The "I," the "we," and the "when": A meta-analysis of motivational primacy in self-definition.

Abstract

What is the primary motivational basis of self-definition? The authors meta-analytically assessed 3 hypotheses: (a) The individual self is motivationally primary, (b) the collective self is motivationally primary, and (c) neither self is inherently primary; instead, motivational primacy depends on which self becomes accessible through contextual features. Results identified the individual self as the primary motivational basis of self-definition. People react more strongly to threat and enhancement of the individual than the collective self. Additionally, people more readily deny threatening information and more readily accept enhancing information when it pertains to the individual rather than the collective self, regardless of contextual influences. The individual self is the psychological home base, a stable system that can react flexibly to contextual influences.The right of nature . . . is the liberty each man hath to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life.-Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.-Nathan Hale, spoken at his deathThe self is in a continual process of construction, it cannot be adequately made up excepting in terms of the content which it supplies for the situation in which the agent has to act. -John Dewey, Lectures on Psychological and Political EthicsThis article is concerned with a fundamental issue in psychology, education, social sciences, and humanities: Does the self-concept have a motivational hierarchy? Do all selves (i.e., self-definitions) have equal motivational potential? Which selfdefinition is motivationally primary?We distinguish among three theoretical approaches to the issue. The first approach, one example of which is Hobbes's statement, posits that the individual self is motivationally primary. The second approach, exemplified by Hale's proclamation, maintains that the collective self is motivationally primary. The third approach advocates that neither self is inherently primary. Instead, the self that is more accessible through situational or contextual influences is motivationally primary-a proposition that is in spirit with Dewey's thinking.We articulate the three theoretical approaches and review relevant research. We argue that, when considered alone, each approach appears to be supported. However, independent tests, per se, tell only part of the story. Comparative tests provide a more refined solution to the problem. We report a meta-analysis of empirical studies relevant to the issue of relative motivational status.

Retaliation as a response to procedural unfairness: A self-regulatory approach.

“…The individual self is associated with self-enhancement and selfdefense motivation (Sedikides & Gregg, 2003Sedikides & Strube, 1997). When this type of self is accessible, the person is likely to construe social interactions in a competitive than cooperative manner, to be attuned to available gains, and to behave spontaneously and opportunistically in a way that safeguards or maximizes short-term (rather than long-term) Based, then, on findings that link (a) promotion focus to the individual self (Galinsky et al., 2005;Leonardelli et al, 2007;Moretti & Higgins, 1990), and (b) accessibility of the individual self to short-term and opportunistic behavior (Gaertner et al, 2002(Gaertner et al, , 2008Stapel & Van der Zee, 2006), and (c) accessibility of the individual self to opportunistic responding in justice settings (Miedema et al, 2006;Skitka & Bravo, 2005), we hypothesized that a reason why promotion-focus participants would behave in a retaliatory manner would be the relatively high (chronic or temporary) accessibility of the individual self. This is the "why" question that we addressed in Studies 3-5.…”

Patterns of self‐regulation and the Big Five

“…Self-regulation is the capacity to plan and execute control over one's behaviour (Baumeister, 1998;Gaertner, Sedikides, Vevea, & Iuzzini, 2002;Sedikides, Campbell, Reeder, Elliot, & Gregg, 2002). Psychological theorists increasingly have placed an emphasis on self-regulatory processes as a central factor underlying human motivation and emotion.…”

Going along versus getting it right: The role of self-integrity in political conformity

“…Low-identified individuals may instead be concerned with individual goals of accuracy (Terry & Hogg, 1996). Research suggests that the individual-level self tends to be the most primary or default dimension of self-definition (Gaertner, Sedikides, Vevea, & Iuzzini, 2002), and thus when identification with a salient identity is low, participants should remain categorized at the individual level. In Study 3, we seek to directly test our predictions about the role of social identification in shaping the type of information that matters to self-integrity and the tendency for people to follow norms, even in the face of conflicting evidence.…”