psychological perspective of self reflection essay

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Don’t Underestimate the Power of Self-Reflection

• James R. Bailey
• Scheherazade Rehman

Focus on moments of surprise, failure, and frustration.

Research shows the habit of reflection can separate extraordinary professionals from mediocre ones. But how do you sort which experiences are most significant for your development?

• To answer this questions, the authors asked 442 executives to reflect on which experiences most advanced their professional development and had the most impact on making them better leaders.
• Three distinct themes arose through their analysis: surprise, frustration, and failure. Reflections that involved one or more or of these sentiments proved to be the most valuable in helping the leaders grow.
• Surprise, frustration, and failure. Cognitive, emotional, and behavioral. These parts of you are constantly in motion and if you don’t give them time to rest and reflect upon what you learned from them, you will surely fatigue.

Where your work meets your life. See more from Ascend here .

Empathy, communication, adaptability, emotional intelligence, compassion. These are all skills you need to thrive in the workplace and become a great leader. Time and again, we even hear that these capabilities are the key to making yourself indispensable — not just now but far into the future. Soft skills, after all, are what make us human, and as far as we know, can’t be performed well by technologies like artificial intelligence.

• James R. Bailey is professor and Hochberg Fellow of Leadership at George Washington University. The author of five books and more than 50 academic papers, he is a frequent contributor to the Harvard Business Review, The Hill, Fortune, Forbes, and Fast Company and appears on many national television and radio programs.
• Scheherazade Rehman is professor and Dean’s Professorial Fellow of International Finance. She is director of the European Union Research Center and former Director of World ExecMBA with Cybersecurity, has appeared in front of the U.S. House and Senate, and been a guest numerous times onPBS Newshour, the Colbert Report, BBC World News, CNBC, Voice of America, and C-Span.

Partner Center

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

The Importance of Self-Reflection: How Looking Inward Can Improve Your Mental Health

Sunwoo Jung / Getty Images

Why Is Self-Reflection So Important?

When self-reflection becomes unhealthy, how to practice self-reflection, what to do if self-reflection makes you uncomfortable, incorporating self-reflection into your routine.

How well do you know yourself? Do you think about why you do the things you do? Self-reflection is a skill that can help you understand yourself better.

Self-reflection involves being present with yourself and intentionally focusing your attention inward to examine your thoughts, feelings, actions, and motivations, says Angeleena Francis , LMHC, executive director for AMFM Healthcare.

Active self-reflection can help grow your understanding of who you are , what values you believe in, and why you think and act the way you do, says Kristin Wilson , MA, LPC, CCTP, RYT, chief experience officer for Newport Healthcare.

This article explores the benefits and importance of self-reflection, as well as some strategies to help you practice it and incorporate it into your daily life. We also discuss when self-reflection can become unhealthy and suggest some coping strategies.

Self-reflection is important because it helps you form a self-concept and contributes toward self-development.

Builds Your Self-Concept

Self-reflection is critical because it contributes to your self-concept, which is an important part of your identity.

Your self-concept includes your thoughts about your traits, abilities, beliefs, values, roles, and relationships. It plays an influential role in your mood, judgment, and behavioral patterns.

Reflecting inward allows you to know yourself and continue to get to know yourself as you change and develop as a person, says Francis. It helps you understand and strengthen your self-concept as you evolve with time.

Enables Self-Development

Self-reflection also plays a key role in self-development. “It is a required skill for personal growth ,” says Wilson.

Being able to evaluate your strengths and weaknesses, or what you did right or wrong, can help you identify areas for growth and improvement, so you can work on them.

For instance, say you gave a presentation at school or work that didn’t go well, despite putting in a lot of work on the project. Spending a little time on self-reflection can help you understand that even though you spent a lot of time working on the project and creating the presentation materials, you didn’t practice giving the presentation. Realizing the problem can help you correct it. So, the next time you have to give a presentation, you can practice it on your colleagues or loved ones first.

Or, say you’ve just broken up with your partner. While it’s easy to blame them for everything that went wrong, self-reflection can help you understand what behaviors of yours contributed to the split. Being mindful of these behaviors can be helpful in other relationships.

Without self-reflection, you would continue to do what you’ve always done and as a result, you may continue to face the same problems you’ve always faced.

Benefits of Self-Reflection

These are some of the benefits of self-reflection, according to the experts:

• Increased self-awareness: Spending time in self-reflection can help build greater self-awareness , says Wilson. Self-awareness is a key component of emotional intelligence. It helps you recognize and understand your own emotions, as well as the impact of your emotions on your thoughts and behaviors.
• Greater sense of control: Self-reflection involves practicing mindfulness and being present with yourself at the moment. This can help you feel more grounded and in control of yourself, says Francis.
• Improved communication skills: Self-reflection can help you improve your communication skills, which can benefit your relationships. Understanding what you’re feeling can help you express yourself clearly, honestly, and empathetically.
• Deeper alignment with core values: Self-reflection can help you understand what you believe in and why. This can help ensure that your words and actions are more aligned with your core values, Wilson explains. It can also help reduce cognitive dissonance , which is the discomfort you may experience when your behavior doesn’t align with your values, says Francis.
• Better decision-making skills: Self-reflection can help you make better decisions for yourself, says Wilson. Understanding yourself better can help you evaluate all your options and how they will impact you with more clarity. This can help you make sound decisions that you’re more comfortable with, says Francis.
• Greater accountability: Self-reflection can help you hold yourself accountable to yourself, says Francis. It can help you evaluate your actions and recognize personal responsibility. It can also help you hold yourself accountable for the goals you’re working toward.

Self-reflection is a healthy practice that is important for mental well-being. However, it can become harmful if it turns into rumination, self-criticism, self-judgment, negative self-talk , and comparison to others, says Wilson.

Here’s what that could look like:

• Rumination: Experiencing excessive and repetitive stressful or negative thoughts. Rumination is often obsessive and interferes with other types of mental activity.
• Self-judgment: Constantly judging yourself and often finding yourself lacking. 
• Negative self-talk: Allowing the voice inside your head to discourage you from doing things you want to do. Negative self-talk is often self-defeating.
• Self-criticism: Constantly criticizing your actions and decisions.
• Comparison: Endlessly comparing yourself to others and feeling inferior.

Kristin Wilson, LPC, CCTP

Looking inward may activate your inner critic, but true self-reflection comes from a place of neutrality and non-judgment.

When anxious thoughts and feelings come up in self-reflection, Wilson says it’s important to practice self-compassion and redirect your focus to actionable insights that can propel your life forward. “We all have faults and room for improvement. Reflect on the behaviors or actions you want to change and take steps to do so.”

It can help to think of what you would say to a friend in a similar situation. For instance, if your friend said they were worried about the status of their job after they gave a presentation that didn’t go well, you would probably be kind to them, tell them not to worry, and to focus on improving their presentation skills in the future. Apply the same compassion to yourself and focus on what you can control.

If you are unable to calm your mind of racing or negative thoughts, Francis recommends seeking support from a trusted person in your life or a mental health professional. “Patterns of negative self-talk, self-doubt , or criticism should be addressed through professional support, as negative cognitions of oneself can lead to symptoms of depression if not resolved.”

Wilson suggests some strategies that can help you practice self-reflection:

• Ask yourself open-ended questions: Start off by asking yourself open-ended questions that will prompt self-reflection, such as: “Am I doing what makes me happy?” “Are there things I’d like to improve about myself?” or “What could I have done differently today?” “Am I taking anything or anyone for granted?” Notice what thoughts and feelings arise within you for each question and then begin to think about why. Be curious about yourself and be open to whatever comes up.
• Keep a journal: Journaling your thoughts and responses to these questions is an excellent vehicle for self-expression. It can be helpful to look back at your responses, read how you handled things in the past, assess the outcome, and look for where you might make changes in the future.
• Try meditation: Meditation can also be a powerful tool for self-reflection and personal growth. Even if it’s only for five minutes, practice sitting in silence and paying attention to what comes up for you. Notice which thoughts are fleeting and which come up more often.
• Process major events and emotions: When something happens in your life that makes you feel especially good or bad, take the time to reflect on what occurred, how it made you feel, and either how you can get to that feeling again or what you might do differently the next time. Writing down your thoughts in a journal can help.
• Make a self-reflection board: Create a self-reflection board of positive attributes that you add to regularly. Celebrate your authentic self and the ways you stay true to who you are. Having a visual representation of self-reflection can be motivating.

You may avoid self-reflection if it brings up difficult emotions and makes you feel uncomfortable, says Francis. She recommends preparing yourself to get comfortable with the uncomfortable before you start.

Think of your time in self-reflection as a safe space within yourself. “Avoid judging yourself while you explore your inner thoughts, feelings, and motives of behavior,” says Francis. Simply notice what comes up and accept it. Instead of focusing on fears, worries, or regrets, try to look for areas of growth and improvement.

“Practice neutrality and self-compassion so that self-reflection is a positive experience that you will want to do regularly,” says Wilson.

Francis suggests some strategies that can help you incorporate self-reflection into your daily routine:

• Dedicate time to it: it’s important to dedicate time to self-reflection and build it into your routine. Find a slot that works for your schedule—it could be five minutes each morning while drinking coffee or 30 minutes sitting outside in nature once per week.
• Pick a quiet spot: It can be hard to focus inward if your environment is busy or chaotic. Choose a calm and quiet space that is free of distractions so you can hear your own thoughts.
• Pay attention to your senses: Pay attention to your senses. Sensory input is an important component of self-awareness.

Nowak A, Vallacher RR, Bartkowski W, Olson L. Integration and expression: The complementary functions of self-reflection . J Pers . 2022;10.1111/jopy.12730. doi:10.1111/jopy.12730

American Psychological Association. Self-concept .

Dishon N, Oldmeadow JA, Critchley C, Kaufman J. The effect of trait self-awareness, self-reflection, and perceptions of choice meaningfulness on indicators of social identity within a decision-making context . Front Psychol . 2017;8:2034. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02034

Drigas AS, Papoutsi C. A new layered model on emotional intelligence . Behav Sci (Basel) . 2018;8(5):45. doi:10.3390/bs8050045

American Psychological Association. Rumination .

By Sanjana Gupta Sanjana is a health writer and editor. Her work spans various health-related topics, including mental health, fitness, nutrition, and wellness.

Self-Reflection 101: What is self-reflection? Why is reflection important? And how to reflect.

Socrates famously said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

And while this dictum is certainly true, self-reflection is not necessarily an easy thing to practice. We live in an incredibly fast-paced world. Our mobile phones are constantly buzzing, social media is infinitely calling, and Netflix always has something new to binge on.

Taking the time for reflection is a bit of a lost art. Most of us, unfortunately, are living unexamined lives.

This shouldn’t be the case. Few things are more valuable than self-reflection.

But what exactly is self-reflection? And what are some simple ways to practice it?

In this article, we’re going to break down the what, why, and how of self-reflection.

Ready? Let’s get started...

What Is Self-Reflection? A Self-Reflection Definition

Simply put, self-reflection (also known as “personal reflection”) is taking the time to think about, meditate on, evaluate, and give serious thought to your behaviors, thoughts, attitudes, motivations, and desires. It’s the process of diving deep into your thoughts and emotions and motivations and determining the great, “Why?” behind them.

Personal reflection allows you to analyze your life from both a macro and micro level. At a macro level, you can evaluate the overall trajectory of your life. You can see where you’re headed, determine whether you’re happy with the direction, and make adjustments as necessary.

At a micro level, you can evaluate your responses to particular circumstances and events. Geil Browning, Ph.D., talks about personal reflection like this:

"Reflection is a deeper form of learning that allows us to retain every aspect of any experience, be it personal or professional — why something took place, what the impact was, whether it should happen again — as opposed to just remembering that it happened. It's about tapping into every aspect of the experience, clarifying our thinking, and honing in on what really matters to us."

Practicing self-reflection takes discipline and intentionality. It requires pressing pause on the chaos of life and simply taking the time to think and ponder about your life, which is not an easy thing for many people to do. But it’s an incredibly valuable practice.

This short video captures the importance of self-reflection and introspection beautifully:

The Importance of Self-Reflection

Without self-reflection, we simply go through life without thinking, moving from one thing to the next without making time to evaluate whether things are actually going well. We don’t pause to think. To analyze. To determine what is going well and what isn’t working. The unfortunate result is that we often get stuck.

For example, a lack of personal reflection may lead us to stay in a job we don’t like or a relationship that isn’t going well.

A lack of reflection causes us to simply keep running, trying to keep up with things even if things aren’t going well. We feel like we’re simply trying to keep our heads above water. We end up doing the same things over and over again, even if those things aren’t producing the results we had hoped for.

The Benefits Of Self-Reflection

Yes, taking time for self-reflection can be difficult. It can be challenging to take the necessary time to step back and reflect on what truly matters. Nevertheless, there are numerous wonderful benefits of self-reflection and we should all make time for it.

It Allows You To Gain Perspective

Emotions can cloud your judgment and you can lose sight of what truly matters. Some things seem bigger and worse than they truly are.

Self-reflection allows you to take a step back and gain perspective on what matters and what can be ignored. It allows you to process events and achieve clarity on them.

It Helps You Respond More Effectively

Most of the time, we simply react to whatever circumstances come our way. This can lead to us saying and doing things we regret. When we’re in a reactive mode, we don’t take the necessary time to consider our actions and words.

Personal reflection allows you to consider the consequences of your words and actions. It also enables you to consider the best, most effective, most helpful way to act in a given situation.

It Promotes Learning and Understanding

When we go through life without pausing to think and reflect, we don’t learn or gain a deeper understanding of life. We simply move from one thing to the next, never pausing to consider what valuable lessons we might learn.

Self-reflection, on the other hand, enables us to evaluate and process what we’ve experienced. It allows us to think deeply and ponder the meaning of our circumstances, emotions, and motivations. It enables us to live holistic, integrated, and healthy lives.

Self-Assessment Sample

So how exactly do you perform self-reflection? How do you appropriately and helpfully reflect on yourself and your life?

One easy way to perform this self-reflection exercise is to use a journal (an online journal or print journal ). Simply write out these questions and then take your time to thoughtfully answer them. Make sure that you don’t rush. Pause and ponder. Think deeply about what truly matters to you.

First, determine the period of time you plan to look back on. Do you want to look back on the last week? Last month? Last year? Last 5 years?

Then, begin by taking stock of what actually happened during this period. If you already keep a journal, this step will be easier for you, and perhaps a solid reminder of the value of keeping a journal.

Take a look through your planner, journal, and photos, and list out the highlights and lowlights.

Stuck? Here are a few tips:

• Did you travel anywhere this year?
• Experience any personal or family milestones?
• What changed in your relationships, work, or passion projects?

Look back at your new list of highlights and lowlights try and see if there are any patterns.

Do your highlights generally involve certain people in your life? Or any specific activities?

It can be difficult to revisit lowlights, but it is also a great way to find peace and growth.

For each lowlight, ask yourself: Was this within my control?

• If yes , ask yourself what you may do differently next time.
• If no , ask yourself how you may find peace with it.

Write down both the highlights and lowlights in your journal, then take time to reflect. What things do you want to accomplish over the next month, year, and five years? What do you want to change about your life? What things can you improve on?

Taking the time to walk through this exercise will help bring clarity and perspective to your life.

A Guided Self-Assessment

Looking back at your chosen time period, rate yourself on a scale of -5 to +5 on each of the following six areas of your life.

After selecting a number, write what made you feel that way. Expressing the emotions and feelings that you have, is a great way to have a deeper and more meaningful reflection.

• Mind - Do you feel clear-headed, engaged, and intellectually challenged?
• Body - Does your body feel healthy, nourished, and strong?
• Soul - Do you feel at peace and connected to the world around you?
• Work - Do you feel interested in and fulfilled by your work?
• Play - Do you feel joyful? Are you engaging in activities that bring you joy?
• Love - Do you feel positive about the relationships in your life?

Don’t rush through this self-assessment. Take the necessary time to reflect on each area of your life. If you rush, you’ll miss out on the value of self-reflection.

Self-Reflection Questions to Ask Yourself (What Are Good Questions for Self-Reflection?

Self-reflection questions are powerful tools you can wield to inspire and empower you to discover your own inner truth.

Still, it’s often hard to know where to start.

Be gentle with yourself.

Question-asking is a skill to develop like anything else, and that takes time and practice.

But the more questions you ask, the easier it will get.

Here are some questions for self-reflection pulled from our Holstee Reflection Cards deck to get you started:

If you could change anything about your childhood, what would it be?

What is something creative you did when you were younger that you no longer do? Why don’t you do it anymore?

What’s your superpower?

What types of things have you collected in the past?

Use these questions as a starting point to come up with your own.

You know yourself best, and your best self-reflection questions are just under the surface, waiting for you to ask them.

When Should You Practice Self-Reflection?

There are a number of times when self-reflection is particularly helpful. First, it can be useful to do it for a few minutes each week. You don’t have to go through all of the questions or take hours to do it. Focus on what has been on your mind that particular week.

It can also be helpful to practice self-reflection as an end of month personal review and end of year personal review.

In other words, at the end of each month and year, do an in-depth personal review of your life. Look back over the previous days and months and analyze your life. This practice will provide you with a helpful perspective and ensure that you are living life to the fullest.

Don’t Live The Unexamined Life

When we fail to reflect on our lives, we lose perspective, get caught up in things that don’t matter, and often lose sight of the things that are most important. Socrates was right when he said that the unexamined life isn’t worth living.

Don’t live an unexamined life. Practice self-reflection today.

Interested in developing your reflection practice? We built Reflection.app, a free online journal that helps you capture your highlights and lowlights as they happen, and shares back your entries to your for guided reflection at the end of each month and year.

The team at Holstee also uses a similar framework for their annual Guided Reflection Journal .

Looking for self-reflection questions you can use in a group or take with you? Check out Holstee's deck of Reflection Cards .

Are you a practitioner looking to support your clients with reflection exercises? Check out Quenza and send out stunning digital activities to clients.

Related Posts

Get clarity and peace of mind, wherever you are.

QR Code opens app on your phone.

• AI - Powered Journal
• Share a Prompt
• Knowledge Base
• Join Our Beta
• Nominate a Guide
• Self Reflection 101
• Gratitude Journaling
• Benefits of Journaling
• Journaling with a Coach and Therapist
• Shadow Work Journal
• Diary Vs Journal
• Journal Prompts for Anxiety and Depression
• Journal Prompts for Health and Wellness
• Journal Prompts for Creativity
• Journal Prompts for Personal Growth
• Write to Your Future Self
• Decision Journal
• Questions for Transitions
• Journal Questions for Relationships
• Journal Prompts for Confidence

Aly-venture

life is either a daring adventure or nothing at all

REFLECTION ON THE PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE OF SELF

THE ME-SELF AND THE I-SELF:

William James suggests that the self is divided into two categories: the I self and the Me self. The I self refers to the self that knows who he or she is. The I self is also called the Thinking self. The I self reflects our soul and the mind. The I self reflects who I am as a person and what I am capable of doing. The Me self on the other hand reflects on the personal experiences. It is divided in subcategories : the material self where we are value the material things or possessions we have, next the social self refers on how we act in a social events and situations. James believed that in different situations we have different kinds of social self. Lastly the spiritual self refers to the core of one human, the attitude and the moral behavior. As we grow old we see or we understand that everyone of us has experienced different kinds of problems. This problems will shape us and teach us of what we value about our selves.

THE REAL AND IDEAL SELF:

The real self  consists of what one can do. The ideal self  is the perception of what one must should be. In order to be who we are, we reflect about what we are capable of doing. for me, I cannot be who I m without being able to appreciate what I can do. With this, as  i grow older i try to put a expectation to myself to be the best version of me. The only way to be able to be the best version of myself, I must satisfy my “real self” and “ideal self”. With that I can be truly happy and contented.

TRUE VERSUS FALSE SELF:

We meet different people everyday. We show them our false self. We can’t or we choose not to show them our true self for many reasons. For me, as I meet people everyday, I cannot show them my true self. I am afraid that they will judge me without really knowing me. I honestly have trust issues and for a fact, i don’t want to let other people know me. I can only open myself and let the see my true self when I know that I can trust them. There is nothing wrong if I choose to let them see the false me. It is still up to me on who I can trust or not.

Share this:

Leave a comment cancel reply.

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

The Effect of Trait Self-Awareness, Self-Reflection, and Perceptions of Choice Meaningfulness on Indicators of Social Identity within a Decision-Making Context

Noam dishon.

1 Department of Psychological Sciences, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Julian A. Oldmeadow

Christine critchley.

2 Department of Statistics, Data Science and Epidemiology, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Jordy Kaufman

Theorists operating from within a narrative identity framework have suggested that self-reflective reasoning plays a central role in the development of the self. Typically, however, narrative identity researchers have investigated this relationship using correlational rather than experimental methods. In the present study, leveraging on a classic research paradigm from within the social identity literature we developed an experiment to test the extent to which self-reflection might have a causal impact on the self-concept within a decision-making context. In a minimal group paradigm participants were prompted to reflect on their painting choices either before or after allocating points to in-group∖ out-group members. As anticipated, self-reflection augmented social identification, but only when participants felt their choices were personally meaningful. Participants who reasoned about their choices and felt they were subjectively meaningful showed stronger similarity and liking for in-group members compared to those who did not reflect on their choices or found them to be subjectively meaningless. Hence, reflecting on and finding meaning in one’s choices may be an important step in linking behavior with in-group identification and thus the self-concept in turn. The absence of any effects on in-group favoritism (a third indicator of social identification measured) as well as implications of the study’s findings for self-perception, cognitive dissonance and social identity processes are also discussed.

Introduction

Psychological scientists have approached the issue of self and identity from a range of different positions. For example, some social and cultural psychologists have investigated self and identity using a social identity theory framework whereas other personality and developmental psychologists have pursued an approach informed by narrative identity theory (see, Tajfel and Turner, 1986 ; McAdams, 2001 ; Pasupathi et al., 2007 ; Miramontez et al., 2008 ). In the present paper, we synthesize aspects of both identity projects by utilizing an experimental paradigm associated with social identity theory (i.e., the minimal group paradigm), to investigate whether self-reflective reasoning, a cognitive process theorized to be central to narrative identity development, can have a causal effect on the self and identity. We also explore if such an effect could be impacted by the level of meaningfulness one associates with their self-reflective reasoning and modulated by individual differences in trait self-awareness.

Identity from a Narrative Identity Framework

McAdams (1985 , 2001 ) model of narrative identity postulates that our sense of identity is inextricably linked with the creation of a life story. According to this model, self-narratives have two primary functions. They facilitate our sense of self-continuity across time and they help us give context and meaning to the events of our lives so that we can make sense of who we are ( McAdams and McLean, 2013 ). Self-narratives, as McAdams and McLean (2013) , state facilitate meaning making because they allow the narrator to draw “…a semantic conclusion about the self from the episodic information that the story conveys” (pp. 236). Within the narrative identity literature the process of self-reflection coupled with the extraction of self-relevant meaning is referred to as autobiographical reasoning and it is theorized to be an essential cognitive process in narrative identity development and construction ( Singer et al., 2013 ). However, as Adler et al. (2016) note, within the narrative identity literature investigators have typically employed correlational research designs thereby rendering it difficult to draw causal conclusions. Adler et al. (2016) develop this idea further stating that given this paucity of experimental work “increasing methodological sophistication and variety in the study of narrative identity with an eye toward drawing causal inferences is vital” (pp. 29).

Self-Reflection, Meaning and the Self

Although research from within the narrative identity literature demonstrating a causal link between self-reflection and identity development remains scarce, several other lines of converging research also suggest that self-reflection should play an important role in self-concept development. For example within the clinical psychology literature, reflective functioning has been used to describe a persons ability to reflect on experiences, draw inferences about behavior from these reflections, and then use those inferences to construct and develop representations of the self ( Katznelson, 2014 ). Research which has investigated reflective functioning has demonstrated that changes in reflective functioning are linked to self-concept change. For example, in research with persons affected by borderline personality disorder, (a condition which is characterized by an unstable sense of self) Levy et al. (2006) found that improvements in reflective functioning were associated with improvements in self-representations and a more integrated sense of self.

Another reason for thinking that self-reflection should represent an important mechanism in self-concept construction and development comes from research which has utilized the self-referential memory paradigm. In a typical self-referential memory paradigm study, different word categories (i.e., traits and adjectives verse semantically and orthographically related words) are presented to participants who are instructed to remember them at exposure and then asked to recall them at a later time ( Rogers et al., 1977 ). The self-reference effect describes the tendency for participants to retrieve traits and adjectives that are self-related more successfully than words that are semantically or orthographically related ( Symons and Johnson, 1997 ). Schizophrenia is another condition of which an unstable sense of self represents a core feature (see Sass and Parnas, 2003 ), and research has demonstrated that persons affected by schizophrenia tend to display weaker self-reference effects compared to healthy controls which researchers have interpreted as an indication of reduced self-reflective capacity ( Harvey et al., 2011 ).

There are also several reasons for thinking that meaning-making tendencies should play an important role in self-concept construction and development in addition to the emphasis placed upon this process by narrative identity theorists as noted previously. Firstly, in a theoretical sense, influential thinkers such as Erikson (1963) , Frankl (1969) , and Bruner (1990) , have all argued strongly for the idea that meaning is likely to play an important role in self and identity development. At the same time, research from within the organizational psychology literature has demonstrated empirically that perceptions of meaningfulness are associated with a range of self-related outcomes. Psychological empowerment captures an employees cognitive-motivational stance toward their work and is comprised of four dimensions, impact , competence , autonomy , and of particular pertinence given the current investigation, meaning which reflects the degree to which one perceives their work as being personally meaningful ( Spreitzer, 1995 ; Holdsworth and Cartwright, 2003 ). The importance of perceptions of meaningfulness within the context of psychological empowerment is further highlighted by Spreitzer et al. ( 1997 , pp. 681) who argue that the dimension of meaning “serves as the ‘engine’ of empowerment.” Research exploring psychological empowerment at an individual factor level has noted that differences in meaning are positively associated with several self-related outcomes such as self-esteem and self-efficacy ( McAllister, 2016 ).

In our own research we have found that individual differences in trait self-awareness are associated with perceptions of choice meaningfulness within a decision-making context (Dishon et al., under review). Based on pre-existing literature which has explored self-awareness more generally (e.g., Morin, 2011 ) we defined trait self-awareness as individual differences in the capacity to access knowledge, insight and understanding of internal self-related experiences. We found that participants with higher levels of trait self-awareness perceived significantly more meaning in a series of minor experimentally induced choices compared to those with lower levels of trait self-awareness. Moreover, this difference remained irrespective of whether or not participants were told that their choices were diagnostic of important personal characteristics. We concluded from this research that individuals high in trait self-awareness are more likely to reflect on their choices and more likely to find them meaningful than individuals low in trait self-awareness. Extending on this work and drawing upon the literature previously presented, in the present paper we propose and explore a theoretical model (see Figure ​ Figure1 1 ) that articulates how self-reflection and perceptions of meaningfulness might affect the self within a choice context.

Self-reflection model.

Overview of the Self-Reflection Model

The assumptions underpinning this model are that when one is presented with a potential trigger event such as (but not limited to) a choice or behavior, the self will be affected (i.e., the choice/behavior will inform the self) as a consequence of (a) whether or not self-reflection takes place, and (b) the degree to which the choice is perceived to be personally meaningful. Moreover, (c) whether or not reflection takes place may be determined by individual or situational factors. For example, individuals with higher levels of trait self-awareness may be more predisposed to engage in self-reflective reasoning, whereas for others, situational cues such as an unexpected occurrence or a prompt from a third party might act as the catalyst for self-reflective reasoning. Several predictions arise from the model.

Prediction 1: If self-reflective reasoning does occur and the choice or behavior is perceived to be highly meaningful, then self-perception will occur (by which we mean the self-concept will be modified or changed as result of the behavior or action).

Prediction 2: If self-reflective reasoning does occur and the level of personal meaning associated with the choice or behavior is perceived to be low, its affect on the self will be weak or absent.

Prediction 3: If no self-reflective reasoning occurs there will be a weak effect on the self through an automatic self-perception process. Rather than predict no effect on the self in the absence of self-reflection, we allow for the possibility of an automatic or implicit self-perception process to occur because research has demonstrated that the self-concept can be impacted even in the absence of explicit reasoning. For example, in one demonstration of this type of effect, Klimmt et al. (2010) observed that exposing participants to different types of characters in video games led to automatic shifts in self-perception as measured in a follow up Implicit Association Test.

Prediction 4: Individuals high in trait self-awareness will be more likely to engage in self-reflective reasoning than individuals low in trait self-awareness 1 .

Prediction 5: Individuals low in trait self-awareness will engage in self-reflective reasoning only if prompted, or if some other situational cue triggers self-reflection.

Although narrative identity researchers have primarily looked at self-reflective reasoning in the context of autobiographical memories (see, Pasupathi, 2015 ), in the present study we sought to initially test the veracity of our self-reflection model on a smaller scale in a relatively minimal decision-making context. We did so for several reasons. First, decision-making lends itself well to experimental testing ( Carroll and Johnson, 1990 ). This is important because as noted earlier, to date, research investigating the relationship between self-reflective reasoning and the self has largely been correlational by design and attempts to test this possibility experimentally have been insufficient ( Adler et al., 2016 ). Second, consumer decision-making research has suggested that self-narratives often arise in every day decision-making contexts ( Phillips et al., 1995 ) and some narrative identity scholars have argued that day-to-day narratives which might not be overtly autobiographical nevertheless remain tightly linked to self and identity ( Bamberg, 2011 ; Pasupathi, 2015 ). Third, behaviorist and cognitive theories (i.e., self-perception theory and cognitive dissonance theory) suggest that the self is often informed by after-the-fact explanations for behaviors or post hoc reasoning for choices ( Brehm, 1956 ; Festinger, 1957 ; Bem, 1972 ). Another reason for thinking that self-reflection could impact self-perception stems from research by Wilson et al. (1993) which demonstrated that self-reflection can impact attitudes and post-choice satisfaction within a decision-making context.

Identity from a Social Identity Framework

From the view of social identity theory, our sense of identity is heavily influenced by the social groups that we belong to ( Tajfel and Turner, 1986 ). Social identity as originally conceptualized by Tajfel (1981) refers to “…that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group” (p. 255). According to the theory, we come to identify with certain social groups based upon the extent to which we think we share similarities with other group members. Then, in order to maintain a positive sense of our social identity we try to ensure that our group (the in-group) is favored over other out-groups. One way of doing this is by favoring one’s in-group and discriminating against the out-group. Within the social identity literature, the extent to which we feel similar to, like, or favor other in-group members is indicative of the extent to which our identification with that group has been incorporated into our self-concept ( Hogg, 1992 , 1993 ; Ellemers et al., 1999 ; Leach et al., 2008 ). The minimal group paradigm which facilitates the measurement of in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination is one way of measuring the extent to which group membership has been incorporated into the self-concept and therefore had an effect on social identity ( Otten, 2016 ).

In a typical minimal group paradigm experiment, participants are randomly allocated to a group and then asked to concurrently distribute resources to in-group and out-group members on allocation matrices specifically designed to measure allocation strategies that favor the in-group and∖or discriminate against an out-group ( Tajfel et al., 1971 ). Research in the field has consistently demonstrated that even when people are led to believe that their assignment to a group is for a trivial reason, such as their preferences for abstract artwork, they still tend to allocate resources more favorably to in-group members ( Otten, 2016 ). Whilst researchers have often been interested in using this methodology to investigate topics such as prejudice and discrimination, the allocation of resources within a minimal group paradigm environment need not be used exclusively for this end ( Bourhis et al., 1994 ). The allocation of resources within a minimal group paradigm context can also serve as a subtle and discreet measure of the degree to which group membership has been incorporated into the self-concept and one’s sense of social identity more generally ( Otten, 2016 ). Another way that social identity researchers have measured the extent to which commitment to a group can impact one’s self-concept and sense of identity is by measuring self-reported liking of, and similarity with, other anonymous in-group members (e.g., Hogg, 1992 , 1993 ; Ellemers et al., 1999 ; Leach et al., 2008 ). Ellemers et al. (1999) research is also important in the context of the current study because it demonstrates that social identification is more strongly affected when people are able to self-select into a group (as opposed to being assigned a group) and it would seem reasonable to think that self-reflective reasoning is a process that could be quite important for self-selection decisions.

The Current Study

In recent research in our lab we investigated the connection between self-reflective reasoning within a decision-making context and the self. We found that the degree of personal meaning that was given to a trivial choice was associated with individual differences in trait self-awareness (Dishon et al., under review). In the present study we sought to extend this research by investigating further if the cognitive process of engaging in self-reflective reasoning could affect one’s sense of identity. We also sought to explore whether an effect of this kind might be impacted by the extent to which one felt as though their reasoning had been personally meaningful and also moderated by individual differences in trait self-awareness. To test this model we developed an experiment that utilized and extended upon traditional minimal group paradigm work. Participants were randomly assigned to either an experimental or control condition. In the experimental condition participants were prompted to engage in self-reflective reasoning immediately after making painting choices whereas in the control condition participants went on to allocate resources immediately after selecting paintings. We used in-group∖out-group allocation strategies as one dependent measure of identity and we also used similarity and liking ratings with in-group∖out-group members as additional dependent measures of identity.

Based on the proposed model we hypothesized that participants who are relatively high in trait self-awareness would be more likely to spontaneously self-reflect on their choices and therefore be relatively unaffected by the self-reflection prompt manipulation. As such it was expected that for these participants, self-perception would be related to the perceived meaningfulness of their painting choices more so than condition. We also expected that participants who are relatively low in trait self-awareness would be less likely to spontaneously self-reflect on their choices and therefore more greatly affected by the self-reflection prompt manipulation. As such it was expected that for these participants, self-perception would be related to the perceived meaningfulness of their painting choices only in the experimental condition (i.e., when they have been prompted to self-reflect.)

Materials and Methods

Participants.

Two hundred and six undergraduate psychology students voluntarily participated in the study in exchange for course credit. During the procedure, a manipulation check was administered to ensure that participants had attended to feedback regarding group allocation (the details of which are explained further in the Procedure section below). The responses of 32 participants who failed the manipulation check were discarded leaving a remaining pool of 174 participants (139 female, 35 male) with a mean age of 33.06 years ( SD = 11.78). The difference in failure rates between conditions was not significant ( p = 0.518). Ethical approval for the study was provided by Swinburne University’s Human Research Ethics Committee (SUHREC).

Effects of the experimental manipulation on identity were inferred by, (a) the extent to which participants incorporated their in-group identification into their self-concept and measured by participant’s in-group favoritism when distributing resources to in-group∖out-group members on Tajfel matrices and, (b) participant’s self-identification with in-group∖out-group members which was assessed by measuring their liking of, and perceived similarity with, in-group∖out-group members.

Tajfel matrices

Tajfel matrices consist of six matrices in which participants are asked to allocate resources concurrently to an in-group member and out-group member along a spectrum of pre-determined in-group to out-group ratios. The six matrices comprise three pairs (one of each pair is a reversed version of the original).

There are four main allocation strategies that can be measured with Tajfel matrices. Parity is an allocation strategy whereby the participant distributes an equal amount of resources to both in-group and out-group recipients. Maximum In-Group Profit is an allocation strategy that sees the greatest possible amount of resources awarded to the in-group recipient irrespective of what is awarded to the out-group recipient. Maximum Difference reflects a strategy that optimizes the differential allocation of resources between recipients in favor of the in-group recipient at the expense, however, of absolute in-group profit. Maximum Joint Profit reflects a strategy in which overall allocation of resources is maximized across both in-group and out-group.

The matrices facilitated the calculation of pull scores which reflected participants’ gravitation toward particular allocation strategies. Matrix pair A compared the pull of Maximum In-Group Profit and Maximum Difference (i.e., in-group favoritism) against Maximum Joint Profit. Matrix pair B compared the pull of Maximum Difference against Maximum In-Group Profit and Maximum Joint Profit. Matrix C compared the pull of Parity against Maximum In-Group Profit and Maximum Difference [See Bourhis et al. ( 1994 ) for a comprehensive and in-depth account of the procedure involved in Tajfel matrix preparation, administration, and calculation].

Following a similar procedure to Grieve and Hogg (1999) we then conducted a factor analysis of the pull scores using principal axis factoring with promax rotation to examine the possibility of computing an overall in-group favoritism score. This revealed a single in-group favoritism factor which explained 48.9% of the variance (all loadings ≥ 0.63). The items were then summed and averaged to produced an overall measure of in-group favoritism with higher scores representing greater in-group favoritism (Cronbach’s α = 0.74).

In-group self-identification

As other researchers have done previously (e.g., Hains et al., 1997 ; Grieve and Hogg, 1999 ), participants’ liking of, and perceived similarity with, in-group∖out-group members were recorded to measure their level of self-identification with their in-group. To do so, after being presented with pairs of de-identified paintings by Paul Klee and Wassily Kandinsky and receiving feedback that their choices indicated a preference for the work of Klee irrespective of their actual choices, (see the Procedure section below for a more detailed account of the process involved,) participants were asked to imagine themselves meeting two people, one who had a preference for Klee and the other who had a preference for Kandinsky. Participants then rated on a seven-point scale which of these two people they thought they were most similar to in general (Q1), in artistic preferences (Q2), in painting preferences (Q3), in academic ability (Q4), and in political opinions (Q5). Using the same scenario, participants were also asked to rate who they thought they would like more (Q6), who they thought they would get along with more (Q7), and who they would like to meet more (Q8). Responses on questions 1–5 were summed and averaged to calculate an overall similarity score with higher scores representing a greater level of similarity with an in-group member (Cronbach’s α = 0.75). Response for questions 6–8 were summed and averaged to calculate an overall liking score with higher scores representing a greater level of liking for an in-group member (Cronbach’s α = 0.82).

Meaningfulness

Meaningfulness associated with self-reflective reasoning was measured by providing participants with a five-item Subjective Meaningfulness Scale which included items such as “I feel as though my choices were genuine” and, “My choices were meaningless.” Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each statement on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Responses were coded so that higher scores indicated greater level of meaningfulness. A factor analysis using principal axis factoring and promax rotation revealed that all five items loaded on a single factor which explained 32.6% of the variance (all loadings ≥ 0.43). Scores were then summed and averaged and an overall meaningfulness score was calculated (Cronbach’s α = 0.69; Guttman’s Lambda 2 = 0.70).

Trait Self-Awareness

Trait Self-Awareness was operationalized as function of participants’ scores on the Sense of Self Scale (SOSS; Flury and Ickes, 2007 ) which is a single factor 12-item measure designed to assess sense of self and self-understanding (Cronbach’s α = 0.86) and the Self-Reflection and Insight Scale (SRIS; Grant et al., 2002 ) which is a two factor 20-item measure of self-reflection and insight (Cronbach’s α = 0.88). In the present sample, using principal axis factoring and promax rotation, both measures retained their original factor structures with the SOSS exhibiting a single factor which accounted for 36.3% of the variance and the SRIS exhibiting two factors which accounted for a combined 53.6% of the variance (Factor 1 = 34.3%, Factor 2 = 19.3%). Both measures were scored so that higher scores indicated stronger sense of self and greater levels of self-reflection and insight and both measures were significantly correlated ( r = 0.35, p < 0.001). Scores on these scales were then summed to create an overall trait self-awareness score with higher scores representing greater levels of trait self-awareness (Cronbach’s α across the total 32-items = 0.77; principal axis factoring with promax rotation revealed three factors accounting for 50.6% of the variance [Factor 1 = 24.6%, Factor 2 = 21.8%, Factor 3 = 3.9%]).

Six pairs of images of paintings by Paul Klee and Wassily Kandinsky were utilized as the painting stimuli.

The experiment was administered online. Once consent to participate was provided, participants were informed they would be required to choose their preferred painting from six pairs of paintings which were then presented sequentially. All paintings were presented without the artists’ names attached to any of the works. After making their painting selections participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions (a reasoning pre resource allocation, similarity and liking ratings condition or, a reasoning post resource allocation, similarity and liking ratings condition). Participants in both conditions were presented with all the same stimuli and experiences except the order of exposure was manipulated slightly between conditions as outlined below.

In the reasoning pre condition, after the initial painting selection phase, participants took part in the self-reflective reasoning phase. In the self-reflective reasoning phase participants were presented with and asked to reflect on a 15-item list of potential reasons for their painting selections and then presented with an open text box and asked to reflect further in their own words about their reasons for their painting choices. Following this participants were presented with and completed the subjective meaningfulness measure. Then although they remained unware to it at the time, irrespective of their actual choices participants were informed that their choices indicated that they preferred the works of Paul Klee 2 . Participants were then presented with instructions pertaining to the completion of the Tajfel matrices before moving on to complete them. Following this, participants were presented with the in-group∖out-group similarity and liking measure. Participants then completed the trait self-awareness measures before recording their gender (female, male, or other) and age. A manipulation check was then conducted whereby participants were asked to indicate who they had previously been informed that their painting choices indicated they preferred the works of (possible response were, Paul Klee, Wassily Kandinsky, or Don’t remember). Participants were then presented with a debriefing statement, informed the experiment was over and thanked for their participation.

In the reasoning post condition, the order of exposure was manipulated so that after making painting selections, participants were told their choices indicated a preference for Paul Klee 3 and were administered with the matrices and in-group∖out-group similarity and liking measures before the self-reflective reasoning phase. After completing the choice reasoning phase and the subjective meaningfulness measure, participants in this condition were also then presented with the same trait self-awareness 4 measures, demographic questions, manipulation check and debriefing as their counterparts in the alternate condition.

Outlier Analysis

Three multivariate outliers (1 in the control and 2 in the self-reflection condition) were detected and removed from the analysis thereby leaving a total sample of 171 (86 in the control condition and 85 in the self-reflection condition).

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics for trait self-awareness, choice meaningfulness, in-group similarity, in-group liking, and in-group favoritism as a function of self-reflection condition are presented in Table ​ Table1 1 .

Means and standard deviations for trait self-awareness, choice meaningfulness, similarity, liking, and in-group favoritism by self-reflection condition.

Effect of Experimental Manipulation on IV’s

We conducted between groups analyses to investigate if the self-reflection and control groups differed on the IV’s of choice meaningfulness and trait self-awareness as a function of the self-reflection manipulation. Independent samples t -test’s revealed that there was no significant difference in choice meaningfulness ( p = 0.365) or trait self-awareness ( p = 0.218) between conditions thereby demonstrating the IV’s were robust to the self-reflection manipulation.

Multiple-Sample Path Analysis

We ran a multiple-sample path analysis using the structural equation modeling program MPLUS (v 7.4) to investigate if the main effects of meaningfulness and trait self-awareness as well as the interaction effects (i.e., choice meaningfulness × trait self-awareness) on the DV’s differed between the experimental self-reflection and control non-self-reflection conditions. The model tested three exogenous/independent variables all predicting the three endogenous/dependent variables, in-group favoritism, similarity and liking. The exogenous variables were the main effects of trait self-awareness and choice meaningfulness, and a trait self-awareness × choice meaningfulness interaction.

Because the parameter to case ratio was under the required minimum of 1 parameter to 5 cases (1:4.75 or 36:171) as suggested by Kline (2011) , we discreetly tested each section of the model. In other words, three independent models with each of the three endogenous dependant variables were examined separately thereby ensuring that the parameter to case ratio was sufficient (i.e., 1:17.1 or 10:171). In all models the Satorra–Bentler robust estimator was used to account for multivariate non-normality, and all parameters were free across the self-reflection and control conditions. Chi-square Wald tests were utilized on a fully unconstrained model to test significant differences in the effects across conditions given the expectation that there would be differences in regression weights across groups ( Muthén and Muthén, 1998–2017 ). There were no significant differences in the results of these separate models and the full model 5 . Given this, the parameters for the full model are presented in Table ​ Table2 2 . Because the model was saturated with zero degrees of freedom fit indices are not reported.

Unstandardized regression weights and Wald Tests for the multi-sample path analysis.

Main Effects of Choice Meaningfulness and Trait Self-Awareness

The results in Table ​ Table2 2 reveal that there was a significant main effect for choice meaningfulness in both the control and self-reflection conditions for similarity, however, Wald tests reveal that the difference in effects between conditions was not significant. This suggests that higher choice meaningfulness scores were associated with higher similarity scores in both the self-reflection and control conditions. The results in Table ​ Table2 2 also demonstrate that there was a significant main effect of choice meaningfulness for liking in the self-reflection condition whereas the main effect of choice meaningfulness for liking in the control condition was not significant. The Wald test demonstrates that this difference in effects between conditions was significant, suggesting that higher choice meaningfulness scores were associated with higher liking scores in the self-reflection condition only. Whilst there was also a significant main effect of trait self-awareness on liking in the self-reflection condition, the Wald test demonstrates that this was not significantly different from the non-significant main effect of trait self-awareness in the control condition.

Trait Self-Awareness × Choice Meaningfulness Interaction Effects

As seen in Table ​ Table2 2 , for liking, the interaction between trait self-awareness and choice meaningfulness was only significant in the self-reflection condition and as the significant Wald test demonstrates, the strength of this interaction effect was also significantly different between the control and self-reflection conditions (see Figure ​ Figure2 2 ).

Predicted liking scores by trait self-awareness and choice meaningfulness groups across conditions. Groups were defined as 1 standard deviation above (high) and below (low) the mean (moderate).

The results in Figure ​ Figure2 2 suggest that for the self-reflection group the relationship between choice meaningfulness and liking strengthens as trait self-awareness scores decrease. That is, higher choice meaningfulness scores appear to be strongly associated with higher liking scores for those with lower trait self-awareness scores. This demonstrates a stronger impact of the self-reflection manipulation on participants lower in trait self-awareness and a reduction in the impact of the manipulation as trait self-awareness levels increase. Parallel trends were observed for similarity though the Wald test was only marginally significant.

The present study explored whether engaging in self-reflective reasoning could affect in-group identification and thereby demonstrate an effect of self-reflection on indicators of social identity and the self-concept. The possibility that such an effect could be impacted by the perceived level of meaningfulness associated with reasoning, and modulated by individual differences in trait self-awareness was also explored. Based on previous research, we developed a model which predicted that participants with higher levels of trait self-awareness would be minimally affected by the self-reflection manipulation. It was therefore hypothesized that for these participants self-perception would be related to the perceived meaningfulness of their painting choices more so than condition. The model further predicted that the self-reflection manipulation would have a greater impact on participants lower in trait self-awareness. Consequently, it was further anticipated that for these participants, self-perception would be related to perceived meaningfulness of their painting choices only in the experimental condition (i.e., when they were prompted to self-reflect). Participants’ in-group similarity and liking ratings (but not in-group favoritism allocations) supported these predictions and provided general support for the theoretical model proposed earlier.

Considering first the main effects of meaningfulness across conditions, the data demonstrated that whilst greater levels of meaning were associated with greater in-group similarity scores in both conditions, greater levels of meaning were only associated with in-group liking scores in the self-reflection condition. Taken together these results suggest that compared to the control condition, in the self-reflection condition stronger perceptions of meaningfulness led to stronger in-group identification. This is in line with predictions 1 and 2 relating to the self-reflection pathway in the theoretical model. Additionally, in line with prediction 3 of the theoretical model relating to the no self-reflection pathway, the effect of meaning on in-group perceptions in the control condition was smaller relative to the self-reflection condition. Moreover, the fact that there was no interaction between trait self-awareness and choice meaningfulness in the control group is suggestive of the possibility that in this condition, the main effect of meaning on in-group liking was the product of automatic or implicit processing because it occurred in the absence of any situational prompting and was not also impacted by pre-existing individual dispositions toward spontaneous self-reflection.

At the same time, the interaction between trait self-awareness and choice meaningfulness in the experimental condition indicates that the relationship between perceptions of choice meaningfulness and in-group liking strengthens as trait self-awareness levels decrease. This result suggests that the situational self-reflection prompt exhibited a stronger impact on participants who were less inclined (in terms of individual disposition) to engage in spontaneous self-reflection, and had less of an impact on participants with greater levels of individual disposition toward spontaneous self-reflection. This provides support for the hypothesis presented earlier and is also in line with predictions 4 and 5 of the theoretical model. A similar trend was also noted for in-group similarity, however, the difference in the strength of the effect between conditions was only marginally significant.

Limitations and Future Directions

One aspect of the study that could be viewed as both a limitation and strength is the way in which identity was measured. In the present study utilizing an already established experimental paradigm we developed a subtle way of testing the effect of self-reflective reasoning on identity. However, the cognitive process we were investigating was a process theorized from a narrative identity theory perspective, and the methodology used was born out of the social identity theory literature. On the one hand this approach represented a strength of the design in that it facilitated a discreet measurement of the effect of self-reflective reasoning on identity. At the same time, however, there are differences in the way that identity is conceptualized across both projects. To provide a stronger test of the hypothesis that self-reflective reasoning can affect narrative identity, experimental work with a more traditional dependent measure of narrative identity would be useful.

Another limitation was the way in which trait self-awareness was operationalized. In the present study trait self-awareness was operationalized as a function of participants’ scores on the SOSS and the SRIS. Whilst we had good reason to combine and operationalize these measures as a means of measuring trait self-awareness, future research aimed at the development of a dedicated measure of trait self-awareness would be worthwhile.

Though we were able to ensure that the modeling we conducted was sufficiently powered the present study could have benefited from a larger sample size. In the present study the parameter to cases ratio for the overall model was less then recommended (e.g., Kline, 2011 ). Therefore as outlined in the results section, to ensure that our modeling was sufficiently powered we initially computed three discreet models, one for each dependent variable. Although there was no significant difference in the outcomes between the individual and the combined models, in future to avoid the necessity of running independent models for each dependent variable it would be beneficial to recruit a larger sample which meets the parameter to cases ratio for the entire model in the first instance.

It is also possible that the deception that we engaged in (i.e., providing all participants with feedback that they preferred the work of Klee, irrespective of their actual choices) could have raised suspicions amongst participants who may have actually had some pre-existing knowledge of Klee and∖or Kandinsky (i.e., the artists whose works were used as the choice stimuli). Whilst we did include a manipulation check to ensure that the deception had had its intended effect, in future research, to address this issue more comprehensively it would be beneficial if participants were also directly questioned about their pre-existing knowledge of the artists whose works are used as the choice stimuli. Another way that this issue could be controlled for in the future would be to use the works of unknown artists as the choice stimuli.

Implications

The results of the present study may be of value to researchers who are interested in the developmental trajectory of narrative identity and autobiographical reasoning. Previous research looking at the development of narrative identity has suggested that the ability to cultivate a life-story tends to arise on average by about 14 years of age and that this is preceded by autobiographical reasoning for memorable life events which tends to first arise between the ages of nine and ten ( Bohn and Berntsen, 2008 ). Little is known, however, about the antecedents to the onset of autobiographical reasoning processes. Whilst it could be the case that development of autobiographical reasoning processes occurs in a stepwise fashion with little preceding them, the results of this study which demonstrate that reasoning about a trivial choice can effect the self and identity, beg the question that perhaps autobiographical reasoning processes develop as a continuous extension of more basic self-reflective reasoning processes which develop earlier in childhood. Perhaps it is the practice of more basic self-reflective reasoning which lays the cognitive foundations for, and facilitates the development of, more advanced autobiographical reasoning. One piece of recent research which dovetails with this idea comes from Bryan et al. (2014) who found in their work that children between the ages of three and six are already engaging in everyday decision making behaviors that are motivated by their developing sense of self and identity.

The fact that we observed significant effects for in-group identification and no effects on in-group favoritism has implications for researchers interested in intergroup discrimination and self-categorization. Specifically, the effects that we observed for in-group liking and in-group similarity suggest that self-categorization is likely to be influenced by both self-reflection and the level of subjective meaningfulness associated with choices or behaviors on which self-categorization is based. The absence of any effect on in-group favoritism suggests that intergroup discrimination is unlikely to be substantially impacted by self-reflection or choice meaningfulness. Research which has investigated positive-negative asymmetry within a minimal group paradigm context may help explain the discrepancy in effects between the attitudinal and behavioral measures. Positive-negative asymmetry research (see, Buhl, 1999 ; Mummendey et al., 2000 ) has demonstrated that group members tend to display stronger in-group preferences on positive stimuli compared to negative stimuli (i.e., evaluations of well regarded attributes such as creativity or intelligence, verses allocations of aversive noise). Given this research, one possibility that exists then is that in the current study, the attitudinal in-group liking and similarity measures which required participants to evaluate group members along positive dimensions were perceived more favorably compared to the behavioral measure of in-group favoritism which required participants to make allocation choices that had the potential to disadvantage out-group members.

Another possible explanation, however, for the absence of an effect on in-group favoritism could be due to aspects of the wider cultural climate within which participants were located at the time. Specifically, when this experiment took place Australia remained in the midst of a nation-wide debate regarding the legalization of same-sex marriage. Within the context of this debate university students have had strong messages of social justice and fairness directed at them at a cultural level. For example, the National Union of Students, which is the nations peak student representative body strongly advocated for students to support marriage equality ( Barlow, 2017 ). Given the cultural climate and the strong messages of social justice and fairness directed at students during the period in which this experiment took place, it is possible that in the allocation matrix tasks participants felt more compelled to engage in resource allocations which emphasized parity rather than discrimination. At the same time, in-group similarity and in-group liking ratings may have remained relatively immune to the impact of these cultural messages because perceptions of in-group identification do not necessarily equate to out-group discrimination and therefore do not have the same kinds of implications for one’s sense of fairness or social justice.

The present study may also have some implications for researchers whose work is informed by self-perception and cognitive dissonance theories. The results of the present study suggest that the application of self-reflection theory could be useful in some contexts in which cognitive dissonance and self-perception theories are not well positioned to explain the effect of choice or behavior on the self. According to self-perception theory ( Bem, 1972 ), after-the-fact explanations for behavior are generally limited to attributions about the internal (dispositional) or external (situational) cause of a behavior and are also only likely to occur in circumstances in which there is a weak or non-existent pre-existing explanation for the behavior. From the view of cognitive dissonance theory ( Festinger, 1957 ), post hoc reasoning about choices is limited to choices that induce dissonance and are motivated by a desire to reduce dissonance. Our model, however, suggests that choice or behavior is likely to effect the self as a consequence of whether it was actually perceived to be personally meaningful and that this needn’t be exclusive to dissonance inducing choices, nor to behaviors for which one does not have a pre-existing explanation.

Within the narrative identity literature, reflecting on life events in a personally meaningful way has been conceptualized as one of the key psychological mechanisms underpinning our sense of identity. To date, however, research on this issue has been largely correlational with little causal evidence available to confirm or disconfirm this claim. In the present study we sought to test experimentally if this cognitive process theorized to be so vital for identity development, could have a causal effect on self and identity. We also sought to explore the possibility that such an effect could be impacted by the level of meaningfulness associated with self-reflective reasoning, and modulated by individual differences in trait self-awareness. The results of this study largely supported our hypothesis and the proposed model from which those predictions were derived. For participants who were high in trait self-awareness, being prompted to engage in self-reflective reasoning mattered little. For this group of participants, in-group liking and similarity was related to perceptions of subjective meaningfulness relatively equally across conditions. At the same time, however, for participants low in trait self-awareness, being prompted to engage in self-reflection mattered a great deal. For these participants, subjective meaningfulness moderated in-group liking and similarity only when they had been prompted to engage in self-reflection. Overall the results of this study provide evidence to suggest that engaging in self-reflective reasoning can affect the self and identity and that this effect is impacted by both choices meaningfulness and individual differences in trait self-awareness.

Author Contributions

ND, JAO, CC, and JK all contributed to the paper and approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding. ND was supported by an Australian Government funded Research Training Program Scholarship.

1 Even though we predict that those high in trait self-awareness will be more likely to engage in self-reflection, given the magnitude of the relationship between trait self-awareness and perceptions of choice meaningfulness noted in our previous study (Dishon et al., under review) there is still scope for those high in trait self-awareness to find their choices meaningless.

2 Participants remained unware of this deception until they were debriefed at the end of the study.

3 As was the case in the reasoning pre condition, participants in this condition also remained unaware to the fact that they had received this feedback irrespective of their actual choices up until they were debriefed at the end of the study.

4 Even though individual differences in trait self-awareness represent a starting point in the theoretical model, in both conditions the trait self-awareness measure was administered after the self-reflection manipulation and in-group∖out-group ratings had taken place because we wanted to avoid potentially priming self-reflection processes in participants prior to their exposure to the self-reflection manipulation.

5 We also unpacked the in-group favoritism factor and ran the model on each of the individual pull scores. There was no significant difference between these models and the models using the in-group favoritism factor.

• Adler J. M., Lodi-Smith J., Philippe F. L., Houle I. (2016). The incremental validity of narrative identity in predicting well-being a review of the field and recommendations for the future. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 20 142–175. 10.1177/1088868315585068 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bamberg M. (2011). Who am I? Big or small—shallow or deep? Theory Psychol. 21 122–129. 10.1177/0959354309357646 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barlow K. (2017). The Massive Drive to Get Students to Enroll for Same-Sex Marriage Vote. The Huffington Post Australia. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au [accessed August 22 2017]. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bem D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 6 1–62. 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60024-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bohn A., Berntsen D. (2008). Life story development in childhood: the development of life story abilities and the acquisition of cultural life scripts from late middle childhood to adolescence. Dev. Psychol. 44 1135–1147. 10.1037/0012-1649.44.4.1135 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bourhis R. Y., Sachdev I., Gagnon A. (1994). “Intergroup research with the Tajfel matrices: methodological notes,” in The Psychology of Prejudice: the Ontario Symposium on Personality and Social Psychology , eds Zanna M., Olson J. (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; ), 209–232. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brehm J. W. (1956). Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 52 384–389. 10.1037/h0041006 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bruner J. S. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bryan C. J., Master A., Walton G. M. (2014). “Helping” versus “being a helper”: invoking the self to increase helping in young children. Child Dev. 85 1836–1842. 10.1111/cdev.12244 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buhl T. (1999). Positive-negative asymmetry in social discrimination: meta-analytical evidence. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 2 51–58. 10.1177/1368430299021004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carroll J. S., Johnson E. J. (1990). Decision Research: A Field Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellemers N., Kortekaas P., Ouwerkerk J. W. (1999). Self-categorisation, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 29 371–389. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199903/05)29:2/3<371::AID-EJSP932>3.0.CO;2-U [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Erikson E. H. (1963). Childhood and Society. New York, NY: Norton. [ Google Scholar ]
• Festinger L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Standford, CA: Stanford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Flury J. M., Ickes W. (2007). Having a weak versus strong sense of self: the sense of self scale (SOSS). Self Identity 6 281–303. 10.1080/15298860601033208 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frankl V. E. (1969). The Will to Meaning: Principles and Application of Logotherapy. New York, NY: World Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant A. M., Franklin J., Langford P. (2002). The self-reflection and insight scale: a new measure of private self-consciousness. Soc. Behav. Pers. 30 821–835. 10.2224/sbp.2002.30.8.821 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grieve P. G., Hogg M. A. (1999). Subjective uncertainty and intergroup discrimination in the minimal group situation. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 25 926–940. 10.1177/01461672992511002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hains S. C., Hogg M. A., Duck J. M. (1997). Self-categorization and leadership: effects of group prototypicality and leader stereotypicality. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 23 1087–1100. 10.1177/01461672972310009 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harvey P. O., Lee J., Horan W. P., Ochsner K., Green M. F. (2011). Do patients with schizophrenia benefit from a self-referential memory bias? Schizophr. Res. 127 171–177. 10.1016/j.schres.2010.11.011 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hogg M. A. (1992). The Social Psychology of Group Cohesiveness: From Attraction to Social Identity. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hogg M. A. (1993). Group cohesiveness: a critical review and some new directions. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 4 85–111. 10.1080/14792779343000031 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holdsworth L., Cartwright S. (2003). Empowerment, stress and satisfaction: an exploratory study of a call centre. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 24 131–140. 10.1108/01437730310469552 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Katznelson H. (2014). Reflective functioning: a review. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 34 107–117. 10.1016/j.cpr.2013.12.003 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klimmt C., Hefner D., Vorderer P., Roth C., Blake C. (2010). Identification with video game characters as automatic shift of self-perceptions. Media Psychol. 13 323–338. 10.1080/15213269.2010.524911 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kline R. B. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leach C. W., Van Zomeren M., Zebel S., Vliek M. L., Pennekamp S. F., Doosje B., et al. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: a hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 95 144–165. 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levy K. N., Clarkin J. F., Yeomans F. E., Scott L. N., Wasserman R. H., Kernberg O. F. (2006). The mechanisms of change in the treatment of borderline personality disorder with transference focused psychotherapy. J. Clin. Psychol. 62 481–501. 10.1002/jclp.20239 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McAdams D. P. (1985). Power, Intimacy, and the Life Story: Personological Inquiries into Identity. New York, NY: Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• McAdams D. P. (2001). The psychology of life stories. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 5 100–122. 10.1037/1089-2680.5.2.100 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McAdams D. P., McLean K. C. (2013). Narrative identity. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 22 233–238. 10.1177/0963721413475622 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McAllister I. (2016). The Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment on the Relationship between Job and Personal Resources and Employee Engagement. Master’s thesis, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miramontez D. R., Benet-Martinez V., Nguyen A.-M. D. (2008). Bicultural identity and self/group personality perceptions. Self Identity 7 430–445. 10.1080/15298860701833119 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morin A. (2011). Self-awareness part 1: definition, measures, effects, functions, and antecedents. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 5 807–823. 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00387.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mummendey A., Otten S., Berger U., Kessler T. (2000). Positive-negative asymmetry in social discrimination: valence of evaluation and salience of categorization. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26 1258–1270. 10.1177/0146167200262007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Muthén L. K., Muthén B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus User’s Guide. 8th Edn Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. [ Google Scholar ]
• Otten S. (2016). The minimal group paradigm and its maximal impact in research on social categorization. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 11 85–89. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.06.010 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pasupathi M. (2015). “Autobiographical reasoning and my discontent: alternative paths from narrative to identity,” in The Oxford Handbook of Identity Development , eds McLean K. C., Syed M. (New York, NY: Oxford; ), 166–181. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pasupathi M., Mansour E., Brubaker J. R. (2007). Developing a life story: constructing relations between self and experience in autobiographical narratives. Hum. Dev. 50 85–110. 10.1159/000100939 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Phillips D. M., Olson J. C., Baumgartner H. (1995). Consumption visions in consumer decision making. Adv. Consum. Res. 22 280–284. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rogers T. B., Kuiper N. A., Kirker W. S. (1977). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 35 677–688. 10.1037/0022-3514.35.9.677 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sass L. A., Parnas J. (2003). Schizophrenia, consciousness, and the self. Schizophr. Bull. 29 427–444. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a007017 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer J. A., Blagov P., Berry M., Oost K. M. (2013). Self-defining memories, scripts, and the life story: narrative identity in personality and psychotherapy. J. Pers. 81 569–582. 10.1111/jopy.12005 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spreitzer G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation. Acad. Manage. J. 38 1442–1465. 10.2307/256865 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spreitzer G. M., Kizilos M. A., Nason S. W. (1997). A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain. J. Manag. 23 679–704. [ Google Scholar ]
• Symons C. S., Johnson B. T. (1997). The self-reference effect in memory: a meta- analysis. Psychol. Bull. 121 371–394. 10.1037/0033-2909.121.3.371 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tajfel H. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tajfel H., Billig M. G., Bundy R. P., Flament C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1 149–178. 10.1002/ejsp.2420010202 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tajfel H., Turner J. C. (1986). “The social identity theory of intergroup behavior,” in The Psychology of Intergroup Relations , eds Worchel S., Austin W. (Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall; ), 7–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson T. D., Lisle D. J., Schooler J. W., Hodges S. D., Klaaren K. J., LaFleur S. J. (1993). Introspecting about reasons can reduce post-choice satisfaction. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 19 331–339. 10.1177/0146167293193010 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

MY SUNSHINE

" if you can't find the sunshine, be the sunshine.", reflection on the psychological perspective of self ( part 1).

WILLIAM JAMES: THE ME-SELF AND THE I-SELF I believe that the self has 2 divisions, the ” ME- SELF” and the ” I-SELF”. I agree that the “I-self” is the thinking self because this “self” is what I know that I describe my self to others. For example, my teacher in senior high school in entrepreneur asked me why I can be an entrepreneur? I answered her that ” being an entrepreneur you have to be a risk taker and I myself know that I am a risk taker because i believe it’s better to try than to lose the chance I have.” From there I describe myself for what I know who I am that others may/can see. On the other hand, the “Me-self” is what I develop as I meet people in my life or some situations develop me that make myself who I am today. For instance, before I have low confidence. But as I grew older and high school life is my turning point where my confidence boosts up as I become the president of the club, team captain of the badminton team and create my own organization in my previous school. My confidence develop through time and through the situations I encounter.

REMEMBER: EVERYTHING IN THIS WORLD MAY CHANGE EVEN YOU. CARL RODGERS: SELF THEORY: REAL & IDEAL SELF I believe that myself won’t be possible without the real and ideal self. I need to balance the true me and the person I want to be to be able to be happy because if not this may cause loneliness, depression or anxiety. Example, I am a person who is happy go lucky and a jolly person but at the same time I want to have a high grade or to be an academic scholar. Being an academic scholar I need to have a grade not lower than 1.75 in the semester grade. I need to study hard to be able to achieve that goal. I would be happy if I’ll be making it but in the process if I know I am not who I am like I am not that happy because I put too much pressure and if I didn’t make it, it may cause loneliness or so. Then, my mom told me that even though I won’t make it it’s fine as long as I pass my course.

REMEMBER: HAPPINESS WILL ALWAYS NOT BE FOUND IN THE END, BUT RATHER HAPPINESS MAY FOUND IN THE PROCESS.

Share this:

Leave a comment cancel reply.

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Self Reflection Essay

Self reflection essay generator.

What goes through your mind when you have to write a self reflection essay? Do you ponder on your life choices, the actions you take to get where you want to be or where you are now? If you answered yes and yes to both of the questions, you are on the right track and have some idea on what a reflection essay would look like. This article would help give you more ideas on how to write a self reflection essay , how it looks like, what to put in it and some examples for you to use. So what are you waiting for? Check these out now.

10+ Self Reflection Essay Examples

1. self reflection essay template.

Size: 27 KB

2. Project Self Reflection Essay

Size: 35 KB

3. Final Self Reflection Essay

4. Internship Self Reflection Essay

Size: 36 KB

5. Student Self Reflection Essay

Size: 267 KB

6. Basic Self Reflection Essay

Size: 123 KB

7. College Self Reflection Essay

Size: 256 KB

8. Self Reflection Essay Rubric

Size: 16 KB

9. Standard Self Reflection Essay

Size: 30 KB

10. Persuasive Essays Student Self-Reflection

Size: 24 KB

11. Self Reflection Essay in Higher Education

Size: 139 KB

Defining Self

A person’s self that is different from the rest. On occasions it is considered as an object of a person’s view.

Defining Self Reflection

A self reflection is often described as taking a step back to reflect on your life. To take a break and observe how far you have become, the obstacles you have gone through and how they have affected your life, behavior and belief.

Defining Self Reflection Essay

A self- reflection essay is a type of essay that makes you express the experiences you have gone through in life based on a topic you have chosen to write about. It is a personal type of essay that you write about.  It makes you reflect on your life and journey to who you are today. The struggles, the fears, the triumphs and the actions you have taken to arrive at your current situation.

Tips on Writing a Self Reflection Essay

When writing a self reflection essay, there are some guidelines and formats to follow. But I am here to give you some tips to write a very good self reflection essay. These tips are easy to follow and they are not as complicated as some might believe them to be. Let’s begin. To write a good self reflection essay, one must first do:

• Think : Think about what you want to write. This is true for the title of your essay as well. Thinking about what to write first can save you a lot of time. After this tip, we move on to the next one which is:
• Drafting : As much as it sounds like a waste of time and effort, drafting what you are preparing to write is helpful. Just like in the first tip, drafting is a good way of writing down what you want and to add or take out what you will be writing later.
• State the purpose : Why are you writing this essay? State the purpose of the essay . As this is a self reflective essay, your purpose is to reflect on your life, the actions you did to reach this point of your life. The things you did to achieve it as well.
• Know your audience : Your self reflection essay may also depend on your audience. If you are planning on reading out loud your essay, your essay should fit your audience. If your audience is your team members, use the correct wording.
• Share your tips: This essay gives you the opportunity to share how you have achieved in life. Write down some tips for those who want to be able to achieve the same opportunity you are in right now.

How long or short can my self reflection essay be?

This depends on you. You may write a short self reflection essay, and you may also write a long one. The important thing there is stating the purpose of you writing your essay.

Writing a self reflection essay, am I allowed to write everything about my life?

The purpose of the self reflection essay is to reflect on a topic you choose and to talk about it.

Is there a limit of words to write this type of essay?

Yes, as much as possible stick to 300-700 words. But even if it may be this short, don’t forget to get creative and true in your essay.

A self reflective essay is a type of essay that people write to reflect on their lives. To reflect on a certain topic of their life and talk about it. Most of the time, this type of essay is short because this is merely to take a step back and watch your life throughout the beginning till the present time. Writing this type of essay may be a bit difficult for some as you have to dive deep into your life and remember the triumphs and the loss. The beauty of this essay though is the fact that you are able to see how far you have reached, how far you have overcome.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

Write a Self Reflection Essay on a time you overcame a personal obstacle.

Reflect on your personal growth over the last year in your Self Reflection Essay.

How to Write a Reflective Essay With Tips on Effective Self-Analysis (Step-by-Step Guide) 2023-2024

Writing an essay, particularly a reflective one, can be an enriching experience that enables introspection and self-analysis. In this guide, we will explore the step-by-step process of crafting a reflective essay with a focus on effective self-analysis. Whether you are a student or a professional, understanding how to write a reflective essay will enhance your critical thinking skills and personal growth. From choosing a topic to revising and editing, we will cover all the necessary aspects to help you produce a compelling reflective essay. By following these guidelines, you can develop a reflective essay that not only facilitates self-analysis but also showcases your growth and critical thinking abilities. GradeSmiths further supports your academic journey by offering the convenience of paying for essays and accessing expert online assignment help. With GradeSmiths, you can receive the necessary guidance and assistance to excel in your writing endeavors.

Step 1: Selecting an Engaging Topic

When starting your reflective essay, carefully choose a topic that has had a significant impact on you. It could be an achievement, a challenging situation , or a moment of personal growth. By selecting a specific incident or experience, you can delve deeper into its analysis and provide valuable insights to your readers.

Step 2: Gathering Thoughts and Emotions

Before diving into the writing process, take some time to gather your thoughts and emotions related to the chosen experience. Engage in techniques such as free-writing or brainstorming to jot down all the ideas that come to mind. This exercise will help you capture the essence of your reflections and ensure that no important details are overlooked during the analysis .

Step 3: Developing an Outline

An outline serves as a roadmap for your reflective essay, enabling you to organize your thoughts in a clear and logical manner. Identify key points and main arguments that you want to discuss in your essay. Divide your essay into sections, including an introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. By structuring your essay in advance, you’ll have a solid foundation to build upon.

Step 4: Crafting an Engaging Introduction

The introduction is the gateway to your reflective essay and should engage the reader’s attention. Begin with a compelling hook or an intriguing anecdote related to your experience. Provide context and background information to help the reader understand the significance of the experience. Finally, present a clear and concise thesis statement that highlights the main focus of your essay.

Step 5: Developing Well-Structured Body Paragraphs

The body paragraphs form the core of your reflective essay. Each paragraph should focus on a specific aspect of the experience and provide supporting evidence and examples. Analyze your thoughts, emotions, and reactions during the experience, exploring the reasons behind them. Reflect on the significance of the experience and its impact on your personal growth and development.

Step 6: Applying Self-Analysis Techniques

To deepen your self-analysis, apply various techniques such as SWOT analysis or self-questioning. Assess your strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats in relation to the experience. Consider how the experience has shaped you as an individual, what lessons you have learned, and identify areas for improvement. This process allows you to gain deeper insights into yourself and your journey.

Step 7: Writing a Thought-Provoking Conclusion

In the conclusion of your reflective essay, summarize the main points discussed in the body paragraphs. Reflect on the overall significance and implications of the experience you shared. Offer final thoughts and insights gained from the self-analysis process. Conclude your essay on a positive note, highlighting the growth and lessons learned through the reflective process.

Step 8: Revising and Editing for Polished Writing

Once you have completed your initial draft, it’s essential to revise and edit your reflective essay. Review it for clarity, coherence, and overall structure. Check for grammar, spelling , and punctuation errors. Seek feedback from peers or instructors to gain different perspectives and identify areas that need improvement. Taking the time to revise and edit ensures your essay is polished and effectively conveys your message.

Tips for Effective Self-Analysis in Reflective Essays

When writing your essay , it’s important to keep these tips in mind to effectively convey your ideas and engage your readers:

• Be genuine and authentic: When sharing your thoughts and emotions, be true to yourself. Avoid exaggeration or embellishment and express your experiences and feelings sincerely.
• Use descriptive language: Create a vivid and engaging narrative by incorporating descriptive language. Paint a picture with words to make your essay more captivating and memorable.
• Connect personal experiences to broader concepts: Demonstrate your critical thinking skills by linking your personal experiences to broader c oncepts or theories . Show how your experiences relate to larger societal issues or academic knowledge.
• Reflect on implications and personal growth: Take time to reflect on the implications of your experience and how it has contributed to your personal growth. Discuss the lessons learned and the insights gained from the experience.
• Analyze strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats : Assess your strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats in relation to the experience. Reflect on how the experience has affected your self-awareness and identify areas for improvement.
• Identify lessons learned and impact on perspective: Highlight the key lessons you have learned from the experience and how they have influenced your perspective . Discuss any shifts in mindset or changes in your outlook.
• Consider alignment with future goals: Evaluate how the experience aligns with your future goals and aspirations. Discuss how it has shaped your ambitions or influenced your career path.
• Be open to constructive criticism : Embrace feedback from others and be open to constructive criticism. Consider different perspectives and use feedback to refine your ideas and strengthen your essay.
• Revise and edit for clarity and coherence: Take the time to revise and edit your essay. Ensure that your ideas flow logically, your sentences are clear, and your essay is coherent. Eliminate any errors or inconsistencies.
• Maintain a positive and reflective tone: Throughout your essay , maintain a positive and reflective tone. Show gratitude for the experience and demonstrate your willingness to learn and grow.

By following these tips, you can effectively communicate your ideas, showcase your personal growth, and craft a compelling essay that leaves a lasting impression on your readers.

Writing a reflective essay with effective self-analysis is a valuable exercise that allows for self-reflection, personal growth, and the development of critical thinking skills. By following the step-by-step guide provided, you can navigate the process seamlessly. Remember to choose a compelling topic, gather your thoughts and emotions, create an outline, and craft a captivating introduction . Develop your analysis in the body paragraphs, applying self-analysis techniques to gain deeper insights. Conclude your essay by summarizing the main points and offering final reflections. With these tips, you’re well on your way to writing a stellar reflective essay that showcases your journey of self-discovery.

Take away Notes

When it comes to writing an essay, there are several important aspects to consider. Whether you’re looking for assistance with essay writing, paper writers, or research paper structure, it’s crucial to find reliable services. Custom writings and essay services can provide the help you need. If you’re wondering how to write an essay or research paper , professional writers can guide you through the process. They can offer writing services tailored to your specific requirements, ensuring high-quality results. Additionally, if you’re looking to buy an essay or need help with writing, there are trustworthy platforms available. Whether you’re seeking assistance with your thesis, dissertation, literature review, or any other type of academic writing, reliable writing services can provide the necessary support. Professional writers can help you with all steps of the writing process, from brainstorming ideas to polishing the final draft. They can also provide research paper help, ensuring that your work is well-structured and meets academic standards. When choosing a writing service, consider factors such as affordability, quality, and customer reviews. By selecting the best writing service for your needs, you can receive expert assistance and achieve academic success.

In conclusion, if you’re looking for reliable and professional assistance with your essay, research paper, thesis, or any other academic writing task, GradeSmiths is the right place for you. With a team of experienced and skilled writers, GradeSmiths offers high-quality custom writing services tailored to your specific needs. From essay writing to research paper structure and literature reviews, their experts are well-equipped to provide the support you require. By placing an order at GradeSmiths , you can ensure that your paper is well-written, well-researched, and meets all the necessary academic standards. Don’t hesitate to take advantage of their affordable prices and excellent customer reviews. Place your order today and experience the convenience and quality that GradeSmiths has to offer.

• RESEARCH PAPER FOR SALE
• RESEARCH PAPER WRITER
• RESEARCH PROPOSAL WRITING SERVICES
• SCHOLARSHIP ESSAY HELP
• SPEECH HELP
• STATISTICS HOMEWORK HELP
• TERM PAPER WRITING HELP
• THESIS EDITING SERVICES
• THESIS PROPOSAL WRITING SERVICE
• TRIGONOMETRY HOMEWORK HELP
• ADMISSION ESSAY WRITING HELP
• BIOLOGY PAPER WRITING SERVICE
• BOOK REPORT WRITING HELP
• BUY BOOK REVIEW
• BUY COURSEWORKS
• BUY DISCUSSION POST
• BUY TERM PAPER
• CAPSTONE PROJECT WRITING SERVICE
• COURSEWORK WRITING SERVICE
• CRITIQUE MY ESSAY
• CUSTOM RESEARCH PAPER
• CUSTOMER CONDUCT
• DISSERTATION EDITING SERVICE
• DISSERTATION WRITERS
• DO MY DISSERTATION FOR ME
• DO MY POWERPOINT PRESENTATION
• EDIT MY PAPER
• English Research Paper Writing Service
• ENGLISH RESEARCH PAPER WRITING SERVICE
• ESSAY WRITING HELP
• ESSAYS FOR SALE
• GRADUATE PAPER WRITING SERVICE
• LAW ASSIGNMENT WRITING HELP
• MARKETING ASSIGNMENT WRITING HELP
• NON-PLAGIARIZED ESSAYS
• NURSING ASSIGNMENT HELP
• PAY FOR COURSEWORK
• PAY FOR ESSAYS
• PAY FOR LITERATURE REVIEW
• PAY FOR PAPERS
• PAY FOR RESEARCH PAPERS
• PERSONAL STATEMENT EDITING SERVICE
• PERSONAL STATEMENT WRITER
• PERSUASIVE ESSAY WRITING HELP
• PERSUASIVE ESSAY WRITING SERVICES
• PHD THESIS WRITING SERVICE
• PROOFREAD MY PAPER
• PSYCHOLOGY ESSAY WRITING SERVICES
• THESIS STATEMENT HELP
• WRITE MY ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR ME
• WRITE MY CASE STUDY
• WRITE MY DISCUSSION BOARD POST
• WRITE MY LAB REPORT

• (03) 9809 4888

The psychology of Reflection Psychology Group

Psychologists in camberwell, mckinnon and fitzroy.

Reflection is the examination of one’s own conscious thoughts and feelings. In psychology the process of reflection relies exclusively on observation of one’s mental state, while in a spiritual context it may refer to the examination of one’s soul. Human self-reflection is the capacity of humans to exercise introspection and the willingness to learn more about their fundamental nature, purpose and essence. Human self-reflection invariably leads to inquiry into the human condition and the essence of humankind as a whole.

Human self-reflection is related to the philosophy of consciousness, the topic of mindfulness in general and the philosophy of mind.

In learning environments, reflection is an important part of the loop to go through in order to maximise the utility of having experiences. Rather than moving on to the next ‘task’ we can review the process and outcome of the task and – with the benefit of a little distance (lapsed time) we can reconsider what the value of experience might be for us and for the context it was part of.

Contact our psychologists in Camberwell , Fitzroy or McKinnon to benefit from our expansive counselling services , clinical psychologist-guided workshops and therapist-led corporate services .

Minimal Waiting

Reflection Psychology Group’s three clinics and comprehensive team of psychologists with a broad range of specialties mean we can schedule appointments at times that suit our clients, with minimal waiting.

You may be eligible for a Medicare rebate for your visits to Reflection Psychology Group or able to claim from private health insurance, depending on your policy cover.

Convenience

We have psychology clinics in three prominent locations – Camberwell, Fitzroy and McKinnon – as well as flexible opening hours, and we’re open six days a week.

We offer both in-person and Telehealth services to clients.

Highly Qualified

Reflection Psychology Group comprises a team of registered and highly qualified psychologists, including some of the nation’s leading therapists in their fields.

• Angie Collins
• Anna Rajendran
• Annamariya Hurducas
• Ashlee Field
• Carley McGauran
• Cecile Proy
• Charlotte Workman
• Ciaran Barton
• Graeme Lewis
• Ivana Bacovic
• Kate Andison
• Kate Wallace-Boyd
• Kelly Bramstedt
• Kym Bardoel
• Lauré Coulter
• Melanie Strang
• Natalie Solomon
• Paul Galbraith
• Paula Verity
• Sarah McMurtrie
• Shantal Lourie
• Sofia Sakellaropoulos
• Thank You Contact

• DOI: 10.1177/09593543231219534
• Corpus ID: 271496708

Subjectivity and method: Why psychology needs more armchair scholarship

• Published in Theory &amp; Psychology 1 June 2024
• Theory &amp; Psychology

33 References

From psychological science to the psychological humanities: building a general theory of subjectivity, theorizing in psychology: from the critique of a hyper-science to conceptualizing subjectivity, human kinds and looping effects in psychology, taking the humanities seriously, what is a white epistemology in psychological science a critical race-theoretical analysis, “doing justice” in psychological methodology: from science and experiments to anecdotes, psychology without foundations: history, philosophy and psychosocial theory, modernizing the mind, the methodological imperative in psychology, what is epistemological violence in the empirical social sciences, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

The Power of Self-Reflection

Students can get more out of college when they reflect on the value of learning..

Posted November 2, 2023 | Reviewed by Michelle Quirk

• Why Education Is Important
• Take our ADHD Test
• Find a Child Therapist
• Self-reflection is a powerful tool for enriching learning by considering why you've learned something.
• College students may find more value in college and their majors if they reflect on the value of each course.
• Reflection portfolios could be students' foundation for outstanding resumes and job applications.

Recently, I had the pleasure of attending the annual conference of the Association for Continuing Higher Education . This organization is dedicated to the success of students who don’t follow the direct path from high school to college to degree. These are folks who…

• tried college but couldn’t finish.
• put their education on hold to raise children.
• joined the armed services.
• got laid off (or quit, or want to quit) and need workforce training.
• don't have a college credential for a million other reasons.

The excitement at this conference was infectious. These professionals, who have devoted their careers to students who aren’t 18- to 22-year-old undergrads, clearly see themselves as the misfits of higher education. But they’re having their moment as continuing education now represents 40 percent or more of college enrollment. These numbers will surely grow as colleges, businesses, and states are all focused on getting working adults back into the classroom to boost economic prosperity and reduce inequities. I left Charleston plenty buzzed, but one talk really got me excited, despite its seemingly mundane topic: Credit for Prior Learning (CPL).

Credit for Prior Learning

CPL is when students earn academic credit for skills they learned outside of college, such as at a job or in the military. CPL makes adult learners more likely to graduate and to graduate faster. While I’ve known about the benefits of CPL for a while, not until now did I understand how someone might earn CPL. And it’s the how that speaks to something that may be missing from much of higher education.

CPL can be awarded through several mechanisms , including exams, job training certifications, and military training. Dr. Matt Bergman, however, described how students at the University of Louisville create a portfolio of their prior learning as part of a credited course. Students must describe each “occupational experience,” along with documentation, and write a reflection essay on what they learned from it. These skills are linked to specific college credits, and students may earn up to 48 credit hours (or 40 percent of a degree).

What intrigues me most about these CPL portfolios is the reflection essays. I’ve written before about the power of self-reflection to motivate persistence. In crafting a CPL portfolio, adult learners similarly write about the utility-value of their work or military experiences: what they learned, how it applies to college, and how it will apply to their future career . It was unsurprising to hear Dr. Bergman describe the pride these students feel when they submit their final portfolios, describing them as “peacocks.”

Reflecting on the Value of Education

As I flew home, I wondered whether CPL portfolios tell us something about how to help students get the most out of college. Recent surveys indicate that about 40 percent of college graduates regret their major, and perhaps as many as one-third regret college altogether. While student debt and a tough job market are not easily dismissed, perhaps some of this regret stems from a lack of guided self-reflection.

Many college students have a culminating experience, such as an internship, thesis, or experiential learning. While these capstones can be transformational—I certainly wouldn’t be a Ph.D. behavioral scientist without my undergraduate senior thesis experience—they tend to highlight a subset of skills learned in college, mostly within one’s major. Moreover, not all students have access to these culminating experiences.

What if every student created a portfolio of their college experience, similar to how Louisville students earn CPL? For each class, students would describe what they learned and reflect on how it applies to other college classes, their future careers, or their lives in general. This could be especially enlightening for students’ gen-ed courses, which are often viewed as a stepping stone to the “important” classes, but lacking inherent value. These portfolios could also include reflections on internships, work experience (even if not earning CPL), student organizations, and sports, helping students write the story of their time in college that they will one day share with potential employers.

These portfolios could be created on a term-by-term basis, which would convey multiple advantages:

• The portfolio would be a living document that grows over time, rather than a massive lift at the end of college that wouldn’t be feasible for many students.
• The portfolio could support students’ conversations with faculty and advisors about course registration, major selection, and career paths.
• The portfolio would provide documentation of skills learned by students who need to work during college, or who take a break from college to work.
• The portfolio could provide better feedback for faculty than traditional student evaluations.

In the end, the portfolio would provide the foundation for an amazing resume, and could perhaps itself be a document submitted to employers to demonstrate one’s competencies. The mere act of consistent self-reflection might be impressive enough on its own.

College students have several ways to earn credits, including taking classes, AP courses, CPL, and experiential learning. But many of these options (especially classes) lack self-reflection on why it’s important. The “traditional” college experience could be enriched if we took inspiration from Louisville’s CPL process. Ultimately, we need to encourage all students to better understand what they’ve learned, why they’ve learned it, and how it will benefit their lives both professionally and personally.

Ross E. O'Hara, Ph.D. , is a behavioral researcher and he applies his expertise in behavioral science to develop scalable interventions that improve college student retention.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• International
• New Zealand
• South Africa
• Switzerland
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Modeling Group Discourse with Epistemic Network Analysis: Unpacking Connections, Perspectives, and Individual Contributions

• Open access
• Published: 31 July 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Shai Goldfarb Cohen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8634-3650 1 ,
• Johnatan Verissimo Yanai   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0002-7273-7506 1 &
• Gideon Dishon   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1747-403X 1  

Operationalizing and modeling group talk has proved to be a consistent challenge in educational research. In this paper, we suggest that epistemic network analysis (ENA) could provide unique insights concerning group talk. Specifically, we use ENA to model the talk orientations put forward in the Exploratory Talk framework (Cumulative, Disputational, Exploratory). Participants ( n  = 60, 67% female, 33% male) were undergraduate students in an Introduction to Psychology course who took part in three 90-min collaborative online tasks. We coded student discourse according to a set of basic communicative acts reflective of the Exploratory Talk framework. Then, using ENA, we identified different groups’ patterns of discourse at the group and individual level. Presenting the epistemic networks of four purposefully chosen groups, this paper offers three key contributions to modeling and conceptualizing group dialogue: (1) illustrating how ENA could offer new ways to analyze group talk by focusing on the frequency of co-occurrence of connections between a basic set of communicate acts rather than the different communicative acts used ; (2) refining the theoretical conceptualization of Exploratory Talk by distinguishing two sub-variations— other-oriented vs. self-oriented Exploratory Talk —that differ according to the depth of engagement with other perspectives; (3) examining how ENA allows unpacking diverging dynamics of individual contributions to group discourse , focusing on the role of individuals that function as “instigators” or “connectors.”

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Promoting students’ competencies to work with others, while engaging with diverging views, is an essential academic and civic aim of education (Dishon,  2018 ; Newton & Zeidler, 2020 ; Slakmon & Schwarz, 2019 ). However, operationalizing and modeling group talk is a difficult feat due to the complexity of this process and the need to account for situated and implicit aspects of talk. One key challenge is analyzing not only specific communicative acts but also their dynamic interplay (Goldfarb Cohen et al., 2023 ; Csanadi et al., 2018 ; Hennessey et al., 2024 ; Lefstein et al., 2015 ). Accordingly, this paper sets out to offer an approach for operationalizing dialogue that includes engagement with disagreement using epistemic network analysis (ENA), focusing on the different patterns of connections between communicative acts, individual engagement with others’ perspectives , and the need to attend to the whole-group and the individual-group interplay of such analyses.

We start by introducing the theoretical background of dialogue in educational contexts in general, and Mercer’s ( 2007 ) Exploratory Talk framework more specifically. We then offer a brief survey of literature relevant to our research context—online synchronous small group work in general, and the use of ENA to study group dialogue, attending to how it could bolster our understanding of shared knowledge construction. Overall, our aim in this paper is to explore the various ways in which epistemic network analysis can be utilized to model different talk orientations based on the Exploratory Talk framework. Additionally, we aimed to investigate the role of ENA in helping researchers identify the interplay of discourse patterns at both the individual and group level. Finally, we demonstrated how ENA could be used to model engagement with others’ perspectives, enhancing theoretical conceptualizations of such engagement.

Theoretical Background

Types of talk.

There is a considerate body of research highlighting the importance of the types of talk pursued in educational contexts (Cui & Teo, 2021 ; Mercer et al., 2019 ; Felton, 2022 ; Resnick et al., 2018 ). Most famously, researchers have identified the taken-for-granted and teacher-centered initiation-response-feedback pattern (IRF), in which the teacher posits a question (initiation), a student answers (response), and the teacher provides feedback on that answer (feedback) (Howe & Abedin, 2013 ). Researchers have criticized this pattern for limiting students’ meaningful interaction and argued for more dialogic modes of interaction. Though these types of interactions have received different labels (e.g., g academically productive talk, dialogic teaching, dialogic pedagogy, and argumentation), they share common assumptions concerning the social and interactive nature of learning, and the importance of student-owned processes of reasoning and interaction (Asterhan & Schwarz, 2016 ; Cui & Teo, 2021 ; Resnick et al., 2018 ). Within this view, student talk is conceptualized as the building block of learning rather than its external manifestation. Critically, though research has shown that dialogue promotes a variety of educational outcomes such as short- and long-term retention, transfer, and reasoning skills, cultivating such dialogues has proven to be a persistent educational challenge (Resnick et al., 2018 ).

Promoting such ends depends not only on the opportunities students have to participate but also on the characteristics of such interactions. To characterize productive dialogue, Alexander ( 2017 ) suggests five key characteristics: (1) collective, addressing learning tasks together; (2) reciprocal, listening to each other, sharing ideas, and considering alternative viewpoints; (3) supportive, students articulate ideas freely without fear of embarrassment over “wrong” answers and help each other achieve common understandings; (4) purposeful, questions are structured to provoke answers that may in turn provoke further questions; (5) cumulative, individual exchanges are not disconnected but chained into coherent lines of inquiry.

Focusing more squarely on dialogue in small-group rather than whole-class interactions, the Exploratory Talk framework outlines three distinct archetypes of conversation of diverging quality (Mercer, 2007 ): Disputational Talk, Cumulative Talk, and Exploratory Talk. Disputational Talk involves short exchanges where participants assert and challenge each other’s ideas, resulting in confrontational discourse. Cumulative Talk , on the other hand, is characterized by speakers building on each other’s ideas in a positive, yet uncritical manner. This is characterized by repetitions, confirmations, and elaborations, yet lacking willingness to challenge others, or pursue in-depth engagement with others’ ideas. Exploratory Talk could be viewed as integrating important aspects of the two previous talk orientations, as it involves partners engaging critically but constructively with one another’s ideas. Participants put forward suggestions for joint consideration and challenging each other’s hypotheses with justified alternative viewpoints. Compared to the other two types of conversations, Exploratory Talk results in more publicly accountable knowledge and more visible reasoning, which also serves to develop students’ individual reasoning (Mercer, 2008 ; Mercer et al., 2019 ).

Therefore, engaging in Exploratory Talk includes various levels of engagement with others’ perspective: remaining attentive to others’, being able to articulate these perspectives via questioning or rephrasing, and offering constructive critique of interlocutors’ position based on engagement with their ideas (Mercer et al., 2019 ). In this respect, we suggest that these are broadly aligned with three levels of perspective taking: acknowledging others’ perspective, articulating it, and being to position it with respect to the broader context (Kim et al., 2018 ). Put differently, Exploratory Talk entails shared knowledge construction and engagement in perspective taking, where individuals explicate their own perspective and adjust interlocutors’ perspectives by building on others’ ideas and challenging them (Newton & Zeidler, 2020 ). However, engaging with others’ perspective is a complex endeavor, which does not simply emerge via dialogue (Dishon, 2018 ; Gehlbach & Mu, 2023 ). Therefore, the contribution of perspective taking to the development of Exploratory Talk requires further investigation.

The Use of Digital Tools to Support Group Dialogue

Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) tasks are one way in which students can scaffold to engage in more advanced modes of group dialogue, relying on diverse technological artifacts such as interactive whiteboards, forums, and wikis (Major et al., 2018 ; Mercer et al., 2019 ). In these settings, students are prompted to reflect, explain, and articulate their thoughts and reasoning as they engage in group discourse. Such interactions allow them to clarify misunderstandings, challenge their own views, and engage in critical thinking (Firer et al., 2021 ; Kerawalla et al., 2023 ). Through social interaction and dialogue, their individual cognitive processes are shaped, leading to a deeper understanding of the subject matter (Goldfarb Cohen et al., 2023 ; Asterhan & Schwarz, 2016 ; Ryu & Sandoval, 2015 ; Wegerif, 2007 ). In such cases, students work towards a common purpose as they shape each other’s achievements as well as their own. Therefore, a student’s achievement contributes to the achievements of others in the group (Stahl, 2015 ; Swiecki et al., 2020 ). As such, using technology in classrooms may also foster Exploratory Talk, lead to deeper understanding, and improve learning outcomes (Vandenberg et al., 2021 ), supporting more meaningful dialogue and empowering students (Kerawalla et al., 2023 ).

Individual Contributions to Group Dialogue

Group work entails a delicate balance between distinct individual contributions and the emergence of shared construction and critique of knowledge. Collaborative learning is structured by individuals who compare, critique, and revise ideas, yet they do so in a social context, and hence, each individual is also influenced by the collective (Mercer, 2008 ; Nussbaum, 2011 ). This interplay is reflected in fluctuating patterns of student participation in group discourse.

The dynamics between individual contributions and group discourse are particularly hard to study and operationalize. One way to interpret such social dynamics is through critical discourse analysis, linking individual and collective engagement (Ryu & Lombardi, 2015 ). To operationalize this interplay, some studies used visual discourse maps to understand how individual contributions to group discourse impact student learning (Nennig et al., 2023 ). One example is the use of social network analysis, by which we can study the relationships between social entities and the patterns between them (Marcos-García et al., 2015 ). The main assumption is that individuals who compose the network are influenced by its organizational structure. This analytical tool has been used to identify individual engagement within group learning in terms of how changes in student participation led to changes in roles and responsibilities (Ryu & Lombardi, 2015 ). Other studies used discourse maps “to visualize student discourse patterns beyond a summative approach of frequency counts, which can misrepresent the nature of students’ conversations” (Nennig et al., 2023 , p. 15). In this paper, we build on existing research that relies on epistemic network analysis (ENA) to operationalize patterns of group talk while attending to the dynamics between and among individuals and group discourse (Sweicki et al., 2020 ), focusing not on social ties but on patterns of epistemic engagement.

Operationalizing Group Discourse Through Epistemic Network Analysis

Quantitative ethnography is an emerging methodological approach grounded in the idea that systematically coding and segmenting qualitative data and moving back and forth between qualitative and quantitative aspects of the data can enrich and bolster qualitative arguments (Zörgő & Peters, 2023 ). Epistemic network analysis (ENA) is a key method for doing so by combining qualitative coding of concepts with quantitative network analysis and data visualization (Shaffer et al., 2009 ). It models the connections between coded concepts in a dataset. Specifically, coded data segments are analyzed for how often different concepts co-occur within a defined temporal window. These co-occurrences are used to generate network models that visualize the relationships between concepts. In this network visualization, a node represents each concept (Shaffer, 2017 ). The node’s size indicates how prevalent that concept is relative to others. The thickness of the lines connecting nodes (edges) shows how frequently the two concepts co-occur. The location of nodes also provides information—concepts that explain similarity in the data will cluster together. By quantifying and visualizing concept relationships and prevalence, ENA enables fine-grained comparison between different groups/conditions in the dataset. Researchers can numerically and visually inspect differences in how coded concepts are used and interconnected. In this way, ENA aids deep analysis of qualitative data like student discourse to find meaningful patterns.

Studies use ENA to analyze discourse, cultural, and cognitive patterns, primarily within the learning sciences, computer-supported collaborative learning, and learning analytics (Gašević et al., 2019 ; Shaffer, 2017 ; Swiecki et al., 2020 ), but ENA has also been applied to various fields from health work to urban planning (e.g., Bagley & Shaffer, 2015 ; Zörgő & Peters, 2023 ). Further, ENA is used to analyze different types of data, including student discourse, interviews, or essays (Wu et al., 2020 ; Yue et al., 2019 ; Zörgő & Peters, 2019 ). ENA is a useful tool for discourse analysis, offering more insight into close qualitative (sociocultural) discourse analysis than simpler coding methods by generating a network model that visualizes and quantifies the developing connections between elements in discourse, while also offering summative statistics (Csanadi et al., 2018 ; Bressler et al., 2019 ; Hennessey et al., 2024 ; Nguyen, 2022 ). ENA is particularly conducive to operationalizing group dialogue as it allows extracting and modeling individual and collaborative processes activated during collaboration activities to identify properties relevant to the network’s content (Rupp et al., 2010 ; Swiecki et al., 2020 ). A key advantage of ENA in this context is that it is sensitive to the temporal structure of dialogue (Siebert-Evenstone et al., 2017 ). That is, it offers a structured and quantitative method that allows tracking not only which talk moves were used, but also the connections between these talk moves over time. Critically, such analyses can be pursued both at the group level, and in order to unpack individual contributions to group dialogue (Swiecki et al., 2020 ). In addition, ENA can be integrated with social network analysis, or other tools, to account for both epistemic and social components of collaborative work (Gašević et al., 2019 ; Hod et al., 2020 ). ENA can also be used to unpack salient aspects of group communication by providing actionable insights for educators and enhancing students’ self-reflection during collaborative team learning (Zhao et al., 2024 ).

The Current Study

In this study, we relied on the unique affordances offered by ENA to study group dialogue. To this end, we coded five basic communicative acts (agree, disagree, develop-self, develop-other, and explain) with the goal of identifying group patterns of discourse based on the co-occurrence of the same set of basic codes at the group and individual level. As in previous studies, we utilized ENA to uncover connections within the data that were not detectable by conventional coding-and-counting analyses (Csanadi et al., 2018 ), and more specifically, highlighting the frequent connections between different types of talk students made as they worked collaboratively (Vandernberg et al., 2021 ). This was done by showcasing the structure of discourse analysis networks (focusing on Exploratory Talk) in terms of temporal co-occurrence, measuring those patterns, examining individuals’ contribution to the group level network, and interpreting the differences between the patterns observed in the network visualizations.

Critically, this paper adds a few important contributions to existing work that relies on ENA to analyze group dialogue. First, though various ENA studies have examined group work in general (Bressler et al., 2019 ; Csanadi et al., 2018 ; Swiecki et al., 2020 ) and even Exploratory Talk specifically (Vandernberg et al., 2021 ), we aimed to highlight the importance of connections between the same basic set of communicative acts . Thus, our analyses relied on common speech acts pursued across all groups, while focusing on the different structure of connections, rather than their overall frequency. Second, this analysis was pursued in order to highlight the emergence of disagreement and students’ capacity to take the perspective of a position different from their own. Finally, we strived to identify whether the types of productive disagreement characteristic of Exploratory Talk relate to individual contributions to group discourse. With these goals in mind, our research questions were as follows: (1) What are some ways in which epistemic network analysis can be used to model talk orientations based on the Exploratory Talk framework? (2) How do these relate to students’ engagement with the perspective of others? (3) What role can ENA play in identifying the interplay of discourse patterns at the individual and group level?

Context and Methods

Participants ( n  = 60, 67% female, 33% male) were first-year students in an undergraduate Introduction to Psychology course in a large research university. Participants consisted of 12 groups of five students that completed all course tasks and participated in all three group tasks. The course included three synchronous 90-min collaborative online tasks in groups of five students (see Dishon et al., 2023  for more details on the course design). Group discourse was conducted in the chat application on the Moodle platform that accompanied the course. In these tasks, groups were asked to evaluate accounts of psychological evidence from popular sources and to formulate more scientifically rigorous ways to study these phenomena. In each task, students discussed a popular information source (a newspaper piece, a TED talk, and a podcast) about psychological research. The information sources were published a week before the task, and the questions on these sources were uploaded to the course’s Moodle at the beginning of the class time. Students then had 90 min to discuss the evidence and to upload a one-page-long collaborative response to the task at the end of the class.

In a previous paper (Dishon et al., 2023 ), we examined students’ evolving epistemological practices for evaluating psychological evidence in pre- and post-assessments. Here, our focus is on the dynamics of group talk during group tasks. Types of group dialogue were operationalized according to the Exploratory Talk framework (Mercer, 2007 ), which distinguishes between three prototypical talk orientations: Cumulative Talk , characterized by building positively yet uncritically on others’ ideas; Disputational Talk , which is rife with disagreement and lacking integration of interlocutors’ contributions; and Exploratory Talk , where students engage critically yet constructively with group members’ ideas. To this end, we transcribed and coded student discourse across all groups and tasks according to a set of basic communicative acts (agree, disagree, develop-self, develop-other, explain; see Table  1 ). These acts were chosen to reflect the basic tenets of the various dynamics of interaction explored in the Exploratory Talk framework. Critically, we intentionally focused on basic communicative acts, which we expected to be common across groups, striving to distinguish between groups according to the connections between codes (Bouton & Asterhan, 2023 ). All data was coded by two different coders (the second and third authors), and differences were resolved using social moderation (Herrenkohl & Cornelius, 2013 ). Then, using ENA, we identified different groups’ patterns of discourse on the basis of the co-occurrence of these codes at the group and individual level. The moving stanza window method was used to assess and analyze the coordination of individuals within their groups and the broader groups themselves, providing insights into the discourse connections (Siebert-Evenstone et al., 2017 ). During coding, we identified to which previous turn each utterance responded throughout our complete dataset. On the basis of this analysis, we chose the stanza window size of 7, which reflected the common distance between a given utterance and its earliest referent (Ruis et al.,  2019 ). After constructing and analyzing the epistemic networks, we returned to examine these models in light of our qualitative data, which allowed us to better understand the interplay between epistemic networks and students’ actual discourse.

Our findings are structured according to our three research questions: (1) relying on the co-occurrence of the same set of talk moves to distinguish between different talk orientations; (2) refining the operationalization and conceptualization of Exploratory Talk by attending to the complexity of taking the perspectives of others, and distinguishing two variations of Exploratory Talk—self-oriented and other-oriented Exploratory Talk; (3) identifying different dynamics of interplay between individual contributions and group talk patterns, and their interplay with the above analyses.

To do so, we introduce the epistemic networks of four different groups. These groups were purposefully chosen as they are particularly salient examples of the four types of talk orientation we identified in our data (as detailed in findings 1 and 2). In this respect, these groups are not necessarily representative of the class as a whole but rather serve as polar cases (Yin, 2014 ). Hence, though these group dynamics are not generalizable, they allow us to bring into focus theoretical relationships that may apply to other contexts (Eisenhart, 2009 ).

To illustrate the differences between the various talk orientations, we complement the analysis of their epistemic networks with qualitative examples from the various groups’ work. To make this easier to follow, we have opted to offer excerpts from the same episode across the different groups. This episode took place during the third and last group task. In this assignment, participants were tasked with listening to a podcast (Spiegel & Miller, 2017 ) discussing various approaches to psychotherapy: psychodynamic, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and mindfulness. Their objective was to evaluate a claim made by one of the podcast’s interviewees, who argued that psychodynamic therapy is “deeper” than the other two approaches. This task was designed to elicit engagement around a poorly defined concept, with the aim of emphasizing the necessity of establishing precise operational definitions for psychological concepts. As we will demonstrate, this prompted participants to grapple with the interpretation of “depth” and how it could be empirically investigated. The ensuing excerpts showcase the efforts of each group to reach a consensus on the definition of depth and how they reflected the diverging dynamics of group interaction.

Finding 1: ENA as a Means of Modeling Different Talk Orientations—Cumulative vs Disputational Talk

Our first findings explore the potential use of ENA to model different talk orientations. Specifically, we focus on groups A and B, as instantiations of Cumulative and Disputational Talk. As can be seen in Fig.  1 , group A’s (left, yellow) discourse revolved around agreement , which was connected to developing one’s or developing other’s ideas, and to explaining ideas already introduced. In this respect, it is a rather clear manifestation of Cumulative Talk in which participants build on each other’s ideas, yet they do so while avoiding disagreement. In comparison, although group B members (Fig.  1 , right, purple) also engage in agree and develop-other moves, the network is characterized by higher levels of disagreement. More importantly, as seen in the difference graph (Fig.  1 , center), both agreeing and disagreeing are connected to explain moves, meaning that they do not lead to the development of new ideas, but rather to the reiteration and clarification of ideas discussed earlier. Moreover, disagreements are not connected to either developing one’s own ideas or those of others. Thus, we contend that attention to the connections between the different communicative acts is central to distinguishing the various patterns of group talk in ways that are not apparent from merely counting the relative frequency of different codes.

Group A—Cumulative (left, yellow), group B—Disputational (right, purple), and difference graph (center)

These differences can be illustrated by comparing the groups’ discourse in the aforementioned episode. Group B’s excerpt (Table  2 ) starts with their decision to define the concept of depth in order to compare the different therapeutic approaches. Karen starts by offering one definition (breadth and influence over time). Tammy disagrees and offers an alternative definition centered on depth as introspection. Jonathan agrees with Tammy, arguing that their earlier answers focused on such a definition of depth (turns 5–6). Shelly then offers an argument concerning the relation between depth and efficiency, followed by Carolin’s redefinition of depth (turn 8). Although Carolin’s definition is similar to Tammy’s in turn 4, neither of them draws explicit connections between the two options. This tendency to disagree without explicitly engaging with each other’s ideas continues in turns 10–12, in which group members offer diverging ideas concerning the interplay between depth and efficiency. We stress that although the different contributions are quite thoughtful, they lack the co-construction of knowledge characteristic of Exploratory Talk. Tellingly, the discussion is summarized by Carolin in turn 14 by shifting the focus to the need to measure efficiency in a valid and reliable experiment without striving to integrate the different views.

Compare this to group A’s discussion on the same topic (Table  3 ), which starts with Naomi raising the question of how depth is defined (turns 1, 3). As in group B, this leads to various definitions of depth, yet here they rather quickly coalesce around the notion of depth as length and “digging deeper.” Though Daniel seems hesitant at first (turns 4, 6), the other members seem to reiterate each other’s ideas, and she comes around to the notion of depth as in-depth engagement with the sources of thoughts (turn 12). The circularity of this definition is reflective of the overall dynamics of the group’s work, which focuses on identifying broad agreements. In the next section, we will illustrate how groups that engaged in Exploratory Talk took a different route.

Finding 2: Identifying Different Types of Exploratory Talk

Our second finding focuses on groups that engaged in Exploratory Talk, identifying different variations of Exploratory Talk by examining connections between communicative acts. To this end, we compare the dialogue of groups C and D, contrasting the two groups in terms of whose ideas they developed—their own ideas or those of others.

First, group C (Fig.  2 , right, red), was characterized by high levels of disagreement . Such disagreements were not connected solely to explain or develop-self , but also to developing others ’ ideas and to agreements . This dynamic aligns with the Exploratory Talk orientation in which disagreements are part of shared knowledge building (Table  4 ).

Two modes of Exploratory Talk: group D (left, green) and group C (right, red) and difference graph (center)

This excerpt begins with Dan seeking to clarify expectations for the nature of the dialogue. Then, students are engaged in a collaborative discussion where they build on each other’s ideas. For example, Ariel extends Sarah’s initial response by providing an explanation of how Sarah’s claim (turn 2) can be viewed from a Freudian viewpoint (turn 3). Similarly, in turn 5, Sharon adds to Sarah’s view by agreeing on the importance of considering different personalities in psychological treatments. Both Sarah and Sharon reference each other’s statements in an effort to develop their own arguments. Critically, group members directly acknowledge and develop each other’s ideas when agreeing and disagreeing. Dan makes a synthesis according to which depth equals the effectiveness of treatment or how suitable it is for each individual (turn 6). Therefore, according to Dan, they reject the claim given in the task prompt. However, Ariel (turn 7) and Sarah (turn 8) disagree with Dan as they argue that the claim is sometimes correct and sometimes not. Yet, Dan clarifies (turn 10) why their assertion that treatment depends on an individual, in fact, rejects the original claim, as it does not categorically agree that one treatment is deeper than the others. Thus, group members engage with and challenge the reasons other group members offer for their arguments, rather than sidestepping disagreements as in the case of group B above and group D below.

Group D also represents a form of Exploratory Talk; however, it is more self-oriented. As seen in Table  5 , group members try to reach a definition of the term “depth,” by offering various interpretations, such as the “connection between the therapist and the patient” (turn 2), “subconscious” (turn 4), “past events” (turn 5), and addressing problems (turn 7). The group struggles to identify the precise definition, until Sam points out that “we don’t have a precise definition of depth, so we are the ones defining it” (turn 9). Thus, group D develops the different positions raised through dialogue, but mostly by developing their own ideas in light of others’ opposing views, rather than directly engaging with group members’ perspectives.

Hence, we suggest this could be viewed as a form of self-oriented Exploratory Talk, as disagreements led to the development of new ideas, but these were mostly develop-self rather than develop-other (Fig.  2 , center).

Finding 3: Using ENA to Model Individual Contributions to Group Discourse

Finally, we suggest that ENA could be used to model the diverse contribution patterns of individuals to group discourse. To illustrate this, we first compare individual contributions in groups C and D, which engaged in different forms of Exploratory Talk. Then, we compare these to individual talk patterns in group A’s cumulative discourse.

We begin with group C, which engaged in other-oriented Exploratory Talk . Comparing the epistemic networks of Sarah and Ariel (Fig.  3 ), we can see that Sarah’s discourse is characterized by more connections between explain , agree , and develop-self/other , while Ariel performs more agree-disagree while developing self/others . When we compare these to the overall group network (Fig.  2 ), we can tease out each group member’s relative contribution to the emergence of Exploratory Talk . Ariel promotes group discourse by challenging others and requiring them to hone their ideas (i.e., an “instigator”), while Sarah’s contributions center on clarifying and developing her own and others’ ideas (a “connector”). Accounting for such individual patterns in group work is important for two key reasons: First, it goes beyond group level assessment and identifies the character of individual contributions. Second, it allows developing a more refined understanding of different ways in which individual talk patterns relate to group work.

Epistemic networks of Ariel (left, red) and Sarah (right, green) (group C) and difference graph (center)

This second point becomes clearer when comparing the above networks to those of two participants in group D, characterized by self-oriented Exploratory Talk . The epistemic networks of Anna and Iris offer a starker contrast (Fig.  4 ), as Anna mostly performs develop-self moves connected to agreements and explanations , while Iris’s network is characterized by more disagreements and develop-other. When we compare these to the overall group network (Fig.  2 ), we can identify individuals’ relative contributions. Namely, Iris promotes group discourse by challenging other group members’ ideas while also developing them—functioning as an “instigator” that moves group discourse forward—whereas Anna’s contributions center on clarifying others’ ideas and developing her own—connecting the different contributions of group members to a more cohesive outcome. Here, it is critical to remember that these individual networks emerged during group talk and thus should not be attributed simply to individual students, but rather to their dynamic interaction with their peers. Thus, in this case, we highlight how Anna’s and Iris’s epistemic networks, which could be broadly described as more disputational (Iris) and cumulative (Anna), coalesce into the group’s overall Exploratory Talk orientation.

Epistemic networks of Anna (left, blue) and Iris (right, orange) (group D) and difference graph (center)

Finally, we can compare these dynamics to group A (Fig.  5 ), whose discourse was cumulative. In this case, Leah’s epistemic network (right, green) is characterized by more connections between explain , agree , and develop-self and other , whereas Michael engages in more disagreements , which are connected to agreements and develop-self . Thus, in contrast to group D, here, disagreements are less frequently connected to developing others’ ideas, as reflected in the group’s overall epistemic network (Fig.  1 ). Instead, developing others’ mainly stems from agreements. Perhaps it is this lack of connection between disagreements and the development of others’ ideas—instigations and connections—that prevents the group’s discourse from developing into Exploratory Talk.

Epistemic networks of Michael (left, pink) and Leah (right, green) (group A) and difference graph (center)

Operationalizing and evaluating group talk is a complex yet vital endeavor (Hennessy et al., 2024 ; Mercer et al., 2019 ; Swiecki et al., 2020 ). This study joins existing work that uses ENA to model group discourse (e.g., Bressler et al., 2019 ; Csanadi et al., 2018 ; Nguyen, 2022 ; Vandenberg et al., 2021 ), while offering three distinct contributions: (1) a novel approach to modeling different talk orientations (Cumulative, Disputational, Exploratory) by relying on ENA to identify the frequency of co-occurrence of the same small set of basic communicative acts; (2) refining the theoretical conceptualization of Exploratory Talk by attending individuals tendency to engage with the perspective of others, suggesting two sub-variations ( self-oriented and other-oriented Exploratory Talk ); (3) using ENA to model the interplay between individual contributions and group discourse.

With respect to the three talk orientations, we illustrated that Cumulative Talk could be characterized by frequent connections between agreements and developing one’s and others’ ideas, while Disputational Talk is reflected in frequent connections between disagreeing and explaining (rather than developing) one’s ideas. Further, in its ideal version, Exploratory Talk implies disagreements among group members that co-occur with developing others’ ideas. However, the rarity of such instances in our own data, supported by the complexity of high levels of perspective taking (Goldfarb Cohen et al., 2023 ; Gehlbach & Mu, 2023 ), stresses the importance of attending to another variation of Exploratory Talk in which disagreements are used to develop one’s own thinking rather than others’.

These two models represent different levels of shared meaning making in Exploratory Talk, distinguishing between self-oriented Exploratory Talk and other-oriented Exploratory Talk . The former describes a more basic level in which disagreement led individuals to refine and reconsider their own position, while the latter is a more developed case in which individuals also develop others’ ideas. Critically, self-oriented Exploratory Talk might serve as a stepping stone towards the more complex process of developing others’ ideas in light of disagreements. Yet, our argument is that this kind of talk is invaluable in itself, as it could be the case that even when students struggle to develop their interlocutors’ ideas, they are able to enrich each other’s thinking in dialogue by exploring different ways through which they could invite their peers to view the matter at hand from different perspectives, all of which are intended to support their original line of argumentation (Goldfarb Cohen et al., 2023 ). Put differently, one key aspect of both self and other-oriented Exploratory Talk is the ability to engage in the process of perspective taking, either by explaining one’s own perspective or by developing others’ perspectives, by challenging or building on their ideas.

Lastly, we argue that ENA could operationalize individual contribution to group dialogue. This is based on the assumption that individual engagement leads to changes in collective engagement, and conversely, changes in collective engagement shape individual engagement (Mercer, 2008 ; Ryu & Lombardi, 2015 ; Swiecki et al., 2020 ). Using ENA, we were able to identify how individuals’ patterns could explain the emergence of Exploratory Talk, or lack thereof. First, with respect to the two groups that engaged in Exploratory Talk, we illustrated how Exploratory Talk emerged in light of two dominant group members, an “instigator,” who engaged mainly in Disputational Talk—challenging other group members’ ideas and requiring them to hone their ideas—and a “connector,” whose contributions were more cumulative in nature—clarifying and developing her own and other’s ideas. Yet, the combination of these two networks served to support the emergence of Exploratory Talk at the group level. Comparing this to a group that engaged in Cumulative Talk, we can see that the main distinction was that we could not find such contrasting dynamics in which a group member was disputational enough to elicit engagement with disagreement at the group level that was concurrently connected to the development of ideas (either one’s own or others’).

Conclusions and Caveats

To briefly summarize, this study offers three key findings. First, we found that ENA could model engagement with disagreement by identifying diverging patterns of co-occurrence of communicative acts—Cumulative Talk was associated with connections between agreements and developing ideas, whereas Disputational Talk exhibited more frequent connections between disagreements and explanations. Second, ENA could be used to refine theoretical conceptualizations of engagement with disagreement. Specifically, we distinguished between self-oriented Exploratory Talk , in which disagreement led individuals to refine and reconsider their own position, and other-oriented Exploratory Talk , which includes more in-depth engagement with the ideas of others. Third, ENA allows examining the interplay between individual and group networks: we found that groups engaging in Exploratory Talk included an “instigator”—an individual that challenged others without dominating the group’s work—and a “connector”—a group member that clarified and developed ideas, thus allowing disagreement to be connected to the development of new ideas.

Our small data set and theoretically informed choice of groups imply that this is intended to be an initial “proof of concept” for the use of ENA to explore this interplay, which could serve as a basis for future inquiries into different types of group talk, how they can be operationalized via ENA or other methods, and how they relate to individual contributions. In future research, it may be insightful to explore whether these observed patterns persist when applying ordered network analysis (ONA). ONA is a method that models the sequential aspect of collaborative problem-solving, by attending not only to connections between utterances but also to their order (Tan et al., 2022 ). With respect to our study, employing ONA could reveal distinct trajectories through which the sequence of certain communicative acts shapes group discourse.

While these suggest that ENA could model engagement with disagreement in dialogue, we wish to conclude by highlighting a key challenge in the process of developing the use of ENA to larger bodies of data. Namely, attending to the different patterns of relationships we described above requires coding and modeling the overall patterns or groupwork, the interplay between various levels of epistemic networks (individual and group), and closing the interpretive loop by examining both of these with respect to qualitative data. While we hope that this study could serve as a first step towards more robust comparisons between groups across large data sets, we highlight the importance of such time intensive and exploratory investigations as an initial step prior to their application to larger data sets. Specifically, the above analyses require attention to, and careful coordination and interpretation of, three simultaneous levels of connections: between the data and qualitative coding, between the codes themselves in each network, and between individual and group level networks. As such, they could be theoretically rich, but are in danger of being particularly context-specific, and more easily shaped by idiosyncratic characteristics of a given task, setting, or individuals. Thus, ENA’s capacity to facilitate both in-depth quantitative ethnographies and large-scale comparisons that rely, at least partially, on automatic coding and analysis demands particular vigilance with respect to the contextual factors shaping epistemic networks and careful interpretive alignment.

Alexander, R. J. (2017). Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk (5th ed.). Dialogos.Rapanta, C., &.

Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2016). Argumentation for learning: Well-trodden paths and unexplored territories. Educational Psychologist, 51 (2), 164–187.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bagley, E., & Shaffer, D. W. (2015). Learning in an urban and regional planning practicum: The view from educational ethnography. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 26 (4), 369–393.

Google Scholar  

Bouton, E., & Asterhan, C. S. (2023). In pursuit of a more unified method to measuring classroom dialogue: The dialogue elements to compound constructs approach. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 40 , 100717.

Bressler, D. M., Bodzin, A. M., Eagan, B., & Tabatabai, S. (2019). Using epistemic network analysis to examine discourse and scientific practice during a collaborative game. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28 , 553–566.

Csanadi, A., Eagan, B., Kollar, I., Shaffer, D. W., & Fischer, F. (2018). When coding-and-counting is not enough: Using epistemic network analysis (ENA) to analyze verbal data in CSCL research. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13 , 419–438.

Cui, R., & Teo, P. (2021). Dialogic education for classroom teaching: A critical review. Language and Education, 35 (3), 187–203.

Dishon, G. (2018). Citizenship education through the pragmatist lens of habit. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 52 (3), 483–497.

Dishon, G., Barzilai, S., & Verissimo Yanai, J. (2023). Grasping psychological evidence: Integrating evidentiary practices in psychology instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 42 (1), 56–91.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2023.2248641

Eisenhart, M. (2009). Generalization from qualitative inquiry. In K. Ercikan & W. M. Roth (Eds.), Generalizaing from educational research beyond qualitative and quantitative polarization (pp. 51–66). NY Routledge.

Felton, M. K. (2022). Learning to argue through dialogue: A review of instructional approaches. Educational Psychology Review, 34 (2), 477–509.

Firer, E., Slakmon, B., Dishon, G., & Schwarz, B. B. (2021). Quality of dialogue and emotion regulation in contentious discussions in higher education. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 30 , 100535.

Gašević, D., Joksimović, S., Eagan, B. R., & Shaffer, D. W. (2019). SENS: Network analytics to combine social and cognitive perspectives of collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 92 , 562–577.

Gehlbach, H., & Mu, N. (2023). How we understand others: A theory of how social perspective taking unfolds. Review of General Psychology, 27 (3), 282–302.

Goldfarb Cohen, S., Lavi, A. Z., Wagner-Lebel, O., & Dishon, G. (2023). Your shoes or mine? Examining perspective taking in social interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 42 , 100755.

Hennessy, S., Bouton, E., & Asterhan, C. (2024). Mixing methods for analysing classroom dialogue: Coding and beyond. In S. Kelly (Ed.), Research Handbook on Classroom Observation . Edward Edgar Publishing.

Herrenkohl, L. R., & Cornelius, L. (2013). Investigating elementary students’ scientific and historical argumentation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22 (3), 413–461.

Hod, Y., Katz, S., & Eagan, B. (2020). Refining qualitative ethnographies using epistemic network analysis: A study of socioemotional learning dimensions in a humanistic knowledge building community. Computers & Education, 156 , 103943.

Howe, C., & Abedin, M. (2013). Classroom dialogue: A systematic review across four decades of research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43 , 325–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013.786024

Kerawalla, L., Chudasama, M., & Messer, D. J. (2023). “We can make our words powerful”: Students’ perspectives about using Talk Factory, a classroom technology to support exploratory talk. English in Education, 57 (1), 28–44.

Kim, H. Y., LaRusso, M. D., Hsin, L. B., Harbaugh, A. G., Selman, R. L., & Snow, C. E. (2018). Social perspective-taking performance: Construct, measurement, and relations with academic performance and engagement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 57 , 24–41.

Lefstein, A., Snell, J., & Israeli, M. (2015). From moves to sequences: Expanding the unit of analysis in the study of classroom discourse. British Educational Research Journal, 41 (5), 866–885.

Major, L., Warwick, P., Rasmussen, I., Ludvigsen, S., & Cook, V. (2018). Classroom dialogue and digital technologies: A scoping review. International Journal of Educational Research . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9701-y

Marcos-García, J.-A., Martínez-Monés, A., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2015). Despro: A method based on roles to provide collaboration analysis support adapted to the participants in CSCL situations. Computers & Education, 82 , 335–353.

Mercer, N. (2007). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 1 (2), 137–168.

Mercer, N. (2008). Talk and the development of reasoning and understanding. Human Development, 51 (1), 90–100.

Mercer, N., Hennessy, S., & Warwick, P. (2019). Dialogue, thinking together and digital technology in the classroom: Some educational implications of a continuing line of inquiry. International Journal of Educational Research, 97 , 187–199.

Nennig, H. T., States, N. E., Montgomery, M. T., Spurgeon, S. G., & Cole, R. S. (2023). Student interaction discourse moves: Characterizing and visualizing student discourse patterns. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 5 (1), 2.

Newton, M. H., & Zeidler, D. L. (2020). Developing socioscientific perspective taking. International Journal of Science Education, 42 (8), 1302–1319.

Nguyen, H. (2022). Exploring group discussion with conversational agents using epistemic network analysis. In  Advances in Quantitative Ethnography: Third International Conference, ICQE 2021, Virtual Event, November 6–11, 2021, Proceedings 3  (pp. 378–394). Springer International Publishing.

Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46 , 84–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.558816

Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S., Clarke, S. N., & Schantz, F. (2018). Next generation research in dialogic learning. In G. E. Hall, L. E. Quinn, & D. M. Gollnick (Eds.), Wiley handbook of teaching and learning (pp. 323–338). Wiley.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Ruis, A. R., Siebert-Evenstone, A. L., Pozen, R., Eagan, B., & Shaffer, D. W. (2019). Finding common ground: A method for measuring recent temporal context in analyses of complex, collaborative thinking. In Lund, K. Niccolai, G., Lavoué, E., Hmelo-Silver, C., Gwon, G. & Baker, M. (Eds.) A Wide Lens: Combining Embodied, Enactive, Extended, and Embedded Learning in Collaborative Settings: 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL), I (pp.136–143).

Rupp, A. A., Gushta, M., Mislevy, R. J., & Shaffer, D. W. (2010). Evidence-centered design of epistemic games: Measurement principles for complex learning environments. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8 (4), Retrieved from https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/view/1623 .

Ryu, S., & Lombardi, D. (2015). Coding classroom interactions for collective and individual engagement. Educational Psychologist, 50 (1), 70–83.

Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2015). The influence of group dynamics on collaborative scientific argumentation. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11 (2), 335–351.

Shaffer, D. W., Hatfield, D., Svarovsky, G. N., Nash, P., Nulty, A., Bagley, E., ... & Mislevy, R. (2009). Epistemic network analysis: A prototype for 21st-century assessment of learning. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1 (2), 33–53.

Shaffer, D. W. (2017). Quantitative ethnography . Cathcart Press.

Siebert-Evenstone, A. L., Arastoopour Irgens, G., Collier, W., Swiecki, Z., Ruis, A. R., & Williamson Shaffer, D. (2017). In search of conversational grain size Modeling semantic structure using moving stanza windows. Journal of Learning Analytics, 4 (3), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2017.43.7

Slakmon, B., & Schwarz, B. B. (2019). Deliberative emotional talk. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 14 , 185–217.

Spiegel, A., & Miller, L. (2017). The secret history of thoughts [Audio podcast episode]. Invisibilia. https://www.npr.org/programs/invisibilia/375927143/the-secret-history-of-thoughts

Stahl, G. (2015). A decade of CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10 , 337–344.

Swiecki, Z., Ruis, A. R., Farrell, C., & Shaffer, D. W. (2020). Assessing individual contributions to collaborative problem solving: A network analysis approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 104 , 105876.

Tan, Y., Ruis, A. R., Marquart, C., Cai, Z., Knowles, M. A., & Shaffer, D. W. (2022). Ordered network analysis. International Conference on Quantitative Ethnography (pp. 101–116). Springer Nature Switzerland: Cham.

Vandenberg, J., Zakaria, Z., Tsan, J., Iwanski, A., Lynch, C., Boyer, K. E., & Wiebe, E. (2021). Prompting collaborative and exploratory discourse: An epistemic network analysis study. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 16 (3), 339–366.

Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic education and technology: Expanding the space of learning (Vol. 7). Springer, London.

Wu, L., Liu, Q., Mao, G., & Zhang, S. (2020). Using epistemic network analysis and self-reported reflections to explore students’ metacognition differences in collaborative learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 82 , 101913.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.

Yue, L., Hu, Y., & Xiao, J. (2019). Applying epistemic network analysis to explore the application of teaching assistant software in classroom learning. In Advances in Quantitative Ethnography: First International Conference, ICQE 2019, Madison, WI, USA, October 20–22, 2019, Proceedings 1 (pp. 349–357). Springer International Publishing.

Zhao, L., Echeverria, V., Swiecki, Z., Yan, L., Alfredo, R., Li, X., & Martinez-Maldonado, R. (2024). Epistemic network analysis for end-users Closing the loop in the context of multimodal analytics for collaborative team learning. In Proceedings of the 14th Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference,  90–100.

Zörgő, S., & Peters, G. J. Y. (2019). Epistemic network analysis for semi-structured interviews and other continuous narratives: Challenges and insights. In Advances in Quantitative Ethnography: First International Conference , ICQE 2019, Madison, WI, USA, October 20–22, 2019, Proceedings 1 (pp. 267–277). Springer International Publishing.

Zörgő, S., & Peters, G. J. (2023). Using the reproducible open coding kit & epistemic network analysis to model qualitative data. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, 11 (1), 2119144.

Download references

Open access funding provided by Ben-Gurion University. This work was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant number 451/20).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel

Shai Goldfarb Cohen, Johnatan Verissimo Yanai & Gideon Dishon

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception, design, and data analysis. Material preparation and data collection were performed by Johnatan Verissimo Yanai and Gideon Dishon. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Shai Goldfarb Cohen, and all authors commented on versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shai Goldfarb Cohen .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

Approval was obtained from the ethics committee of Tel Aviv University. The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Goldfarb Cohen, S., Yanai, J.V. & Dishon, G. Modeling Group Discourse with Epistemic Network Analysis: Unpacking Connections, Perspectives, and Individual Contributions. J Sci Educ Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-024-10139-3

Download citation

Accepted : 16 July 2024

Published : 31 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-024-10139-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Collaborative learning
• Epistemic network analysis
• Exploratory Talk
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research