From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This I don't agree with is because where at

article already exists and the way it exists is very effective and quick reading. Stand alone is fine.

Self-concept and self-image are distinct ideas in psychology. While it's tempting to conflate them, it isn't correct. 18:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Why Merge It?[edit]

The ideas are related, but that doesn't actually make them the same. They're wholly distinct because the address slightly different issues. As the above user mentioned, it's just better the keep them seperate. It would be hard for those unfamiliar with the concepts to sort out one from the other.

Besides, self-concept is more gradual, from my POV, whereas self-image is more of a momentary defining ideal. It's your personality, and your idea of your personality. Wouldn't you all agree?

I would, just leave a link. If anyone would find it relevant, then let them click the link. Different issues, different page. Cless 17:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Self-Image and Self-Concept are very different concepts. They should not be merged. Self-image has more to do with body image issues. How do I look to other people? The type of image you portray e.g. clothing, hair, and other external expressions of style preference. Self-concept has to do with personality characteristics and possibly group affiliation. My concept of my self comes from those I associate with and the facets of myself that define who I am. The two couldn't be more different. (B.G. 11.29.06)

I vote against the merge. Self-image is cognitive, self-esteem is evaluative, and self-concept is the global construct that considers them as a whole. They are different and should have different entries. --Jcbutler 23:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


Fortunately, there is a new awareness on the part of both the public and professionals that self-concept cannot be ignored if we are to successfully address such nagging problems as drug and alcohol abuse, drop-out rates, dysfunctional families, and other concerns.

Uhm, that seems just a tad POV to me. --Scandalous 05:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Very much so. Fuzzform 01:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you both and would add that the repeated mention that there is "boundless potential" for shaping self concept is also problematic. JrFace (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Questioning accuracy[edit]

The article asserts that self-concept is different from self-image, but this claim is not referenced. I doubt the accuracy of this claim, unless it can be documented with a reference to a reliable source or two. If the two things are different, there needs to be a clear explanation of how. -- Beland (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The claim has now been removed, but the question remains: how are self-concept and self image different? From the texts of these two articles, I can't see what the difference is (if any). Above we find forceful statements like
  • "Self-concept and self-image are distinct ideas in psychology. While it's tempting to conflate them, it isn't correct."
  • "The ideas are related, but that doesn't actually make them the same. They're wholly distinct because the address slightly different issues."
  • "Self-Image and Self-Concept are very different concepts. They should not be merged."
It would be nice if those who oppose merging could cite reliable sources explaining and supporting the distinction.  --Lambiam 18:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
What self-concept is and what self-image is indicates non-equivalence. I have established a working definition for the article in the lead paragraph with many references, which demonstrates a clear distinction between the two: self-concept subsumes self-image. As the article is developed further this can be fleshed out more thoroughly. Considering that self-concept is such a central idea, it is a crying shame that so little work has been done on it while other articles related to it have been engorged with so much time and effort.—αrgumziω ϝ 21:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Tiedemann (2000)[edit]

In overview, it says "Tiedemann (2000) indicates that parents’ gender stereotypes and expectations for their children impact children’s understandings of themselves by approximately age 3." when Tiedemann's study was actually about gender stereotype related expectations in mathematics in 3rd and 4th grade not age 3. The current sentence seems to be talking of an entirely different topic (gender identity).--Melarish (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Comprehension = ZERO[edit]

This article is not well written. It is far too academic and is confusing. While I too am part of the APS Wiki Project and understand that this article has been deemed "important" allot needs to be done to make it better. The intro lead needs to be more comprehensible. Shinjodenn (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Quite right, and we know it.Great that you have decided to work on it. Good job! Lova Falk talk 19:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I have worked, as a part of a course assignment, towards making this article more comprehensible in the introduction section, model of self-concept section, academic self-concept section, cultural differences section and gender differences section. I added 5 additional sources across the sections I edited and read through a few studies already cited to help provide further clarification. A diagram that better shows the relationship between the different "self" terms in this article will be uploaded soon to help with comprehension. Nathalya Cubas (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Two diagrams for comprehension have been added. I hope they help the article's readers. Nathalya Cubas (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

PSY 401 C: Peer Review for Nathalya Cubas[edit]

Based on Dr. KM's instructions for giving peer review:

(a) Progress #: 4

(b) Much more clearly written, more organized, better flow, and easier to follow than the previous article; very good in differentiating between related yet potentially confusing terms (e.g., self-concept vs. self-awareness)

(c) & (d)

(1) In the paragraph "Self-concept is distinguishable from self-awareness...", it is the first time you mention self-schemas so you might want to define it though you "wikilink" it.

Also, you might want to move the last sentence of the paragraph (the definition of "self-esteem") to before the sentence, "Additionally, self-concept interacts with..." so that at the end of the paragraph, you can say that these (i.e., self-esteem, self-knowledge, etc.) compose The Self.

(2) In the paragraph "The self-concept includes past, present...", third line from top - typo error: "Self-esteem and self-concept are cannot be".

(3) In the section "Models of Self-Concept", you only mention one model so may be "A Model of Self-Concept"?

Also, since the section discusses self-schemas, you can combine this with the above paragraph "self-concept is distinguishable from self-awareness..." where you first mention self-schemas.

(4) In the section "Academic Self-Concept", since it is belief about academic skills and abilities, should it be called "Academic Self-Schema"?

Also, in the first
paragraph, I am confused by two terms: "cognitive self-estimates" in the second to last sentence and "other areas of cognitive ability (for example?) in the last sentence.

(5) In the section "Cultural differences", on the fourth line from top, you mention "upward (e.g., positive) and downward (e.g., negative)". Upward and downward comparisons can be both positive and negative so you might want to exclude positive and negative.

You only mention what people do to restore their self-esteem when their self-esteem is threatened. You might also want to include the time when people boost their self-esteem while comparing with others.

I don't think "Note to Editor" portion is necessary. It's redundant.

In the paragraph "A study published in the International Journal...", third line from top - typo error: "valued the interdependent self more that the urban members".

(6) In the section "Gender differences", in the paragraph "Women have often been stereotyped...", in the second to last sentence, you mention that gender differences in self-conscious emotions are greatest among White people while in the last sentence, you suggest more research on gender differences is needed. How can you say that such gender differences are greatest among White people while there is little research to compare across different cultures?

(e) Readability #: 4

(f) Good job! --Kyiphyunyein (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review for Nathalya Cubas[edit]

(a) 4

(b) You did a nice job cleaning up the introduction.

  • The insertion of wikilinks to other pages was helpful as there are many terms that are similar but not clearly defined.
  • I like the inclusion of "self-schemas."
  • One minor but effective revision was the last sentence in the first paragraph: "Generally, self-concept embodies the answer to "Who am I?"

I also think it was a good move to include stereotypes of emotionality under Gender Differences, as this is an important aspect.

(c) This is perhaps nitpicky, however, there were points of confusion, for me, in the Academic Self-Concept section. The last two sentences of the first paragraph of this section were difficult. It might be just that I was not reading closely enough. Numeric refers to the content of area of ability? (Such as our ability in math) Or to the measurement of the ability?(quantitative vs qualitative) I assume its the former, but this might be more clearly articulated.
Another nitpicky point, in the following paragraph, the first sentence, beginning with, "Due to the variety..." could be reworded. It is somewhat confusing. The factors and causal relationships are not logical (?). (I know this was not your original sentence).

(d) This suggestion might be unnecessary or beyond the scope of this project, especially since you have (and excellently so) added wikilinks for the various pages. Nonetheless, I think it would be helpful to provide a table with all the "self" terms and a brief definition of each within the introduction(?) section. Or, it could merit a section of its own. I counted at least seven "self-" terms.
Other points, as to your note to editor - I think it would be best to remove the sentence simply because it seems to be the result of single experiment (primary resource). Also, reword the heading of the "Models of Self-Concept" erase "S" since you deleted other model.

(e) 4. There are some wikilinks that didn't work and a few typos, but the sentence flow is nice!

HayRayLee (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Media (as of 3/17/2016)[edit]

Can anyone make heads or tails of the primary source cited herein (

I do not understand the methods used nor the results and their purported significance. As such I am not in a position to judge whether or not the section merits removal/clarification or not. Wikipedia strives for empiricism, yes? Then I will withhold judgement on this section and it's primary source until someone can come along and make more sense of it. Maybe it will make more sense to me later: ?

2601:246:902:2200:1184:50C4:6DF6:EA99 (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

French[edit] --Japarthur (talk) 08:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)