Talk:Self-concept

message: 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. 121.44.98.174 18:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Audience

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why Merge It? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Very much so. Fuzzform 01:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tiedemann (2000) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comprehension = ZERO 

message: 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)
thread_title:  '''PSY 401 C: Peer Review for Nathalya Cubas''' 

message: (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)
thread_title: Peer Review for Nathalya Cubas

message: Can anyone make heads or tails of the primary source cited herein (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pauline_Cheong/publication/252171635_Media_Use_as_a_Function_of_Identity_The_Role_of_the_Self_Concept_in_Media_Usage/links/0c960530405e1799b9000000.pdf)
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)
thread_title:  Media (as of 3/17/2016) 

message: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soi_(psychologie)#Concept_de_soi. --Japarthur (talk) 08:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  French 

message: Our group selected the Self-Concept article for our class project. We made considerable updates to three sections: Cultural Differences, Gender Differences, and Media. Within these sections we updated wording, added additional sources and citations, and filled in content gaps. 
Within the Cultural Differences section, I changed the wording of "Asian cultures" to "Non-Western cultures", and "merchants" to "managers" as I feel these are more accurate to the information provided in the sources.  I also added information on the negative impact of identity fusion.  Additionally, I included a paragraph about self-concept and cultural norms, as I believe this is a large part of understanding cultural differences.  In regards to the paragraph about the study done in India, I kept most of the original data but reworded it as it was a bit confusing. I also added complementary information about a study done with Japanese and Swedish adolescents. --Sdkvd (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personality Theory 4500 Class Project 

message: This article uses the term "self-schemas" but should this be "self-schemata"? I thought that the plural of schema was schemata. Vorbee (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about plurals

message: The article is very repetitive, they use great examples but some I think can be removed
The article does include links that work and are helpful in the definitions
I think the last sentence in the History section could be elaborated, though its important for an example of social identity, I think it even could become its own section relating to self-concept and talk about different age groups and typical views of ones-self
Their is an example of a "geek" self schema- I think that could come off as a little biased and unnecessary, could just talk about stereotypes and traits as a whole
The Parts section under Model could be moved to history when Carl Rogers is first brought up- should be brought up sooner to help with definitions and difference between self-esteem, ideal self, and self-image.
In the Cultural differences some claims are made and needs support for a valid source
Though Cultural differences is an important aspect of self-concept I think some of this could be omitted (in other words this article is overrpresenting the Cultural section)
I think some more updated (research done from the past 5 years) should be included. I lot of sources were before the 2000s
LinCurran (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concept Gap: Psych 4500 

message: This article was very helpful to me in understanding the self-concept in a deeper way than the simple definition I previously understood it by. I thought there were times when the article was a tad repetitive and could be condensed, such as the cultural differences topic. There were also areas I thought could be added upon, like the history of the topic. The organization and structure of the article could be improved, but isn't too messy, still readable. Apart from what others have said regarding the difficulty level of this article, I thought it was a nice and easy read. There weren't too many words that were too hard to understand, and if there were there were usually links provided to help out with the defining of that word. 
Ashtynfitz (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall Good Article - a few improvements