In any future research more young children of varied ages could be used, for example 5-11 year olds could then be compered with 20-30 year olds, rather than simply using 7 and 17 year olds, which may then provide completely different results and perhaps show the older participants to mention more social roles than the younger ones.
Only ten seven-year-old subjects were used, each one was representing 10% of all seven-year-olds, which was then generalised as the younger population. Obviously this sample was too small and biased and not a representation of all seven-year-olds nor the younger population. The same applies to the ten seventeen-year-old subjects and the results cannot be generalised to the wider population. To rectify this, a larger sample could be used where lots of researchers could go out separately to separate towns in schools, sixthforms, colleges and universities, carry out the exact same procedure and put the results together proving greater accuracy and representing a more wider population.
There were some extraneous variables that the researcher had no control over. The study was conducted at the primary school at their lunchtime at 12 noon. This is perhaps an indication that the pupils were in a rush to complete the questionnaire so they could go and eat their lunch and play outside. This may explain why two of the seven-year-old participants did not complete the questionnaire where one answered fifteen questions out of the required twenty, and the other sixteen.
The present study was an opportunity sample and the target population was all schools and sixthforms in Blackburn. Due to travel problems, the sixthform the researcher went to was one for females only, therefore all ten of the seventeen-year-old subjects were female – restricting the sample and causing it to be more biased and even less representative. To amend these variables, the study could be done in a controlled laboratory where subjects are to be brought in voluntarily providing a lot more control and access for the researcher. Future research could be carried out on males and females equally for fairness. Instead of finding out whether the self-concept varies with age, it could be done to find differences in gender, which would be easier and interesting to carry out.
Experimenter bias may have been a problem where the researcher could have given away the aim of the study. However, all efforts were made not to influence the subjects consciously. If the subjects realised the aim of the study, participant bias may have become a confounding variable where they either try to help you or try to ruin your study. The latter may explain why one seventeen-year-old subject wrote “I am someone with blue eyes” and also wrote “I am someone with brown eyes”, when she had in actual fact brown eyes. To rectify these two variables, a laboratory study could be carried out where a double blind method is used.
Both the ages in this present study may also have written answers that were socially favourable and so were not as sincere as they could have been. Although the seven-year-olds were young, they were old enough to be aware of what is approved of and is the norm in society.
The seven-year-olds were perhaps a little confused at understanding the task they were required to do and experienced some difficulty. Many of them used the example “I am someone who enjoys swimming” as one of their answers. One subject wrote, “I am on the moon”. Therefore in any future research, older than seven years old participants could be used, for example nine-year-olds, who have greater intellectual understanding.
Letters were sent out to the seven-year-olds’ parent(s) or guardian(s) (see appendix 1) informing them of the experiment and if they did not want their child to participate then to sign and return the attached slip on the bottom of the letter. Out of a class of twenty pupils, only two parents objected, therefore those two pupils were not considered to be chosen as subjects.
Given the tender age of the young participants, ethical considerations had to be stricter. The study was conducted in their familiar, classroom environment with their teacher and peers nearby, as to provide a stress-free atmosphere as possible and therefore prevent them from feeling anxious or nervous. Perhaps for even further consideration of the seven-year-olds, one of the their parents or guardians could have been present with the child for the duration of the study, so feelings of stress would be at an absolute minimum.
Gallup’s study (1977) on chimps suggested that the reaction of others is critical to the development of the self-concept, but Gallup’s study could not be generalised to the human race. Aware of this criticism, Lewis and Brooks-Gunn (1979) conducted a study on human babies instead and used 6-24 month olds to demonstrate the acquisition of self-awareness. The mother of the baby applied a dot of rouge to her child's nose and the baby is observed to see how often it touches its nose, with the results recorded. It is then placed in front of a mirror and the baby is again observed to see how often it touches its nose, with the results recorded. Between 15-18 months, 5-22% of babies touched their nose in view of the mirror, while 75% of the 18-20 month old babies did. Infants before 15 months were never seen touching the red dot on their nose.
For the baby to have touched the red dot on its nose, it had to have built up a schema of how its face should look in the mirror before it can notice the discrepancy created by the dot. Researchers have suggested that this schema does not develop before approximately 18 months. This is the time according to Piaget, the categorical self develops and object permanence is completed. Therefore object permanence is a required condition for the development of self-recognition.
A criticism of Lewis and Brooks-Gunn's study is the problem of cultural bias, because their study was conducted in the USA, and therefore cannot represent humans all around the world from various cultures. The time of the study also poses a problem because the study was carried out in 1979 and so general trends may have perhaps changed, causing the researchers' theories to be out of date.
Research has suggested that the self-concept probably only develops towards the end of the first year of life, associated with the initial appearance of cognitive schemas. Lewis and Brooks-Gunns found that babies as young as 9 months demonstrate some capability to distinguish pictures of themselves, smiling longer at self-photographs as compared with photographs of other same-age babies. They also found that 9-month-old children would smile at themselves in front of a mirror and reach out and touch their mirror image. This shows that the self-concept has started to develop.
Therefore this study shows the importance of experience and social interaction in development as research carried out on people raised in isolation often don’t have self-recognition.
Participants in the present study have self-recognition and have the knowledge that they are continuous through time and space, and have knowledge of particular features.
Conclusion
From the study it has been concluded that there is a significant difference in the self-concept between seven-year-olds and seventeen-year-olds. A more varied age range between young and older people would have provided clearer results hence clearer differences in their self-concept. The self-concept is not constant and changes considerably with time, due to the individual’s development and change of lifestyle. The self-concept is a complicated thing and some researchers say we have more than one self-concept.
