , p. 363)

The self, as seen from this perspective, is essentially a hierarchical model of endogenous hidden causes of sensory input. Or, in more classical terms, it can be said that it is a hierarchical representational structure ( cf. Clark, 2016 ; Williams, 2017 ) which allows one to distinguish between endogenous causes (what is caused by me) and exogenous causes (what is caused by something else). This distinction can be illustrated with an example of a comparison between seeing a movement of my virtual hand and of a virtual hand of someone else. If adequately prepared, in both cases the image of a hand and its movement may be identical. However, in one case I can realize that the movement of the hand is congruent with my intentions (manifested through my actions performed using a computer controller) and, as a consequence, infer that the cause of the hand’s movement is me. On the other hand, I may fail to notice any congruence between my intentions and the movement and hence infer that the hidden cause behind the movement I observe is some other person. According to Hohwy and Michael (2017) , the self is just a set of such hidden endogenous causes. Although not necessarily in full agreement with this picture in regard to the details, all other PC theories of the self listed above also speak about the self as underpinned by hierarchy of generative models, which are preoccupied with conducting probabilistic inference aimed to infer hidden causes of observed data patterns. This inference is then postulated to underlie specific types of conscious self-experience, i.e., different facets of the sense of self.

As such, one common theme among all PC theories of the self is the following: aspects of conscious experience of the self are underpinned by a representational structure in the form of hierarchical generative models. In its core, it is the same idea as the one introduced earlier by Metzinger (2003 , 2010 ), i.e., that our phenomenal experience of the self is underpinned by a representational structure of unconscious self-models (see also: Crane, 2003 ; Chalmers, 2004 , for a discussion about the relationship between representational and conscious content). Once an unconscious self-model enters conscious awareness, it generates a corresponding self-related conscious content (see: Metzinger, 2006 , 2014 , for an explicit distinction between the levels of representations and conscious content in regard to the bodily self). The same mechanism is at work in PC theories – the dynamic process of model selection leads to suppression of some models but allows other models to enter awareness in the form of conscious content. This mechanism allows PC to explain self-related content of consciousness, which is essentially nothing else than the James’ (1890) self-as-object of experience. This is how PC and the FEP help to understand the phenomenal “Me” – by describing the structure and dynamics of the underlying representational architecture.

To what extent PC and FEP can provide us with any help when confronted with the task to explain the metaphysical “I”? Here, I will argue that in contrast to the phenomenal “Me,” the issues pertaining to the metaphysical “I” are outside of its reach. The reason for this is a consequence of the fact that PC is in principle agnostic in regard to the issue of what brings representational content into the scope of conscious experience. In general, this can be regarded as an advantage, because this way PC accounts of self-experience can avoid the burden of being hostage to any specific theory of consciousness, and stay in principle compatible with most of them (e.g., see Hohwy, 2013 , Chapter 10 for an attempt to combine PC with ideas from Global Neuronal Workspace theory: Dehaene and Changeux, 2011 ; Dehaene, 2014 ). However, it also makes PC fundamentally underspecified when treated as a theory which is used to explain issues related to consciousness. While, as suggested before, PC is a valuable framework to describe the representational structure underlying conscious content, it runs into problems when used to explain why certain content is conscious in the first place. One way in which PC and FEP can attempt to retain relevance is by aiming to explain access consciousness ( Block, 1995 ) – a functional mechanism which allows that “some of the attended information eventually enters our awareness and becomes reportable to others” ( Dehaene, 2014 ). However, the problem of the metaphysical “I” becomes a relevant issue only when approached in the context of phenomenal consciousness – the type of consciousness which is loaded with the burden of the so-called “hard problem” ( Chalmers, 1996 ).

This is where PS and FEP encounter a dead end, as the problem enters the area which belongs more to metaphysics than empirical science (at least in the light of the current state of affairs). In order to provide an account of the metaphysical self, one needs to begin with at least some form of a theory of phenomenal consciousness and its place in physical reality. At present FEP (and PC) does not provide such a theory. Recently, Friston (2018) suggested that FEP can be used to understand consciousness, although the fact that he discusses consciousness in functionalist terms (consciousness is related to counterfactual inference 7 ) suggests that his proposal aims to explain access consciousness, making it irrelevant for the problem of metaphysical “I.”

To summarize, the fact that PC and the FEP are not theories of phenomenal consciousness, and seem not to impose any constraints on these theories, has important consequences for what type of self they can explain. As I argued, they have the potential to substantially contribute to the issue of different levels of the phenomenal “Me” (self-as-object) by describing the structure and dynamics of the level of representational content, which are reflected at the level of conscious experience. However, they are not suited to explain the metaphysical “I” (self-as-subject) because they do not address the issue of the place of consciousness in nature. Hence, the main claim is that while PC can be seen as a useful framework to investigate phenomenology of “Me,” it is in principle unsuitable to provide answers to questions about the metaphysics of “I.”

I placed the debate of the self in the domain of consciousness (as opposed to the self understood as e.g., a representational structure, a physical object, or a spiritual entity) and argued that (1) conceptually, the distinction between “Me” and “I” may reflect the distinction between theoretical problems of the phenomenal self and the metaphysical self, respectively (although the notion of for-me-ness may complicate this picture), and (2) that what is described in the literature as the phenomenal “I” can be regarded as just a higher-level part of the phenomenal “Me” [which can be understood as Metzinger’s (2018) phenomenal self-model].

The first claim draws attention to the distinction between “I” and “Me,” which suggests that these two theoretical issues should be investigated independently, using two different methodologies. While “Me” can be investigated using phenomenology and scientific methodology, “I” is typically a metaphysical problem (perhaps with the exception of non-deflationary understandings of for-me-ness) and it is arguable to what extent it can be approached using standard scientific methods. Therefore, it is important to clearly state which problem one approaches when discussing the self in the context of consciousness (see Tables Tables2 2 , 3 3 for some examples).

The second claim, the postulate to treat what is usually described as phenomenal “I” as just a part of the phenomenal “Me,” has two implications. The first is constructive. Investigating issues which are typically regarded in cognitive science as “I” from the perspective of “Me” may contribute towards better understanding of self-consciousness by emphasizing that these two research areas may have much more in common than it appears. Rather than using two distinct terms, which suggest that we are dealing with two fundamentally different problems, we may approach them as just two facets of the same multidimensional research problem. One such approach is to treat both of them as just different levels in the hierarchical structure of the phenomenal self-model ( Metzinger, 2003 , 2009 , 2010 ), an approach which can be (and implicitly is) shared by recent theories of the self, especially within the framework of PC.

The second implication is pragmatic. Refraining from using the term “I” when speaking in the context of phenomenology and using it only in the metaphysical context may reduce conceptual confusion in regard to this term. However, it will also mean forfeiting an important distinction (“Me” versus “I”) which has already gained traction in cognitive science. As such, the choice to eliminate the term “I” in the context of phenomenology is a repelling option, but may be beneficial in the long term. Alternatively, one may use more specific terms, such as “sense of ownership over an experience” to reflect what is meant by “I” in the Wittgensteinian tradition, or, e.g., “sense of ownership of interoceptive signals” when discussing the role of interoception. A second option may be to recast the distinction used in cognitive science in different terms. One proposal is to explicitly speak about it as the distinction between the experience/sense of “Me” versus the experience/sense of “I” (rather than just “Me” and “I”). The task here would be, however, to prove that there is a qualitative difference between them, and to demarcate the exact border.

Author Contributions

The article has been solely the work of MW.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Jakob Hohwy, Tim Bayne, Jennifer Windt, Monima Chadha, and the members of Cognition and Philosophy Lab at Monash University (especially Julian Matthews) for discussions about the issues described in the paper. The author also wants to thank the reviewers and the editor for helpful comments on how to improve the manuscript.

Funding. This article was supported by the Australian Research Council Grant No. DP160102770.

1 Therefore, whenever I use the term “I" I mean self-as-subject (of experience), and whenever I use the term “Me" I mean self-as-object (of experience). This assumption reflects James’ (1890) understanding of these terms (see Table Table1 1 ). I also assume, following James (1890) , that these two categories are mutually exclusive, i.e., if something is an object of experience then it cannot simultaneously be a subject of experience, and vice versa.

2 Wittgenstein (1958) himself did not discuss the issue of phenomenology of the self. However, his approach to the distinction between the use of “I” as subject and “I” as object can be seen as a starting point for contemporary discussions of phenomenology of the self-as-subject.

3 Whenever I use the prefix “phenomenal” I mean “the conscious experience of.” For example, when I write phenomenal “I”, I mean: the conscious experience of self as subject of experience (“I”). In a similar fashion I use the prefix “metaphysical” when I mean “the metaphysical entity of.”

4 Chalmers (1996) also lists “sense of self,” although it is highly controversial whether it can be treated as a distinctive type of conscious content.

5 Sometimes referred to as sense of authorship.

6 “IIT allows for certain simple systems such as grid-like architectures, similar to topographically organized areas in the human posterior cortex, to be highly conscious even when not engaging in any intelligent behavior” ( Tononi et al., 2016 , p. 460).

7 For example, he writes: “So where does consciousness emerge? The proposal offered here is that conscious processing has a temporal thickness or depth, which underwrites inferences about the consequences of action. This necessarily lends inference a purposeful and self-evidencing aspect that has the hallmarks of consciousness” ( Friston, 2018 , p. 1).

Apps M. A., Tsakiris M. (2014). The free-energy self: a predictive coding account of self-recognition. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 41 85–97. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.01.029 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Aron A., Aron E. N., Smollan D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 63 : 596 10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Barresi J., Martin R. (2011). “History as prologue: western theories of the self,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Self , ed. Gallagher S. (Oxford: Oxford University Press; ), 33–56. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548019.003.0002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bayne T. (2010). The Unity of Consciousness. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199215386.001.0001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Berkeley G. (1713/2012). Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Billon A. (2013). Does consciousness entail subjectivity? The puzzle of thought insertion. Philos. Psychol. 26 291–314. 10.1080/09515089.2011.625117 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Blakemore S. J., Wolpert D. M., Frith C. D. (1998). Central cancellation of self-produced tickle sensation. Nat. Neurosci. 1 635–640. 10.1038/2870 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Blanke O. (2012). Multisensory brain mechanisms of bodily self-consciousness. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 13 556–571. 10.1038/nrn3292 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Blanke O., Metzinger T. (2009). Full-body illusions and minimal phenomenal selfhood. Trends Cognit. Sci. 13 7–13. 10.1016/j.tics.2008.10.003 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Blanke O., Slater M., Serino A. (2015). Behavioral, neural, and computational principles of bodily self-consciousness. Neuron 88 145–166. 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.029 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Block N. (1995). On a confusion about a function of consciousness. Behav. Brain Sci. 18 227–247. 10.1017/S0140525X00038188 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bortolotti L., Broome M. (2009). A role for ownership and authorship in the analysis of thought insertion. Phenomenol. Cognit. Sci. 8 205–224. 10.1007/s11097-008-9109-z [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Carhart-Harris R. L., Friston K. J. (2010). The default-mode, ego-functions and free-energy: a neurobiological account of Freudian ideas. Brain 133(Pt 4) , 1265–1283. 10.1093/brain/awq010 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Chalmers D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of A Fundamental Theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Chalmers D. J. (2004). “The representational character of experience,” in The Future For Philosophy , ed. Leiter B. (Oxford: Oxford University Press; ), 153–181. [ Google Scholar ]
Christoff K., Cosmelli D., Legrand D., Thompson E. (2011). Specifying the self for cognitive neuroscience. Trends Cognit. Sci. 15 104–112. 10.1016/j.tics.2011.01.001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Clark A. (2016). Surfing Uncertainty: Prediction, Action, and the Embodied Mind. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190217013.001.0001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Constable M., Welsh T., Pratt J., Huffman G. (2018). I before U: temporal order judgements reveal bias for self-owned objects. Quart. J. Exp. Psychol. [Epub ahead of print]. 10.1177/1747021818762010 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Craig A. D. (2010). The sentient self. Brain Struct. Funct. 214 563–577. 10.1007/s00429-010-0248-y [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Crane T. (2003). “The intentional structure of consciousness,” in Consciousness: New Philosophical Perspectives , eds Jokic A., Smith Q. (Oxford: Oxford University Press; ). [ Google Scholar ]
Dainton B. (2008). The Phenomenal Self. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199288847.001.0001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Dainton B. (2016). The sense of self. Aristotel. Soc. Suppl. Vol. 90 113–143. 10.1093/arisup/akw007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Damasio A. (1999). The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness. San Diego, CA: Harcourt. [ Google Scholar ]
Dehaene S. (2014). Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts. New York, NY: Penguin. [ Google Scholar ]
Dehaene S., Changeux J. P. (2011). Experimental and theoretical approaches to conscious processing. Neuron 70 200–227. 10.1016/j.neuron.2011.03.018 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Descartes R. (1637/2006). A Discourse on the Method. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Fotopoulou A. (2012). “Towards psychodynamic neuroscience,” in From the Couch to the Lab: Trends in Psychodynamic Neuroscience , eds Fotopoulou A., Conway M., Pfaff D. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press; ), 25–47. 10.1093/med/9780199600526.003.0003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Friston K. J. (2009). The free-energy principle: a rough guide to the brain? Trends Cognit. Sci. 13 293–301. 10.1016/j.tics.2009.04.005 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Friston K. J. (2010). The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 11 127–138. 10.1038/nrn2787 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Friston K. J. (2018). Am I self-conscious? (Or does self-organization entail self-consciousness?). Front. Psychol. 9 : 579 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00579 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Friston K. J., Frith C. (2015). A duet for one. Conscious. Cognit. 36 390–405. 10.1016/j.concog.2014.12.003 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Friston K. J., Kiebel S. (2009). Predictive coding under the free-energy principle. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 364 1211–1221. 10.1098/rstb.2008.0300 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Friston K. J., Kilner J., Harrison L. (2006). A free energy principle for the brain. J. Physiol. Paris 100 70–87. 10.1016/j.jphysparis.2006.10.001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gallagher I. I. (2000). Philosophical conceptions of the self: implications for cognitive science. Trends Cognit. Sci. 4 14–21. 10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01417-5 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Goetzmann L., Irani S., Moser K. S., Schwegler K., Stamm M., Spindler A., et al. (2009). Psychological processing of transplantation in lung recipients: a quantitative study of organ integration and the relationship to the donor. Br. J. Health Psychol. 14(Pt 4) , 667–680. 10.1348/135910708X399447 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Guillot M. (2017). I me mine: on a confusion concerning the subjective character of experience. Rev. Philos. Psychol. 8 23–53. 10.1007/s13164-016-0313-4 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hohwy J. (2007). The sense of self in the phenomenology of agency and perception. Psyche 13 1–20. [ Google Scholar ]
Hohwy J. (2013). The Predictive Mind. 1st Edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press; 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199682737.001.0001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hohwy J., Michael J. (2017). “Why should any body have a self?,” in The Subject’s Matter. Self-Consciousness and the Body , eds de Vignemont F., Alsmith A. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; ). [ Google Scholar ]
Hume D. (1739/2000). A Treatise on Human Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
James W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. New York, NY: H. Holt and Company. [ Google Scholar ]
Johnston M. (1987). Human beings. J. Philos. 84 59–83. 10.2307/2026626 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kaufman M. H. (2004). The embryology of conjoined twins. Childs Nerv. Syst. 20 508–525. 10.1007/s00381-004-0985-4 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kim K., Johnson M. K. (2014). Extended self: spontaneous activation of medial prefrontal cortex by objects that are ‘mine.’ Soc. Cognit. Affect. Neurosci. 9 1006–1012. 10.1093/scan/nst082 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Látos M., Lázár G., Horváth Z., Wittman V., Szederkényi E., Hódi Z., et al. (2016). Psychological rejection of the transplanted organ and graft dysfunction in kidney transplant patients. Transpl. Res. Risk Manage. 8 15–24. 10.2147/TRRM.S104133 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Letheby C., Gerrans P. (2017). Self unbound: ego dissolution in psychedelic experience. Neurosci. Conscious. 2017 1–11. 10.1093/nc/nix016 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Liang C. (2014). “Self-as-subject and experiential ownership,” in Open MIND , eds Metzinger T., Windt J. M. (Frankfurt am Main: MIND Group; ). [ Google Scholar ]
Limanowski J., Blankenburg F. (2013). Minimal self-models and the free energy principle. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 7 : 547 . 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00547 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
López-Silva P. (2017). Me and I are not friends, just aquaintances: on thought insertion and self-awareness. Rev. Philos. Psychol. 1–17. 10.1007/s13164-017-0366-z [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Martin J. R., Pacherie E. (2013). Out of nowhere: thought insertion, ownership and context-integration. Conscious. Cognit. 22 111–122. 10.1016/j.concog.2012.11.012 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Metzinger T. (2003). Being No One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Metzinger T. (2006). Reply to gallagher: different conceptions of embodiment. Psyche 12 1–7. [ Google Scholar ]
Metzinger T. (2009). The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self. New York, NY: Basic Books. [ Google Scholar ]
Metzinger T. (2010). The self-model theory of subjectivity: a brief summary with examples. Hum. Mente – Quart. J. Philos. 14 25–53. 10.1016/S0079-6123(07)68018-2 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Metzinger T. (2014). “First-order embodiment, second-order embodiment, third-order embodiment,” in The Routledge Handbook of Embodied Cognition , ed. Shapiro L. (London: Routledge; ). [ Google Scholar ]
Metzinger T. (2018). Minimal phenomenal experience. MindRxiv [Preprint] 10.31231/osf.io/5wyg7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Moutoussis M., Fearon P., El-Deredy W., Dolan R. J., Friston K. J. (2014). Bayesian inferences about the self (and others): a review. Conscious. Cognit. 25 67–76. 10.1016/j.concog.2014.01.009 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nagel T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? Philos. Rev. 83 435–450. 10.2307/2183914 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Oizumi M., Albantakis L., Tononi G. (2014). From the phenomenology to the mechanisms of consciousness: integrated Information Theory 3.0. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10 : e1003588 . 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003588 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Park H. D., Tallon-Baudry C. (2014). The neural subjective frame: from bodily signals to perceptual consciousness. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 369 : 20130208 . 10.1098/rstb.2013.0208 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Payne S., Tsakiris M., Maister L. (2017). Can the self become another? Investigating the effects of self-association with a new facial identity. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. (Hove) 70 1085–1097. 10.1080/17470218.2015.1137329 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Prinz J. (2012). “Waiting for the Self,” in Consciousness and the Self: New Essays , eds Liu J., Perry J. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; ),123–149. [ Google Scholar ]
Salomon R. (2017). The assembly of the self from sensory and motor foundations. Soc. Cognit. 35 87–106. 10.1521/soco.2017.35.2.87 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Schutz-Bosbach S., Musil J. J., Haggard P. (2009). Touchant-touche: the role of self-touch in the representation of body structure. Conscious. Cognit. 18 2–11. 10.1016/j.concog.2008.08.003 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Searle J. R. (2005). “The self as a problem in philosophy and neurobiology,” in The Lost Self: Pathologies of the Brain and Identity , eds Feinberg T. E., Keenan J. P. (Oxford: Oxford University Press; ), 7–19. [ Google Scholar ]
Seth A. K. (2013). Interoceptive inference, emotion, and the embodied self. Trends Cognit. Sci. 17 565–573. 10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Seth A. K., Suzuki K., Critchley H. D. (2011). An interoceptive predictive coding model of conscious presence. Front. Psychol. 2 : 395 . 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00395 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Shoemaker S. S. (1968). Self-reference and self-awareness. J. Philos. 65 555–567. 10.2307/2024121 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Spencer R. (2000). Theoretical and analytical embryology of conjoined twins: part II: adjustments to union. Clin. Anat. 13 97–120. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2353(2000)13:2<97::AID-CA5>3.0.CO;2-I [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Strawson G. (2000). The phenomenology and ontology of the self. Explor. Self 23 39–54. 10.1075/aicr.23.05str [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Strawson G. (2003). What is the relation between an experience, the subject of the experience, and the content of the experience. Philos. Issues 13 279–315. 10.1111/1533-6077.00015 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Strawson G. (2010). Selves. London: Tls-the Times Literary Supplement, 6–6. [ Google Scholar ]
Sui J., Gu X. (2017). Self as object: emerging trends in self research. Trends Neurosci. 40 643–653. 10.1016/j.tins.2017.09.002 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Tahko T. E. (2015). An Introduction to Metametaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
Tononi G., Boly M., Massimini M., Koch C. (2016). Integrated information theory: from consciousness to its physical substrate. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 17 450–461. 10.1038/nrn.2016.44 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Truong G., Todd R. M. (2017). SOAP opera: self as object and agent in prioritizing attention. J. Cognit. Neurosci. 29 937–952. 10.1162/jocn_a_01083 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Tsakiris M. (2008). Looking for myself: current multisensory input alters self-face recognition. PLoS One 3 : e4040 . 10.1371/journal.pone.0004040 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Weiskrantz L., Elliott J., Darlington C. (1971). Preliminary observations on tickling oneself. Nature 230 598–599. 10.1038/230598a0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Williams D. (2017). Predictive processing and the representation wars. Minds Machines 28 141–172. 10.1007/s11023-017-9441-6 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Windt J. M. (2015). Just in time—dreamless sleep experience as pure subjective temporality: Open MIND. Frankfurt am Main: MIND Group. [ Google Scholar ]
Wittgenstein L. (1958). Preliminary Studies for the “Philosophical Investigations”, Generally Known as the Blue and Brown Books. Oxford: Blackwell. [ Google Scholar ]
Woźniak M., Kourtis D., Knoblich G. (2018). Prioritization of arbitrary faces associated to self: An EEG study. PLoS One 13 : e0190679 . 10.1371/journal.pone.0190679 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Young G. (2008). On how a child’s awareness of thinking informs explanations of thought insertion. Conscious. Cognit. 17 848–862. 10.1016/j.concog.2007.05.005 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Zahavi D. (2014). Self and Other: Exploring Subjectivity, Empathy, and Shame , 1st Edn Oxford: Oxford University Press; 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199590681.001.0001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Zahavi D., Kriegel U. (2016). “For-me-ness: what it is and what it is not,” in Philosophy of Mind and Phenomenology: Conceptual and Empirical Approaches , eds Dahlstrom D., Elpidorou A., Hopp W. (New York, NY: Routledge; ), 36–53. [ Google Scholar ]

Get Best Essay Written by Essay Writers

Enter phone no. to receive critical updates and urgent messages !

Please upload all relevant files for quick & complete assistance.

New User? Start Here

Tips On How To Write A Self Analysis Essay?

What is a self-analysis essay, reflect on personal experiences, identify themes, consider impactful moments, consider audience, choose a topic, create an outline, introduction about self analysis, body paragraphs, honesty and reflection, conclusion about self-analysis, self-reflection on personal growth, exploring career development and goals, what to include in a self-assessment essay sample.

Self-analysis papers are essential for students planning to enroll themselves in premium colleges and universities. While writing self-analysis papers, students often face various challenges. Hence, in this blog, we will discuss in detail how to write a self-analysis paper.

Self-analysis pieces are a type of personal essay where individuals reflect on their own experiences. Students reflect on their own

All these reflections eventually help in gaining personal growth. By introspecting themselves, individuals gain insights about their own thoughts. The self-evaluation essays typically discuss the

Aspirations

You can also add any significant experiences that you may have faced. The purpose of writing a self-assessment essay is to foster self-awareness. Simultaneously, it is used to facilitate personal growth and to set future goals. For more guidance, you can contact our professional writers.

How Do I Choose a Topic for My Self-Analysis Essay?

Choosing a self-analysis topic decides the success of your final essay. So, follow these tips to choose a perfect topic for you -

Remembering past experiences is an excellent way to get ideas about a topic. Consider significant events or challenges you may have faced in your life. You can also take inspiration from past achievements. These moments of self-reflection can lead to excellent topics.

Look for common themes in your life. You can find common personality traits. You can also explore some common topics on self-perception or self-worth. There can be many recurring struggles that define who you are. You can look for themes that resonate with your strengths and weaknesses. All these can make excellent topics.

Think about moments that made you learn something new. It can be a reality check with your strengths and weaknesses. It can be meeting someone who made you think about changing your lifestyle. These moments that may have helped you choose a perfect life can be a good self-analysis essay example.

It is crucial to consider your audience before penning down the words. Think about who will be reading your essay. Think about what you want your readers to learn for your self-perception analysis. Understand if your audience can relate to your strengths and weaknesses. Choose a topic that will resonate with the life of a reader.

If you are struggling to find any meaningful topics, feel free to brainstorm among yourselves. Assess the significance and relevance of each potential topic. A good self-analysis topic should always be meaningful to you. At the same time, the words must have the potential to engage your readers. Hire our essay writing service

Struggling to Choose a Self-Analysis Essay, Get Help!

How to Start a Self-Evaluation Essay?

Here is a personal analysis paper format that you can follow -

Every self-analysis piece must start with a well-defined topic. Choose a topic that is relevant to the present world. Choose a topic that can take a person on a potential journey rather than being just another read.

The next step is creating an outline. This serves as the basic framework for your self-analysis projects. In this step, you have to define the scope of the paper in clear writing.

Once the outline is ready, you can start writing the introduction. The introduction of self-analysis essays is unlike what you usually write. Here you don't have to brief any problems. Instead, you have to write short paragraphs on yourself. Mention a little about your personality traits, strengths, and weaknesses.

The next section is the body paragraphs. Here, you have to write about yourself in greater detail. Write exactly how you want to present yourself to the world. This is your chance to show your audience how you were as a person. You also have to explain how you want to be as a person in the future. Support your statements by writing about past incidences. For example, you may have abusive parents in your childhood. This has transformed you from being timid to an empath.

One of the most important aspects of writing essays on your personality is maintaining honesty. When you are writing an essay about yourself, you must always develop it from your own life. If you create fictional stories, they will never be relatable. Moreover, when you narrate your own story, it showcases your personality clearly. Your words will resonate with the readers only when you give examples from your own life. This can be done best by reflecting on your past experiences. Reflect on past conflicts or your weaknesses. The learning you have gotten from these will translate into honest stories.

Finally, you can end the essay with a strong conclusion. You have to explain the whole learning curve you experienced. Mention how you realized that a single instance can affect your future. In a few words, conclude by stating how this past education has forced you to develop new skills and become a better person overall.

For more detailed guidance, feel free to hire our analytical essay writing service .

Examples of Self-Analysis Essay

Here are two self-evaluation essay examples that you can refer to -

In this essay, I want to shed light on my personal growth over the past year. I experienced various challenges in the last one year. I saw problems within my family and in my professional domain. However, I overcame all these with my skills. These achievements helped me to look at life from a different perspective. In an attempt to introspect myself, I discovered my strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement. These moments made me a more resilient human than before.

In this essay, I will talk about my aspirations and career development. As I reflect on my educational background and professional experiences, I can see a definite course. I have been fortunate to balance my passion and career even in an unfamiliar environment. Through this process, I understood the importance of continuous learning. I also feel that networking and adaptability can influence your career positively. Overall, my assessment of myself has helped me to take proactive steps towards fulfilling my ambitions.

If you need more examples of how to write personal essay , let us know!

You can include several key elements if you are writing a self-assessment essay -

Introduction

Begin with an engaging introduction. Provide some background information about yourself and address the purpose of the essay.

Personal Goals

Discuss your personal goals and objectives. Discuss what gives you motivation to succeed. Explain how these goals align with your current aspirations and beliefs.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Reflect on your strengths and weaknesses. Provide specific examples to support your assessment. Be honest and constructive in your evaluation.

Achievements

Highlight your achievements and accomplishments. Give an example and discuss how these achievements have contributed to your growth.

Challenges and Obstacles

Describe any challenges you have faced in your life. Mention how these challenges acted as sources of education for you. Keep explaining how you have overcome them. Reflect on how they have shaped you as a person.

Skills and Abilities

Evaluate your existing knowledge by aligning them with your goals and objectives. Discuss how your skills help you excel in certain areas and where you need further improvement.

Learning and Development

Reflect on your learning over a specific period of time. Discuss any courses or experiences that have helped you grow.

Future Plans

Outline your future plans. Do a self-introspection about how you intend to achieve your goals. Discuss any skills you need to develop in order to reach your objectives.

Summarize all your key points. More importantly, reflect on the overall significance of your assessment. However, do not introduce any new points in this section.

If you struggle to incorporate all of these seamlessly into your papers, let us know.

Get Your Self Analysis Essay

FAQs for Self Analysis Essay

How should i start my self-assessment.

To start your essay on self-analysis, you can start with a brief introduction. This will set the context for your evaluation. Here's an example of how you could start - "As I reflect on the matter I faced ten years back, I felt that I should conduct a thorough self-analysis. This test will give me an idea about my skills and weaknesses. I can understand where I am lagging and work on those areas. I can figure out how to align my goals with my achievements. Also, I will get detailed ideas about my capabilities to resolve conflicts. This will ultimately help me to improve in both personal and professional spheres."

What is a sample sentence for self-evaluation?

Here is an example of how a perfect self-analysis sentence should look like -

"In reviewing my performance over the past year, I have found that my ability to adapt to new challenges has grown. I also learned how to collaborate effectively with others and contribute to the success of our team."

What Should I Include in the Introduction of My Essay?

In the introduction of your self-analysis paper, you should aim to provide a brief overview of why you are doing the test. You should give a hint about the purpose of your self-analysis. You can also give the readers an idea of what to expect to learn from it.

Should I Discuss Both Strengths and Weaknesses in My Self-Analysis Essay?

Yes, it is a good idea to discuss both strengths and weaknesses while writing essays on self-analysis. This gives the readers a sense of balance. Readers also love to read such essays since they evoke -

Self-Awareness
Holistic Evaluation
Opportunities for Growth
Authenticity

Do I Have to Address the Challenges I've Faced in My Self-Analysis Essay?

Yes, you have to point out the various challenges that you may have faced while writing about yourself. When you show your struggle and how you overcame it, readers can understand how you grew over time. However, it's ultimately up to you how much you want to divulge about oneself. Ideally, you should only discuss challenges that perfectly align with the assessment objectives.

How Should I Conclude My Self-Analysis Essay?

While doing an assessment of yourself, you need to know the secrets of creating a solid conclusion. For that, follow these tips -

Summarize the key discoveries you made about yourself
Reflect on the growth you have experienced
Consider reiterating the main points you've discussed
Emphasize how they contribute to your overall assessment.
Finally, end the page with a thought-provoking opinion.

Should I Seek Feedback on My Self-Analysis Essay?

Yes, you should always seek feedback if you are writing an essay on personal assessment. Get feedback from people who know you well. Ask your friends, teachers, or parents to judge your paper. They have a good idea about your usual behavior. So they can easily help you understand if you have covered all the factors accurately.

Bella Phillips As a passionate blogger for Essay Help USA by #1 Writing Expert 50% Off.I am currently employed at a leading Business Law firm in White Plains. I am associated with Allessaywriter.com for several years and helping the Law students with their essays.

Get Essay Writing Assistance From Real Expert - No AI

Please enter phone for your order updates and other important order related communication.

How to demonstrate critical evaluation in your psychology assignments

Thinking critically about psychology research

Critical thinking is often taught in undergraduate psychology degrees, and is a key marking criteria for higher marks in many assignments. But getting your head around how to write critically can sometimes be difficult. It can take practice. The aim of this short blog is to provide an introduction to critical evaluation, and how to start including evidence of critical evaluation in your psychology assignments.

So what does “critical evaluation” really mean?

Broadly speaking, critical evaluation is the process of thinking and writing critically about the quality of the sources of evidence used to support or refute an argument. By “ evidence “, I mean the literature you cite (e.g., a journal article or book chapter). By “ quality of the evidence “, I mean thinking about whether this topic has been tested is in a robust way. If the quality of the sources is poor, then this could suggest poor support for your argument, and vice versa. Even if the quality is poor, this is important to discuss in your assignments as evidence of critical thinking in this way!

In the rest of this blog, I outline a few different ways you can start to implement critical thinking into your work and reading of psychology. I talk about the quality of the evidence, a few pointers for critiquing the methods, theoretical and practical critical evaluation too. This is not an exhaustive list, but hopefully it’ll help you to start getting those higher-level marks in psychology. I also include an example write-up at the end to illustrate how to write all of this up!

The quality of the evidence

There are different types of study designs in psychology research, but some are of higher quality than others. The higher the quality of the evidence, the stronger the support for your argument the research offers, because the idea has been tested more rigorously. The pyramid image below can really help to explain what we mean by “quality of evidence”, by showing different study designs in the order of their quality.

Not every area of psychology is going to be full of high quality studies, and even the strongest sources of evidence (i.e., systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses) can have limitations! Because no study is perfect, it can be a good habit to tell the reader, in your report, (i) what the design of the study is that you’re citing, AND, (ii) how this affects your argument. Doing so would be evidence of critical thought. (See an example write-up below for implementing this, but do not copy and paste it!)

But first, what do I mean by “design”? The design of the study refers to how the study was carried out. There are sometimes broad categories of design that you’ll have heard of, like a ‘survey design’, ‘a review paper’, or an ‘experimental design’. Within these categories, though, there can be more specific types of design (e.g. a cross-sectional survey design, or a longitudinal survey design; a randomised controlled experiment or a simple pre-post experiment). Knowing these specific types of design is a good place to start when thinking about how to critique the evidence when citing your sources, and the image below can help with that.

hierarchy of scientific evidence, randomized controlled study, case, cohort, research design

Image source: https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/01/12/the-hierarchy-of-evidence-is-the-studys-design-robust/

In summary, there are various types of designs in psychology research. To name a few from the image above, we have: a meta-analysis or a systematic review (a review paper that summarises the research that explores the same research question); a cross-sectional survey study (a questionnaire that people complete once – these are really common in psychology!). If you’re not familiar with these, I would highly suggest doing a bit of reading around these methods and some of their general limitations – you can then use these limitation points in your assignments! To help with this, you could do a Google Scholar search for ‘limitations of a cross-sectional study’, or ‘why are randomised control trials gold standard?’. You can use any published papers as further support as a limitation.

Methodological critical evaluation

Internal validity: Are the findings or the measures used in the study reliable (e.g., have they been replicated by another study, and is the reliability high)?
External validity: Are there any biases in the study that might affect generalisability(e.g., gender bias, where one gender may be overrepresented for the population in the sample recruited)? Lack of generalisability is a common limitation that undergraduates tend to use by default as a limitation in their reports. It’s a perfectly valid limitation, but it can usually be made much more impactful by explaining exactly how it’s a problem for the topic of study. In some cases, this limitation may not be all that warranted; for example, a female bias may be expected in a sample of psychology students, because undergraduate courses tend to be filled mostly with females!
What is the design of the study, and how it a good or bad quality design (randomised control trial, cross-sectional study)?

Theoretical critical evaluation

Do the findings in the literature support the relevant psychological theories?
Have the findings been replicated in another study? (If so, say so and add a reference!)

Practical critical evaluation

In the real world, how easy would it be to implement these findings?
Have these findings been implemented? (If so, you could find out if this has been done well!)

Summary points

In summary, there are various types of designs in psychology research. To name a few from the image above, we have: a meta-analysis or a systematic review (a review paper that summarises the research that explores the same research question); a cross-sectional survey study (a questionnaire that people complete once – these are really common in psychology!). If you’re not familiar with these, I would highly suggest doing a bit of reading around these methods and some of their general limitations – you can then use these limitation points in your assignments! To help with this, I would do a Google Scholar search for ‘limitations of a cross-sectional study’, or ‘why are randomised control trials gold standard?’. You can use these papers as further support as a limitation.

You don’t have to use all of these points in your writing, these are just examples of how you can demonstrate critical thinking in your work. Try to use at least a couple in any assignment. Here is an example of how to write these up:

An example write-up

“Depression and anxiety are generally associated with each other (see the meta-analysis by [reference here]). For example, one of these studies was a cross-sectional study [reference here] with 500 undergraduate psychology students. The researchers found that depression and anxiety (measured using the DASS-21 measure) were correlated at r = .76, indicating a strong effect. However, this one study is limited in that it used a cross-sectional design, which do not tell us whether depression causes anxiety or whether anxiety causes depression; it just tells us that they are correlated. It’s also limited in that the participants are not a clinical sample, which does not tell us about whether these are clinically co-morbid constructs. Finally, a strength of this study is that it used the DASS-21 which is generally found to be a reliable measure. Future studies would therefore benefit from using a longitudinal design to gain an idea as to how these variables are causally related to one another, and use more clinical samples to understand the implications for clinical practice. Overall, however, the research generally suggests that depression and anxiety are associated. That there is a meta-analysis on this topic [reference here], showing that there is lots of evidence, suggests that this finding is generally well-accepted.”

Notice how I first found a review paper on the topic to broadly tell the reader how much evidence there is in the first place. I set the scene of the paragraph with the first sentence, and then the last sentence I brought it back, rounding the paragraph off.
Notice how I then described one study from this paper in more detail. Specifically, I mentioned the participants, the design of the study and the measure the researchers used to assess these variables. Critically, I then described how each of these pieces of the method are disadvantages/strengths of the study. Sometimes, it’s enough to just say “the study was limited in that it was a cross-sectional study”, but it can really show that you are thinking critically, if you also add “… because it does not tell us….”.
Notice how I added a statistic there to further illustrate my point (in this case, it was the correlation coefficient), showing that I didn’t just read the abstract of the paper. Doing this for the effect sizes in a study can also help demonstrate to a reader that you understand statistics (a higher-level marking criteria).

Are these points you can include in your own work?

Thanks for reading,

What Is a Case Study?

Weighing the pros and cons of this method of research

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Cara Lustik is a fact-checker and copywriter.

Verywell / Colleen Tighe

Pros and Cons

What Types of Case Studies Are Out There?

Where do you find data for a case study, how do i write a psychology case study.

A case study is an in-depth study of one person, group, or event. In a case study, nearly every aspect of the subject's life and history is analyzed to seek patterns and causes of behavior. Case studies can be used in many different fields, including psychology, medicine, education, anthropology, political science, and social work.

The point of a case study is to learn as much as possible about an individual or group so that the information can be generalized to many others. Unfortunately, case studies tend to be highly subjective, and it is sometimes difficult to generalize results to a larger population.

While case studies focus on a single individual or group, they follow a format similar to other types of psychology writing. If you are writing a case study, we got you—here are some rules of APA format to reference.

At a Glance

A case study, or an in-depth study of a person, group, or event, can be a useful research tool when used wisely. In many cases, case studies are best used in situations where it would be difficult or impossible for you to conduct an experiment. They are helpful for looking at unique situations and allow researchers to gather a lot of˜ information about a specific individual or group of people. However, it's important to be cautious of any bias we draw from them as they are highly subjective.

What Are the Benefits and Limitations of Case Studies?

A case study can have its strengths and weaknesses. Researchers must consider these pros and cons before deciding if this type of study is appropriate for their needs.

One of the greatest advantages of a case study is that it allows researchers to investigate things that are often difficult or impossible to replicate in a lab. Some other benefits of a case study:

Allows researchers to capture information on the 'how,' 'what,' and 'why,' of something that's implemented
Gives researchers the chance to collect information on why one strategy might be chosen over another
Permits researchers to develop hypotheses that can be explored in experimental research

On the other hand, a case study can have some drawbacks:

It cannot necessarily be generalized to the larger population
Cannot demonstrate cause and effect
It may not be scientifically rigorous
It can lead to bias

Researchers may choose to perform a case study if they want to explore a unique or recently discovered phenomenon. Through their insights, researchers develop additional ideas and study questions that might be explored in future studies.

It's important to remember that the insights from case studies cannot be used to determine cause-and-effect relationships between variables. However, case studies may be used to develop hypotheses that can then be addressed in experimental research.

Case Study Examples

There have been a number of notable case studies in the history of psychology. Much of Freud's work and theories were developed through individual case studies. Some great examples of case studies in psychology include:

Anna O : Anna O. was a pseudonym of a woman named Bertha Pappenheim, a patient of a physician named Josef Breuer. While she was never a patient of Freud's, Freud and Breuer discussed her case extensively. The woman was experiencing symptoms of a condition that was then known as hysteria and found that talking about her problems helped relieve her symptoms. Her case played an important part in the development of talk therapy as an approach to mental health treatment.
Phineas Gage : Phineas Gage was a railroad employee who experienced a terrible accident in which an explosion sent a metal rod through his skull, damaging important portions of his brain. Gage recovered from his accident but was left with serious changes in both personality and behavior.
Genie : Genie was a young girl subjected to horrific abuse and isolation. The case study of Genie allowed researchers to study whether language learning was possible, even after missing critical periods for language development. Her case also served as an example of how scientific research may interfere with treatment and lead to further abuse of vulnerable individuals.

Such cases demonstrate how case research can be used to study things that researchers could not replicate in experimental settings. In Genie's case, her horrific abuse denied her the opportunity to learn a language at critical points in her development.

This is clearly not something researchers could ethically replicate, but conducting a case study on Genie allowed researchers to study phenomena that are otherwise impossible to reproduce.

There are a few different types of case studies that psychologists and other researchers might use:

Collective case studies : These involve studying a group of individuals. Researchers might study a group of people in a certain setting or look at an entire community. For example, psychologists might explore how access to resources in a community has affected the collective mental well-being of those who live there.
Descriptive case studies : These involve starting with a descriptive theory. The subjects are then observed, and the information gathered is compared to the pre-existing theory.
Explanatory case studies : These are often used to do causal investigations. In other words, researchers are interested in looking at factors that may have caused certain things to occur.
Exploratory case studies : These are sometimes used as a prelude to further, more in-depth research. This allows researchers to gather more information before developing their research questions and hypotheses .
Instrumental case studies : These occur when the individual or group allows researchers to understand more than what is initially obvious to observers.
Intrinsic case studies : This type of case study is when the researcher has a personal interest in the case. Jean Piaget's observations of his own children are good examples of how an intrinsic case study can contribute to the development of a psychological theory.

The three main case study types often used are intrinsic, instrumental, and collective. Intrinsic case studies are useful for learning about unique cases. Instrumental case studies help look at an individual to learn more about a broader issue. A collective case study can be useful for looking at several cases simultaneously.

The type of case study that psychology researchers use depends on the unique characteristics of the situation and the case itself.

There are a number of different sources and methods that researchers can use to gather information about an individual or group. Six major sources that have been identified by researchers are:

Archival records : Census records, survey records, and name lists are examples of archival records.
Direct observation : This strategy involves observing the subject, often in a natural setting . While an individual observer is sometimes used, it is more common to utilize a group of observers.
Documents : Letters, newspaper articles, administrative records, etc., are the types of documents often used as sources.
Interviews : Interviews are one of the most important methods for gathering information in case studies. An interview can involve structured survey questions or more open-ended questions.
Participant observation : When the researcher serves as a participant in events and observes the actions and outcomes, it is called participant observation.
Physical artifacts : Tools, objects, instruments, and other artifacts are often observed during a direct observation of the subject.

If you have been directed to write a case study for a psychology course, be sure to check with your instructor for any specific guidelines you need to follow. If you are writing your case study for a professional publication, check with the publisher for their specific guidelines for submitting a case study.

Here is a general outline of what should be included in a case study.

Section 1: A Case History

This section will have the following structure and content:

Background information : The first section of your paper will present your client's background. Include factors such as age, gender, work, health status, family mental health history, family and social relationships, drug and alcohol history, life difficulties, goals, and coping skills and weaknesses.

Description of the presenting problem : In the next section of your case study, you will describe the problem or symptoms that the client presented with.

Describe any physical, emotional, or sensory symptoms reported by the client. Thoughts, feelings, and perceptions related to the symptoms should also be noted. Any screening or diagnostic assessments that are used should also be described in detail and all scores reported.

Your diagnosis : Provide your diagnosis and give the appropriate Diagnostic and Statistical Manual code. Explain how you reached your diagnosis, how the client's symptoms fit the diagnostic criteria for the disorder(s), or any possible difficulties in reaching a diagnosis.

Section 2: Treatment Plan

This portion of the paper will address the chosen treatment for the condition. This might also include the theoretical basis for the chosen treatment or any other evidence that might exist to support why this approach was chosen.

Cognitive behavioral approach : Explain how a cognitive behavioral therapist would approach treatment. Offer background information on cognitive behavioral therapy and describe the treatment sessions, client response, and outcome of this type of treatment. Make note of any difficulties or successes encountered by your client during treatment.
Humanistic approach : Describe a humanistic approach that could be used to treat your client, such as client-centered therapy . Provide information on the type of treatment you chose, the client's reaction to the treatment, and the end result of this approach. Explain why the treatment was successful or unsuccessful.
Psychoanalytic approach : Describe how a psychoanalytic therapist would view the client's problem. Provide some background on the psychoanalytic approach and cite relevant references. Explain how psychoanalytic therapy would be used to treat the client, how the client would respond to therapy, and the effectiveness of this treatment approach.
Pharmacological approach : If treatment primarily involves the use of medications, explain which medications were used and why. Provide background on the effectiveness of these medications and how monotherapy may compare with an approach that combines medications with therapy or other treatments.

This section of a case study should also include information about the treatment goals, process, and outcomes.

When you are writing a case study, you should also include a section where you discuss the case study itself, including the strengths and limitiations of the study. You should note how the findings of your case study might support previous research.

In your discussion section, you should also describe some of the implications of your case study. What ideas or findings might require further exploration? How might researchers go about exploring some of these questions in additional studies?

Need More Tips?

Here are a few additional pointers to keep in mind when formatting your case study:

Never refer to the subject of your case study as "the client." Instead, use their name or a pseudonym.
Read examples of case studies to gain an idea about the style and format.
Remember to use APA format when citing references .

Crowe S, Cresswell K, Robertson A, Huby G, Avery A, Sheikh A. The case study approach . BMC Med Res Methodol . 2011;11:100.

Crowe S, Cresswell K, Robertson A, Huby G, Avery A, Sheikh A. The case study approach . BMC Med Res Methodol . 2011 Jun 27;11:100. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-100

Gagnon, Yves-Chantal. The Case Study as Research Method: A Practical Handbook . Canada, Chicago Review Press Incorporated DBA Independent Pub Group, 2010.

Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods . United States, SAGE Publications, 2017.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Know Thyself: How to Write a Reflexivity Statement

More self-awareness will help you on your path to being a better psychologist..

Posted May 22, 2018 | Reviewed by Ekua Hagan

What Is a Career
Find a career counsellor near me

Physicists have known for decades that the process of observing and measuring phenomena changes those very phenomena—the so-called “observer effect." It does not even matter whether the “observer” is a human or some mechanical apparatus—there is an unavoidable impact on what is being measured, even at the quantum level. Further, the more watching, the greater the effect.

Social scientists know that researchers can affect outcomes too. This is the reason for double-blind studies because it turns out that experimenters can unconsciously give cues to participants and bias study results. This is one way to create a placebo effect .

Really, despite how incredibly well-known these researcher effects are, it’s kind of remarkable the extent to which social scientists still adopt the cloak of objectivity. The cloak of objectivity basically involves pretending that pure, objective reason guides every aspect of psychological research—the choice of topic, the research questions, the measures, the analyses, the interpretation.

In some circles, it is so important to maintain this charade of impartiality that we even avoid using pronouns in our sentences. We say things such as “the surveys were administered” in a way that suggests that humans were not the actors passing out the surveys. (As an aside, disguising the role of researchers through the extensive use of passive tense is also one reason why so many research articles are so difficult and dull to read.)

In research on social problems, we can be particularly sensitive about the issue of neutrality. “Advocacy research” is hurled like a slur at people who study violence, who—shocking!—are openly against violence.

I’ve always found this to be especially ridiculous. Researchers are not typically neutral about their topics. The cancer researcher is not neutral about whether a new drug makes a tumor shrink or grow. The rocket scientist is not neutral about whether the rocket reaches the moon.

We need to abandon the cloak of objectivity. Social scientists are part of the social contexts that they study. A physicist may create an artificial vacuum in the lab (and still not be fully immune from the observer effect), but social science has never and will never exist in a vacuum.

Social scientists cannot step outside of culture, nor their place in history. We cannot get “outside” of the phenomena we are attempting to study. Or, more pithily, “wherever you go, there you are.” 1 Awareness of your place in the social-cultural context can help keep you from inadvertently reinforcing harmful hierarchies or social dynamics.

However, lack of objectivity is not just a problem, it is also an opportunity. For decades, feminist and post-modern scholars have encouraged researchers to acknowledge their cultural, political and social context, and to “reflect on” (hence the term “reflexivity”) the ways that these contexts influence research and scholarship.

One way to do that is by preparing and disseminating a reflexivity statement (also sometimes called a positionality statement ). Reflexivity statements are becoming more common. My team and I were required to prepare a reflexivity statement for a recent foundation grant, and I was recently encouraged to include one in a peer-reviewed journal article.

In addition to the influence of your social position with respect to gender, race, age, sexual orientation and other characteristics, your own values, ethics , and training affect how you conduct research as well.

All of these can be strengths—they may give you unique insights that others do not have and are part of what you have to contribute as a scientist or scholar. However, they can be weaknesses as well, and you may be making assumptions or not noticing aspects of the phenomenon you are studying. More awareness can help you make use of the strengths and minimize weaknesses.

Although you may want to prepare a reflexivity statement that is customized for every project (for example, here’s one I prepared for a project that focused on boys and men or color) , it can also be helpful to have a more general one that reflects who you are as a researcher.

Key Questions

The personal characteristics that define your social position.

Start with the basics. In a lot of mainstream professional settings, it can feel pretty radical just to acknowledge your basic social position, such as something like “I am a white, upper-middle class, cisgender, straight, non-disabled female.”

If that feels like an incredibly strong statement to include in a research article, then you have had your first glimpse of how bound you are by professional conventions. As the saying goes, “This is water.” You are swimming in social conventions all the time, even when you are conducting science, and it can be hard to realize that.

Once you have acknowledged these characteristics, you can start to ponder their meaning for your work. How are your personal characteristics sources of power and privilege, or, alternatively, marginalization and disadvantage?

Many of us have a mix of characteristics, some of which confer privilege, others marginalization. What does the recognition of the power that you have mean for your work? How can you take steps to make sure that you don’t reinforce the social context from which you come in your work?

Ask yourself: What characteristics orient you in society? Age, gender, race (as a social construct), sexual orientation, gender identity , social class, and health status are some of the key characteristics that will situate almost everyone in their broader social context.

How do you define yourself? Has that changed over time? Has your awareness of the impact of these characteristics changed over time? Think about how your characteristics may confer power, privilege, or marginalization and ways characteristics can “intersect” with each other to create your unique viewpoint.

The settings where you grew up and relevant family information.

For me, it feels a little easier to acknowledge some historical facts about my upbringing, perhaps because these are more commonly discussed in casual conversation between acquaintances. These are also important to understand as sources of potential insights and potential blindspots.

In my case, I grew up in the south, have been living in Appalachia for 10 years, and have multi-generational roots in Appalachia and in the southern U.S. more broadly. I have spent most of my adult life living in rural areas and small towns. My father went to college on the GI bill and became the first person in his family to get a college education . I was the first person to get a graduate degree (my sister was the second).

I think this history is one of the reasons that I have focused a lot of my work on marginalized and disadvantaged communities. My background has also given me “code-switching” skills—or the ability to shift language, dialect, or other communication features from one setting to another, as I learned to navigate the working-class Southern culture of my extended family and the professional classes of the Washington, D.C .suburbs where I grew up after my father’s engineering degree took him to NASA.

Code-switching is an under-appreciated skill and one that I have used to try to bring the perspectives of marginalized people to a more prominent place in research. See for example, this article on Appalachian resistance to modern technology.

More recently, but no less significantly, becoming a parent had a profound impact on the ways that I see many aspects of dealing with adversity and navigating social services.

For example, when I first started working in domestic violence , many shelters did not take male children, even as young as age 6. Adolescent sons are still not welcome in some settings. Still, I used to encourage women to consider these options, for their own safety.

However, now, as the mother of an adolescent son, I realize I would never leave him alone in a dangerous environment. When I was a young professional without a family of my own, I had a blind spot about parenthood that I had not recognized. Becoming a parent has fundamentally changed the ways that I think about many aspects of coping with family violence.

Ask yourself: How did your early childhood experiences affect your career choices? Your scholarship choices? How has your upbringing and positionality influenced the opportunities available to you? As you think about your own course of development over the lifespan, have these impacts changed as you have moved through adolescence , young adulthood, middle adulthood, and late adulthood?

The frame offered by your discipline or institution.

Whenever I go to the American Psychological Association convention, I have the constant experience of thinking I see someone I know out of the corner of my eye. I have many colleagues outside of psychology and consider my work multidisciplinary, but these trips to APA always remind me of how much of a psychologist I am. Or, even more specifically, a clinical psychologist.

My colleagues and I have manners of dressing, walking, and expressing ourselves that reflect our training as clinicians. More cardigans than blazers, and those cardigans reflect a worldview as much as a sartorial choice.

On the positive side, my clinical training helps keep me focused on application of research. How can people use the latest scientific findings? What do providers need to know? On the negative side, psychology has a tendency to be too focused on individuals and not social systems, and I still struggle with having to remind myself to look at systems and not just people.

Recognizing and acknowledging the professional lens through which you approach any given research question is also part of self-awareness.

Related to this will be the specifics of any given project. Did you choose qualitative or quantitative methods (or both)? Are you relying on self-report, observation, official records, medical tests, or other measures? Are you focusing on a specific age group or another subgroup in the population?

All of these choices will affect the kind of information you obtain and what you end up thinking are the answers to your research questions. Qualitative researchers are used to justifying their approach in papers, but it is something that all researchers could benefit from.

Ask yourself: What does it mean to see your research questions through the lens of your discipline, whether it be psychology, social work, public health, medicine, law, criminal justice, or something else? Are there ways that your research or scholarship methods affect the information that you gain or create potential blind spots in your work? How are these conventions upholding the status quo or reinforcing the privileges of people in positions of power and influence? What are the strengths and weaknesses of these professional lenses?

Professional Spaces Versus Therapeutic Spaces

Finally, one last issue to consider is navigating the boundary between professional and therapeutic spaces and deciding how personal to get.

The most important thing to remember is that you are entitled to control your own narrative. You are not obligated to make any disclosures you do not want to make, nor are you obligated to keep silent about issues that you want to address.

In reflexivity or positionality statements, people often mention where they grew up, but seldom go into details about their parents’ divorce . There’s a balance there. You do not have to sacrifice your professional persona in order to be reflective about what you are bringing to the work as a real-life person.

It is also important that you not use these statements as a substitute for any healing that you need—these are for research, not therapy .

As a poly -victimization researcher, I have learned that virtually everyone who survives to adulthood will eventually experience adversity. In our samples, it typically runs 98 to 100 percent of the sample reporting at least one significant adversity, and more than 8 out of 10 report some form of victimization, especially when one includes childhood bullying , property crime , and other widespread offenses.

There is also the very real issue of stigma , and it is important to be intentional about the choices you make regarding disclosing potentially stigmatizing information, such as a history of trauma . As we have recently seen in the #metoo movement and also others before it, it can be powerful to disclose, especially with others’ support, but it can also be risky.

For example, some of my recent work focuses explicitly on Appalachia, and I have experienced a lot more stereotyping when I talk about having roots in that community—from questions about my lack of accent (see the code-switching skills noted above) to one professor’s total surprise that I had (of all things) the same Fitbit as her (as if people from Appalachia can’t access or afford modern technology).

Most reflexivity statements focus on more public sorts of information—the sort of information that many of your acquaintances or casual friends might know about you. However, that can depend on the setting. In Indian country, for example, where I have worked some, more personal disclosures are the norm and I often disclose a lot more about the details of my own history in those settings than I do elsewhere.

Ask yourself: How do you want to control your narrative? What would you like people to know about you? What are the advantages and disadvantages around particular disclosures? Are there different settings where different levels of disclosure make sense? (Be aware that your choices for disclosure may not work for someone else, even in the same setting.) Are there ways that you can use your social capital and/or professional privilege to help you navigate disclosures about adversity or marginalization? This is how I see my current work in Appalachia—as a chance to use my professional privilege to push back against common stereotypes. (On a somewhat different topic, it is also worth thinking about ways that you can use your own social capital or professional privilege to help others who are more marginalized or disadvantaged.)

Conclusions and Implications

It can be a very powerful experience to prepare a reflexivity (aka positionality) statement—one that tells your professional autobiography and how you came to be the researcher you are today. A longer statement, of approximately three to five pages, can give you space to really explore some of these issues.

I have personally found it to be a powerful professional and personal exercise to write a detailed reflexivity statement. Sometimes, only a brief reflexivity statement is warranted in the space available. An example of a shorter one is below.

Once you have written it, there are several steps you can take to put it to use. In addition to simple acknowledgment, the statement might give you ideas about alternative research questions or measures.

Consider research methods, such as community-based participatory research (CBPR) that include the voices of participants as stakeholders and more explicitly recognize researchers as part of the context of any project. Reach out to colleagues who have a range of characteristics, and make sure you do not unintentionally only find yourself collaborating with people who are very similar to you in key personal, social, or educational characteristics.

Examples and Resources

Here’s a recent example of a brief reflexivity statement included in a peer-reviewed article in a prominent communications journal .

This research is based in the Appalachian Center for Resilience Research (ACRR), which seeks to improve the study of this unique region of the country. Not only is Appalachia understudied, but much of its portrayal is still governed by stereotypes. The ACRR mission is to present a more evidence-based portrayal of the region. The first three authors were residents of the community when the study was conducted. S.H. has multigenerational roots in Appalachia. She has spent most of her adult life in rural communities and has lived on the Cumberland Plateau, in the southernmost region of Appalachia, for nine years. E.T. and A.S. are newer residents of the area, who came for work and school (respectively). E.T. had lived in the area for two years and A.S. for four years at the time of the study. Both were raised in the southern United States. K.M. and L.J. are experts in online behavior and are from New England. This is their first study based in Appalachia.

Thanks to Martha Dinwiddie for her comments on an earlier draft of this article.

1 The origin of the quote “Wherever you go, there you are” is much debated online, with a popular reference in the cult classic movie Buckaroo Banzai getting many mentions, but the original source appears to be Thomas à Kempis, ca 1420, in the devotional entitled The Imitation of Christ . A best seller for six centuries, it has numerous passages that can appeal to many people seeking insight and wisdom, whether or not they are particularly religious. (p 49, William Creasy translation, Mercer University Press, 1989/2007).

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has a good website with an overview of reflexivity . Here’s another example that is not behind a paywall.

In an early article on reflexivity , Sue Wilkinson (1988) described three types: personal, functional, and disciplinary. Each of these entails analyzing the particular lens that is brought to a problem. Personal reflexivity explores the lens related to the identity and experiences of the researcher. Functional reflexivity explores how the form and nature of the specific study impacts the knowledge that is obtained, while “disciplinary” reflexivity explores the impact of approaching an issue from a specific field of inquiry.

Sherry Hamby, Ph.D. , is a research professor of psychology at Sewanee, the University of the South.

Find Counselling
Find a Support Group
Find Online Therapy
United Kingdom
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Therapy Center NEW
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

Emotional Intelligence
Gaslighting
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

Personality Analysis Essay

Personality touches on a person’s behavioral characteristics and his/her reactions to the environment. Behavior forms the benchmark factor to personality, while skills, values and attitude influence overall behavioral patterns of a person. A person’s behavior determines his/her personality since biological, social, and inner factors play significant roles in personality development and account for the differences that arise.

In analyzing personality, the treatise purposefully compares and contrasts humanistic/ existential theory with learning theory after describing the role of personality in affecting behavior. Besides, the essay discusses the personality characteristics attributed to the aforementioned theories. Finally, the discourse explores the interpersonal relational aspects that associate with the two named theories.

Personality develops in a person, and in the process advances to a distinct state within different people. From the above definition of personality, it is evident that the term depends on an individual’s perception on reality given that it is the way an individual perceive circumstances, which determines how he/she responds to the instance beforehand.

In line with the two theories, there is no distinct in the way they one responds to different situations. Both humanistic and learning theories prefer proactive behavior to reactive behavior, and emphasize on how one perceives the situation; however, the theories exclude neuroticism in influencing behavior.

Feist and Feist (2009) define learning theory as a process where human beings study new conceptions and accommodate them, thus having a relatively permanent change in behavior. Maslow believed that a motivating force pushes human beings towards meeting their goals and targets. For humanistic theory, it analyzes how the self-drive compels behaviors towards meeting specific goals.

This process of fulfilling needs continues through a cycle of waning and rising depending on the state of needs’ satisfaction. For instance, when one meets his/her needs fully, the motivation fades and the center of attention decreases until another need that requires fulfillment takes its place.

In Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, internal forces push for the fulfillment of higher needs, such as self-evolution and actualization and esteem needs while external forces, which are beyond the control of humans, drive the fulfillment of physiological needs (Feist & Feist, 2009). This dimension attests that human needs are in two different forms: physical and psychological.

When one combines the knowledge of both humanistic/existential and learning theories in understanding humans, a revelation of abroad picture of human personality and interaction with the environment is evident. Learning theories believe in the influence of environment and cognitive conditions. In addition, a person’s belief can influence behavior towards a situation. According to Bandura, this is a concept of self-efficacy, which influences how one behaves in a given scenario.

However, it is does not provide exclusive effects on behavior since other factors like personal expectations play key roles in determining behavior (Bandura, 1997). For behaviorism, the learning process occurs in a trial and error style, and people hold onto various behaviors until they find one that is reinforcing. Here, individuals apply the previously learnt knowledge in developing explicit expectancy and recognizable reward values in comparable scenarios.

The entire process involves a pre-analysis of past actions and results, which act as guiding factors towards behavior production in a new set-up. Response to environment stimuli moves a learner from a passive state to an active state. According to Kelly, behaviors have different options in a build-up classification; therefore, one has to predict how events are likely to occur in order to choose behavior. All the learning theories hold different claims on behavior variation and the given situation.

On the other hand, humanism/existentialism takes an approach that holds that an individual does implementation of learning at personal levels to fulfill personal interests or needs. A person’s potential determines various actions of individuals in any situation, as it outlays the level at which one can respond in a humanistic theory others (Hoffman, 2004). Affective and cognitive needs are key determinants to responses that people show in existential theories.

Supportive environments provide a good learning and interaction environment for individuals in any situation. A person’s reactions are conditional to the present and future needs given that the reactions target to execute such needs at any point in time. Choices that people make help them to know who they are; therefore, personality development depends on one’s potential and the ability to stir up conscious thinking.

In relation to personality characteristics, humanistic psychology holds that the need for free will forms the foundation for personality development, and the external drive towards self-evolution motivates the creation of one’s personality. Choices that people make help them in creating their personality. For instance, Roll May attest on three relationships that forms the basis of personality reveals their contribution and production on personality evolution.

In the relationships, the first affiliation is with oneself, the second affiliation is with others, and the last relationship is with the environment. For Rogers, humans being’s self-awareness assists them in decision-making processes and taking part in formation of their personal characteristics. Maslow believed that biological dynamics as well as cultural and environmental issues affect the determination of personality in individuals.

Learning theories, on their part, believe that personality develops from accumulation of learned knowledge, and it continues throughout a person’s lifetime. Bandura posits that learning occurs through modeling, observation, and imitation; the learned aspects go on to affect characters of an individual overtime.

This is why people from same culture may have comparable personalities, while those from different ways of life have diverse personalities. According to Skinner’s radicalism theory, environmental interactions shape personality and acquisition of characters through interaction and learning. Therefore, personality is measurable and observable, and comes from activities that one does. Current self-awareness and anticipation of certain occurrences guide personality development from the aspects of social learning theories.

Consequently, anticipation and self-awareness influence all human activities (Feist & Feist, 2009). For Skinner, genetics plays essential roles in personality development, and the variation in genetics is responsible for the difference in personality. Nonetheless, environment also plays significant role in development of personality.

In his proclamation, an organized set of contingencies such as social environment, geographical environment, climate, and personal physical strength define behavior. Rotter believed that an individual’s experiences and history influence his/her goals and personality. On the other hand, Mischel recognized the essence of individual differences in behavior acquisition and personality development.

For Bandura, one can learn without performing behavior through observational learning, which views human nature as proactive, self-regulating, and self-reflective (Bandura, 1997). Development of interpersonal relationships is dependent on experience throughout life, which are due to learning from life practices. These theories face criticism for failing to inculcate individual differences and genetic factors in the entire study of personality development.

Humanistic theory asserts that association of persons is a physical connection with others through healthy and productive dealings, but in reality, they are on their own. Maslow believed in fulfillment of love and belongingness through families and friends’ associations. Since these needs were of primary level, their fulfillments were also essential in determining the success of other needs at higher levels. For May, people choose want they want to be through healthy interaction or association with others (Hoffman, 2004).

From the analysis, humanism observes that interpersonal relations form substantive part of human life. Lack of interpersonal relationships results in unhealthy growth and development from a psychological perspective. Maslow held that those with complete interpersonal relations have self-confidence in all their life activities, and even experience reciprocation from those important to them.

According to learning theories, personal interactions have rewards or reinforcements. Initial family groupings help in protection from external aggressors while at the workplaces, such groupings help in building reinforcement to address common issues. Evidently, there is promise for reinforcement through social engagements.

Social environment influences the personality of humans given the constant interaction in interpreting such events. Human beings influence each other, as they interact with their meaningful environments, hence revealing the freedom of choice that one has on personality development. How one perceives the environment helps in developing self-identity and interpersonal relationships through interpretation of values, existence, and purpose.

Humanistic/existential theories believe in human internal drives in arriving at the ultimate state of self, while learning theories believe in response to the environment as a key determinant in comprehending development of personality. The environment highly affects the learning process and, finally, behavior development.

The diversified discussion on roles of personality on affecting situational behavior, explanation of personality characteristics in relation to the two theories, and explanation of interpersonal relations provide wealth of information in understanding human personality from a psychological perspective.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control . New York: Freeman.

Feist, J. & Feist, G. J. (2009). Theories of personality (7th ed.) . New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Hoffman, L. (2004). Existential therapy. Existential Therapy Homepage . Web.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, January 17). Personality Analysis. https://ivypanda.com/essays/personality-analysis/

"Personality Analysis." IvyPanda , 17 Jan. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/personality-analysis/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Personality Analysis'. 17 January.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Personality Analysis." January 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/personality-analysis/.

1. IvyPanda . "Personality Analysis." January 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/personality-analysis/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Personality Analysis." January 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/personality-analysis/.

Cognitive Behavioral and an Existential / Humanistic Perspective
Abraham Maslow and the Start of His Career
Humanistic Approach to Personality vs Biological Perspective
Volunteering for Horizon House: Homeless Neighbours’ Motivation to Find Jobs
Demystifying teenage rebellion
The Social Persuasion Role in the Actions of an Individual
The Problem of Adolescence Pressures in Society
Happiness and Its Social Psychological Aspects

Home / Essay Samples / Sociology / Cultural Identity / Self Cultural Analysis – Example Based on Personal Experience

Self Cultural Analysis - Example Based on Personal Experience

Category: Sociology , Life , Education
Topic: Cultural Identity , Personal Experience , Personal Statement

Pages: 2 (1101 words)

Downloads: -->
Quappe, S. & Cantatore, G. (2005). What is Cultural Awareness, anyway? How do I build it?
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2012). What is Culture? A compilation of quotations: GlobalPad Core Concepts.
Russell, K.M. (2011). Growing up a third culture kid: A sociological self-exploration, Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge, 9(1), 29-42.
Brislin, R., Worthley, R, & Macnab, B (2006). Cultural intelligence: Understanding behaviors that serve people's goals. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 40-55.

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Studying Abroad Essays

Indian Education Essays

Brittany Stinson Essays

Graduation Essays

College Education Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->

Self-analysis: Shaping Identity and Personal Development

Table of contents

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Still can’t find what you need?

Related Essays on Self Identity

Related Topics

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

What Is Self-Knowledge in Psychology? 8 Examples & Theories

This Article Contains:

1. Physical world

2. Social comparisons

3. Reflected appraisals

4. Introspection

5. Self-perception

6. CBT-style approaches

7. Mindfulness techniques

Download 3 Free Strengths Exercises (PDF)

Download 3 Free Strengths Tools Pack (PDF)

Psychosocial domains ripe for change

1. Blind spots

2. Self-deception

3. Conflict triggers

Why few people seek self-knowledge

Increase your self-awareness with one simple fix – Tasha Eurich

Naomi Osaka

Viktor Frankl

1. The unmediated observation model

2. The transparency model

3. Social constructionism

4. The “looking-glass self”

5. Narrative self

6. Self-perception theory

17 Exercises To Discover & Unlock Strengths

Mindfulness X© course

Emotional Intelligence Masterclass©

Personal Values Worksheet

Replacing Negative Self-Talk

Track and Measure Success

Self-Assessment for Assertiveness Self-Discovery

87 Self-Reflection Questions for Introspection

17 Strength-Finding Exercises

Article feedback

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Related articles

Reparenting: Seeking Healing for Your Inner Child

30 Best Self-Exploration Questions, Journal Prompts, & Tools

Inner Child Healing: 35 Practical Tools for Growing Beyond Your Past

Read other articles by their category

How to Write a Self-Analysis Essay

Formatting Your Essay

Establishing Your Thesis

Outlining Strengths and Weaknesses

Setting Personal Goals

How to Conduct a Self Analysis

Assessing Your Self-Esteem

Understanding Your Personality Type

Writing a Self-Assessment for Work

Measuring Your Stress Levels

Seeking Help from Others

Expert Q&A

You Might Also Like

About This Article

Reader Success Stories

Did this article help you?

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

6.7 What is self analysis?

How is reflective writing in the academic setting different from journaling or writing in a diary?

What can be gained from metacognitive activities that ask you to reflect on your learning and your performance as a writer?

How can I write a reflective essay?

Feedback/Errata

“I” and “Me”: The Self in the Context of Consciousness

Introduction

“Me” As An Object Of Experience: Phenomenology Of Self-Consciousness

“I” As A Subject Of Experience: Metaphysics Of Subjectivity

Understanding Predictive Coding Theories Of The Self

Author Contributions

Conflict of Interest Statement