Active Self-aspects as a Basis for Encoding Specificity Effects in Memory

Between two selves: comparing global and local predictors of speed of switching between self-aspects

“…Changes in self-relevant phenomena, such as chronic accessibility of traits (Brown & McConnell, 2009a) and stereotype threat (e.g., Rydell & Boucher, 2010;Shih et al, 1999), across situations can be explained by viewing self-concepts as organized into context-dependent self-aspects and associated attributes. Active self-aspects are lenses through which people see the world (e.g., Garczynski & Brown, 2013), highlighting the importance of understanding how people switch from one self-aspect to another. The task-switching paradigm used in the current research advances our ability to study active self-aspects.…”

“…Laboratory studies have successfully activated self-aspects through their semantic (i.e., trait) and episodic (i.e., behavior) associations. For example, a top-down approach to selfaspect activation is to have participants describe a particular self-aspect by characterizing the traits and behaviors that comprise it (e.g., Brown & McConnell, 2009a;Garczynski & Brown, 2013;, while a bottom-up approach targets individual trait attributes, which activate an associated self-aspect through spreading activation . Active self-aspects are manipulated by making self-knowledge accessible, so we measured "self-aspect switching ability" by recording speed of retrieving this same self-knowledge.…”

“…Past research examining self-aspect activation has used both participant-generated self-aspects (e.g., Brown & McConnell, 2009a;) and self-aspects that participants are assumed to have based on their demographic characteristics or group memberships (e.g., student self-aspects in undergraduate students, Linville, 1985; school and home self-aspects in undergraduate students, Garczynski & Brown, 2013; student and Greek self-aspects in fraternity and sorority members, Hugenberg & Bodenhausen, 2004; parent and employee self-aspects among working parents; Kamat & Gardner, 2014). Although using participant-generated self-aspects can provide greater sensitivity, conducting such research can be challenging (e.g., idiosyncratic stimuli introduce more complexity, and self-selected stimuli can create potential confounds).…”

Differentiation between work and nonwork self-aspects as a predictor of presenteeism and engagement: Cross-cultural differences.

“…First, the results provide an indication of the importance of self-concept differentiation as a relevant construct within the work–life interface. Research has increasingly demonstrated that the self-concept is role driven (e.g., Garczynski & Brown, 2012; McConnell, 2011), making it important to examine the relations between various roles rather than a core self-concept. Self-concept differentiation goes beyond research simply examining fit between a core self and work (e.g., Schneider, 2001) as it investigates fit between work and nonwork selves.…”