3
But as we know behavior does not happen in a vacuum and thus we must examine how individuals derive their sense of self within a context. Furthermore, this complex system of narrative creation is thought to be managed by a system that integrates our working hypothesis and our autobiographical knowledge base. This system is called the Self Memory System (SMS). SMS can be thought of as the foundation that highlights the interconnectivity of self and memory. Within this foundation, memory is the database of the self. While the self is a complex set of active goals and self-images as previously discussed. The organization of our lived experiences that constitutes our self can be thought of as a compilation of semi-organized autobiographical memories.
Conway and Loveday make it very poignant that this compilation is only semi-organized. That is not to say that memories are jumbled in the mind until they are recalled, rather they propose that there are gaps within memories that the SMS fill in. Memory can be viewed as a restoration process, where we rely on pre-existing knowledge to understand and interpret what we have experienced. Dependency on this prior knowledge is a vital aid of communication and comprehension, however, relying on this knowledge base results in the modification of details in an event and even the fabrication of entire details. The authors suggest that within a remembering system (our unconscious recollection) there is a time frame when memories of the recent past and near future can be accessed with a high degree of accuracy. After that window closes our brains tend to fill in details within our memory. Memory is dynamic and thus is liable to produce fabricated details when source material runs thin. The authors propose two dimensions as to why false memories may occur, by both correspondence and coherence with both dimensions having high and low spectrums
.
Correspondence is thought to be a memory representation that keeps true to the event. While coherence is a memory representation that stays true to one’s idea of self. Correspondence is about conserving integrity when accounting for the past. Coherence is the drive to conform our memories of the past to our current self-concept. Unintentionally, we will adjust our memories to goals and needs in the present. Our sense of self can easily be in danger if we lack coherence. So then, how can we balance these two forces? Typically we dwell on a few details which are relevant to a specific event (Event Specific Knowledge (ESK)) and we discard less relevant things. We do this to preserve brain working capacity, we attend to less pertinent information in our environment because there’s a decreased likelihood we will need to make an inference off of it. Hence when the brain is introduced to ambiguity it tends to fill in the gaps to enable us to make an inference off of it. But the brain can only make an educated guess from a knowledge base that is by definition bias towards our lived experiences. Put another way we make inferences about problems we know little about by relating them back to our ESK. This ambiguity may seem to be a bad thing however the contrary is true, ambiguity is a powerful tool one could use to reshape beliefs of oneself.
Conway and Pleydell-Pearce in their paper “The Construction of Autobiographical Memories” propose a mechanism by which “self” is encapsulated within our structured inner dialogues that are often represented as our narratives. The authors explain that everyone has a working hypothesis of who they think they are. That the creation of individuals’ working hypotheses is facilitated by individuals’ previous experiences. The culmination of these experiences are then dynamically recreated within the mind and stored within a knowledge base (Autobiographical Knowledge Base). These experiences then facilitate how people think of themselves within their environment. Moreover, the authors explain that there are three important domains within ‘self’, The Actual self, the Ideal self, and the Ought self. The Actual Self is categorized as the beliefs individuals hold about themselves in their current state. The Ideal Self is thought to be conceptualizations of how one should be and the Ought self is how others describe that individual. Nonetheless, not all mental representations are created equally, Conway and Pleydell-Pearce suggest that memories highly rooted with goal accomplishment (or the inverse) have a greater impact or weight on our working hypothesis. That is the frequency in which we fail or accomplish a meaningful task ultimately carries more resonance on our overall narrative.
To explore why goals hold so much weight Professors Edward Deci and Richard Ryan use Self-Determination theory to offer an answer. In their paper they emphasize that “humans are active, growth-oriented organisms who are naturally inclined toward integration of their psychic elements into a unified sense of self” (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p.3). To paint a better picture, think of a time in your life where you struggled accomplishing a task. That intense feeling of distress either motivates you to give up or to push forward. Theoretically, if you were to keep pushing forward you would eventually conquer that task you thought insurmountable. Moreover, when someone faces a task that they have previously encountered their self-efficacy is based upon that past experience. That is, individuals judge their competency based on their previous experiences dealing with similar problems. Professors Deci and Ryan point out that humans innately want to keep their sense of ‘self’ aligned with previous experiences. That is, individuals will consistently attempt difficult tasks they think they are capable of accomplishing. This extra persistence eventually leads to the task being accomplished. Which then reinforces that individual’s sense of efficacy when dealing with similar problems. In other words, someone creates goals to reduce the cognitive dissonance between their ideal self and actual self.
The SMS ultimately shapes the behaviors individuals exhibit. In the broader scope, reframing the ambiguity the pandemic has left us in can allow individuals the opportunity to reshape how they think of themselves in this context. The hope then is to use language as a tool to reframe how individuals perceive themselves within the context of a pandemic. Making Covid-19 behaviors coherent to our idea of Actual self.
Given that the pandemic is happening now, we do not have completed research to turn to for direction about how the self (SMS) operates within the context of the pandemic. However, a plethora of research that explores the benefits of improving one conceptualization of self in the service of self-improvement does exist. These articles, although not particularly relevant to Covid-19 behaviors, can be used to extrapolate similar benefits of reframing ‘self’. The most relevant journal article is “Does High-self-esteem cause better performance” by Roy Baumeister and colleagues. Where they explore the benefits of improving self-esteem on academic performance and other similar domains. Although self-esteem is not explicitly related to self there is an implicit connection to competence (a facet of self). The authors showed that there is a weak correlation between school achievement and self-esteem. That is, higher self-esteem does not necessarily mean students will receive a higher academic achievement. Rather Higher self-esteem could be thought of as to “likely enhance academic striving and persistence” (Baumeister et al., 2003, p.11).
Relating this to Covid-19 behaviors, improving someone’s conceptualization of self in a pandemic may not result in increased proactive behaviors. However, what it will do is increase an individual’s feeling of competency within the pandemic. For example, someone who is opposed to wearing a mask because of COVID-19 restrictions can pull from ESK to understand the protection a mask offers. They would understand that when sanding wood, a mask is used to prevent inhaling small particles in the air. Therefore we can relate mask-wearing behavior to that pre-established ESK they possess. We cue that information by relating an unknown domain (mask wearing for Covid) to a known domain (mask wearing for construction). If we create that link between domains that hypothetical person is then faced with cognitive distress. This cognitive distress motivates said individual to either modify their behavior or their ESK. That is they either deduce that wearing a mask during construction isn’t necessary or they will omit that wearing a mask during Covid-19 is necessary. Based upon their previous experience they will likely deduce that wearing a mask in Covid-19 is necessary and modify their behavior accordingly. The key to this whole process is how effectively and efficiently we can connect the two domains. Thus the goal is to address the ambiguity of what safe behavior looks like within the pandemic of Covid-19. The language will be used to build the bridge from individuals ESK to make safe behaviors more coherent to individuals’ overall narrative. While that may not sound like a substantial answer to the problem, that is not the case. In a world where Covid fatigue is becoming more and more apparent with each passing day, reimagining how individuals view themselves is more imperative than ever.
As stated before, language provides how we think of ourselves concerning the future. As Keith Chean stated in his Ted Talk “English, is a futured language, what that means is that every time you discuss the future, or any kind of a future event, grammatically you’re forced to cleave that from the present and treat it as if it’s something viscerally different” (Chean, 2012).
English separates the future distinctly from the present and makes it a separate entity. Language is deeply interwoven with culture and reflects an entire way of recognizing the world and as such exerts influence on our thinking and behavior. How language refers to the future has a bearing on our behaviors and policies. Language is used as a tool for meaning-making in individuals’ subjective experiences. We assign symbols to various objects that then help create a narrative. What this means is that the syntactic structure of English forces its speakers to subtly dissociate the future from how we represent ourselves in the present. The narrative created about ourselves in the present is then separate from our self in the future. Henceforth, we behave in ways that optimize the satisfaction of the present self which can have detrimental effects on the future self. In other words, procrastinating on that two-week paper in the present is satisfying because you’re not doing it. However, it is detrimental to your future self (writing a whole paper the night before). So given this context, it is important to examine how we can use language to reframe our environment. But first, we must understand how language is a reliable means for measuring cognitive health.
Moreover, language can be consistently and reliably used as a measure of an individual’s health, social integration, and cognitive processes. In their highly regarded paper, Dr.s Pennebaker and Graybeal analyze how word choice influences each of these constructs. At a basic level, the authors conclude that using language to address emotional topics doesn’t directly correlate with increased healthy behaviors. Rather it changes how people think of themselves concerning the emotional domain. Imagine a doctor “priming” their patient to influence which mindset they adopt before giving a diagnosis (e.g., “You know what to do when a plant is dry and wilted right? You water it and make sure it has enough nutrients. The situation you are in is similar: your body is telling you it needs attention and when we follow the right steps you will thrive again, just like your thirsty houseplant”). For example Similarly, constantly telling yourself you are stressed reinforces the neural networks associated with stress. Strengthening these neural networks means your brain is more likely to generate stressful thoughts. But you can change these internal habits. Furthermore, it was discovered that when writing about an emotional experience the use of casual and insightful words was correlated with improved physiological and psychological conditions (Pennebaker & Graybeal, 2001). This is thought to be true because using insightful words indicates that individuals are manipulating the memory of that difficult time. They are directly using language to manipulate how they intercept themselves within the context of the incidence. In other words, reframing the words they associate with a particular event ultimately leads them to have a greater understanding of themself in relation to the trauma. This helps us see how positive words can promote positive cognitive brain function.
