The effect of verifying praise on self-esteem and belonging in groups. Gajraj, K

Kieran Gajraj PSY1206

1

The effect of verifying praise on self-esteem and belonging in groups Gajraj, K.

Abstract

Different types of praise are received in different ways. The effect that praise will have depends

not only on its source and attributions, but also whether such praise goes toward verifying one’s

concept of self. In the present study, praise type (verifying or non-verifying) and group values

(‘fun-loving’ or ‘studious’) were experimentally manipulated. The findings show a significant

positive impact on the self-esteem and sense of belonging in the ‘fun-loving’ group. However,

no significant effect was measured on that of the ‘studious’ group. This positive response to

group praise is accounted for by affirmation of values of the group’s social identity and the

individual’s desire for self-verification.

The effect of verifying praise on self-esteem and belonging in groups

Framing

Process-focussed praise, i.e. “you did that well” has been shown to be a much better motivator

for children than person-focussed praise such as “you’re a good boy”, with even positive

feedback creating vulnerability (Kamins & Dweck, 1999). Furthermore, studies have shown

that praise directed at a child’s effort is a better motivator than praise directed at a child’s

ability. If a child scores highly on a test, it is found that ability-based praise e.g. “you’re really

clever” results in less task persistence, enjoyment and performance upon failure than those

receiving effort-based praise (“you’ve worked really hard”) (Mueller & Dweck, 1998). Those

praised for their ability saw this (intelligence) as a fixed trait, leading to more ‘helpless’

responses upon failure. Those praised for their effort showed greater resilience to failure – the

belief that ability is not fixed contributed to preserving motivation.

This shows, therefore, that our perception of our abilities has a strong impact on our motivation.

If we believe we are able to do something, we spend more time and effort trying to achieve this

goal. If we arrive at a task with low perceived competence, we are less motivated. Generic

language has been shown to be detrimental to performance as it implies societal norms to which

we compare ourselves. That is, a boy approaching a task he has been told girls in general are


2

better at (generic), will show lower motivation than if he has been told an individual is good at

it (non-generic) (Cimpian et al., 2007).

Source

The efficacy of praise is not only affected by its delivery but also by its source. When in groups,

people respond less readily and more defensively to criticism from an outside source than from

the same criticism from an inside group member (Hornsey et al., 2002). This is because we

perceive ourselves differently across a personal-vs-social identity continuum, dependent on

salience (Tafjel & Turner, 1986). That is, as individuals we identify as individuals, and in

groups we identify as a group. Thus, out-group criticism can be viewed as threatening to the

self, resulting in a more defensive response. Moreover, not only was the source of the praise

significant in criticism perception, but also its attribution. Criticism from an out-group source

attributing failure to internal causes (failure within the group) was found to be far more

effective at stimulating behaviour change than when attributed to external causes (e.g.

circumstances) (Rabinovich et al., 2012). This is a result of the group’s desire to preserve

positive self-image as perceived by outsiders. (Rabinovich & Morton, 2010; Ariyanto,

Hornsey, Gallois, 2006; Hornsey, 2005). In-group criticism was shown to have no significant

effect regardless of its attributions, as such internal criticism does not jeopardise the group’s

external image. Thus, group-image is important in our response to criticism and praise – we

modify our behaviour in response in order to preserve a positive self-image (whether

individually, or as a group).

However, the exact nature of this ‘positive image’ can vary between individuals and between

groups. How exactly do we view ourselves? People from varying backgrounds will hold

different centric values affecting the outcome of praise. What I consider to be a key value,

another may not. How we view ourselves, and what values and attributes we use to define

ourselves affect our relationship to praise – this concept discussed below is referred to as self-

verification theory.

Self-verification Theory

The desire for others to verify our existing perspectives, self-verification, underpins much of

our behaviour and interactions with one another. In a social setting, individuals are motivated

to seek feedback that verifies their self-concept (Swann, 1990). This has been attributed to a


3

desire for predictability and control. Firstly, it confirms our self-concept to be sensible, and

secondly, reassures us that others’ expectations of us are realistic (Swann, Stein-Seroussi, &

Giesler, 1992).

Subsequent research has shown that as part of the process of self-verification, we each engage

in self-promotion; emphasizing qualities and traits that we value highly in our concept of ‘self’

to ensure others agree with these claims (Swann, 2005). That is, we will ‘sell’ the version of

ourselves to others that most closely matches our self-concept. Given a choice, we will

surround ourselves with other people that confirm our core-values than those who fail to, even

if such verification is less than positive (Chen, Chen & Shaw, 2004). It has been shown that

individuals are even willing to entertain negative feedback about themselves provided it is

verifying, leaning toward supporting their self-concept (Swann & Bosson 2010).

In groups, self-verification continues to play a key role. Individual members of a group show

salience with group identity, preferring interaction partners whose descriptions of the group as

a whole were verifying, and in line with the values of the group (Chen, English, Peng, 2006).

Further research has shown that an individual member of a group’s individual image of self is

second to the identity of the group. Individuals react positively to verifying descriptions of their

group, even if these descriptions do not extend to the individual themselves (Gomez et al.

2009).

Whilst the effects of criticism and verifying praise are well documented, little research has

been conducted into the effects of non-verifying praise on groups. This paper attempts to

address two research questions arising from the above topic. We are aware of the positive

impact of verifying praise on a group’s self-esteem, though (i) how does non-verifying praise

affect group members’ self-esteem? and (ii) how does non-verifying praise affect a sense of

connection within the group? According to Dr Barreto, (Barreto et al., 2010) contextually

inappropriate miscategorisation of an individual leads to more negative self-evaluations by the

individual. When the key elements of the ‘self’ are apparently ignored, self-evaluations were

impaired.

We would hypothesise, then, that (i) non-verifying (vs verifying) praise will result in a lower

group-based self-esteem among target group members and (ii) non-verifying (vs verifying)

praise will result in a weaker sense of connection within the group.


4

Method

Participants and design

One hundred and seventy-nine first year university students (156 female, 22 male, 1 undefined)

with a mean age of 18.79 years (SD = 2.52) participated volunatarily in the study. Participants

were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 (group values: responsible or fun) x 2

(type of praise: for being responsible or fun) between-subject design. The dependent variables

measured were group-based self-esteem, and connection within the target group in the form of

a scored 7-item response scale (see appendices).

Procedure and measures

Participants were recruited from within a first year Psychology lecture and were asked to read

a text introduced as an article printed in the ‘Journal of Higher Education’. In order to

manipulate value centrality, the text introduced the results of a survey that suggested that either

(i) being responsible and studious or (ii) being fun-loving was central to being a student. As a

manipulation check measure, participants at this point undertook a short survey with five items

measuring the centrality of being responsible or studious and four items measuring centrality

of being fun-loving. Each item was measured on a seven item response scale from ‘1 – strongly

disagree’ to ‘7 – strongly agree’ with responses to all items averaged to give a single score,

higher scores indicating greater propensity for fun.

In order to manipulate praise content, participants were asked to read a second text introduced

as an article from a local newspaper, describing Exeter students’ active participation in either

fun, or study/politics-related activites. Comments from the ‘newspaper readers’ were printed

below the text, praising the efforts of Exeter students for active participation in the type of

activities described in the article.

Dependent variables were measured in two forms, on a seven-item response scale from one

(strongly disagree) to seven (strongly agree). Five items pertained to group-based esteem, and

four items explored identification with the target group. The items within each scale were again

quantified and averaged to form a numerical score.


5

Results

Manipulation checks

To check whether the manipulation of value centrality was successful, we conducted an

independent samples t-test on the manipulation check measure with value centrality condition

as an independent variable. The analysis demonstrated that participants in the “fun-loving”

condition reported a significantly stronger perception that being sociable and outgoing is

central to student identity (M = 3.85, SD = 0.51) than participants in the “responsibility”

condition (M = 3.54, SD = 0.56), t (175) = 3.86, p < .001.Therefore, the manipulation of value

centrality was successful.

To check whether the manipulation of praise content was successful, we checked participants’

responses to the relevant manipulation check questions (asking them to briefly summarise the

content of the praise manipulation text and to label it as either positive or negative). Ten

participants failed to recognise the manipulation text as positive feedback or did not answer

this question – these participants were removed from further analysis. All the remaining

participants summarised the text adequately.

Main analysis

Group-based esteem. To explore the effect of verifying vs. non-verifying praise on group-

based esteem, we conducted two ANOVAs: One for participants who were led to believe that

responsibility is central to being a student, and another for participants who were led to believe

that being fun-loving is central. In these analyses praise content was the independent variable

and group-based esteem was the dependent variable. Participants’ age and gender were entered

as covariates.

The analysis for participants who were led to believe that being fun-loving is central to student

identity demonstrated that the effect of praise content on group-based esteem was statistically

significant: Participants who received verifying praise (for being fun-loving) reported higher


6

esteem (M = 6.50, SD = 0.52) than participants who received non-verifying praise (for being

responsible, M = 6.09, SD = 0.76): F (1, 84) = 9.01, p = .004. However, the analysis for

participants who were led to believe that being responsible is central to being a student showed

that praise content did not have a significant effect on group-based esteem: Mfun-praise = 6.35,

SD = 0.54; Mresponsible-praise = 6.30, SD = 0.53; F (1, 84) = 0.86, p = .770, see Figure 1.

Figure 1. The effect of verifying and non-verifying praise on group-based esteem.

Connection with the group (identification). One case was identified as an outlier on

this measure (below three SDs from the mean) and was excluded from further analysis. The

same two ANOVAs as above (one for participants led to believe that responsibility is a central

students’ value, and another for participants led to believe that being fun-loving is most central

to their group) with praise content as the independent variable were conducted on the measure

of connection with participants’ group (Exeter students). The analysis for those who were led

to believe that being fun-loving is central to being a student showed that praise content had a

statistically significant effect on connection with one’s group: Participants who received

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

students = fun students = responsibility

grou

p-‐ba

sed esteem

central group values

praise for being fun-‐loving

praise for being responsible


7

verifying praise (for being fun-loving) reported a stronger sense of connection with students as

a group (M = 5.49, SD = 0.90) than participants who received non-verifying praise (for being

responsible, M = 5.11, SD = 0.92; F (1, 83) = 4.21, p = .043. However, for participants who

were led to believe that responsibility is a central students’ value, the analysis showed that

praise content did not have a significant effect on connection with one’s group (although the

difference was in the predicted direction): Mfun-praise = 5.24, SD = 0.86; Mresponsible-praise = 5.47,

SD = 0.78; F (1, 84) = 1.52, p = .221, see Figure 2.

Figure 2. The effect of verifying vs. non-verifying praise on a sense of connection with the

target group.

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

students = fun students = responsibility

conn

ectio

n with

the grou

p

central group values

praise for being fun-‐lovingpraise for being responsible


8

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to explore the effect of non vs. verifying praise on group self

esteem and togetherness. We had hypothesised that non-verifying (vs verifying) praise will

result in a lower group-based self-esteem among target group members. The results clearly

show that in the ‘fun-loving’ group of students, verifying praise had a significant positive effect

on the group-based esteem of the individuals in their group. There was a significant difference

in the self esteem of ‘fun-loving’ students depending on the nature of praise they had received

– those that had received verifying praise (confirming them as fun) had markedly higher esteem

than those who had received non-verifying praise.

We had additionally hypothesized that non-verifying (vs verifying) praise will result in a

weaker sense of connection within the group. Our results clearly show that ‘fun-loving’

students exposed to verifying praise reported a significantly stronger connection with the target

group than those who had received non-verifying praise. In the ‘fun-loving’ group, our findings

were consistent with both hypotheses.

However, verifying praise directed at the ‘responsible’ (studious) group of students had no

significant effect on either the group-based esteem or the individual’s connection with the

target group. It is possible that this may reflect a difference between the intrinsic value of being

‘fun-loving’ or ‘studious’, amongst first year university students in general. That is, a study

conducted during the first few weeks, of the first term, of the first year of university might have

a different outcome than if the study had been conducted during an exam period. Amongst the

population in general, we can speculate that being ‘fun-loving’ is a more salient trait at the time

of the study, and may go some way to explaining why verifying praise had a positive impact

in the ‘fun-loving’ group, and no impact in the ‘studious’ group. Equally, Gomez et al have

shown verifying group descriptions to produce positive responses even if they do not apply to

individual group members. It is possible that the individual ‘studious’ identities of individual

group members were shadowed by cohesive group-identity ‘as fun loving freshers’ – thus

eliciting a more significant response to praise as ‘fun-loving’ than ‘responsible’.

Recent research (Barreto et al., 2010) had suggested that non-verification of the self would

result in markedly lower self esteem amongst target groups. Our findings inversely support this


9

research, in that we have found that verification of the self resulted in higher self esteem.

However, we are unable to definitively state whether non-verification of the self results in

lower self-esteem, only that verifying praise has a more positive effect on self esteem than non-

verifying praise.

Gomez et al has shown that verifying group descriptions have a positive impact on group-

esteem, even when not applicable to individual group members. This would suggest a shift in

our concept of self from individual to group. At what point are individual values no longer

relevant? What proportion of individuals in a group have to share the group’s value to elicit a

positive response? For example, Block B at Lafrowda is the ‘sporty block’. Many of those

within the group play competitively, and those who don’t are still proud of their ‘sporty’

reputation. If we were to incrementally decrease the number of competitive sportspersons, thus

lowering the proportion of the block that is indeed ‘sporty’, at what point would Block B no

longer be the ‘sporty block’? I would predict that in these conditions Block B would continue

to identify as ‘sporty’, even when the number of sportspeople is drastically reduced. The group

identity is defined by image, which plays an important part in our concept of self (Rabinovich

& Morton, 2010), and so the group would likely identify as ‘sporty’ even after the last

individual sharing this value was removed, for intergroup comparison and salient social

identity would remain for as long discrete groups exist. This, of course, would need to be

directly tested.

Conclusion

In conclusion, verification of the self plays a critical role in our interactions with others. Firstly,

it confirms our self-concept to be sensible, and secondly, reassures us that others’ expectations

of us are realistic. Thus, self-verification can be considered to be a key self-evaluative motive.

Extensive research exists documenting the concept of self-verification, though only recently

have studies begun to move from the effects of criticism to praise. Praise has been shown to be

an excellent motivator in previous studies, and this paper not only finds evidence for this, but

also shows praise to be even more effective at boosting self esteem when it is self-verifying.

Praise has also been shown to increase group togetherness, and achieves this by reinforcing a

mutual group-image which in salience replace the values of the individual.


10

References:

Ariyanto, A., Hornsey, M. J., & Gallois, C. (2006). Group-directed criticism in Indonesia:

Role of message source and audience. Asian Journal of Social Psychology. 9(2), 96-102.

Barreto et al.. (2010). To be or not to be: The impact of implicit versus explicit inappropriate

social categorizations on the self. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(1), 43-67.

Chen, Serena; Chen, Karen Y.; Shaw, Lindsay. Self-Verification Motives at the Collective

Level of Self-Definition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 86(1), Jan 2004,

77-94.

Chen, S, English, T & Peng, K. (2006). Self-verification and Contexualized Self-

views. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(7), 930-942.

Cimpian, A., Arce, H., Markman, E. M., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Subtle linguistic cues

impact children’s motivation. Psychological Science, 18, 314–316.

Cimpian, A. (2010). Generic language about ability on children’s achievement motivation.

Developmental Psychology, 46, 1333–1340.

Dweck, C.S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development.

Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Gómez, A., Swann, W. B., Jr., Jetten, J., Whitehouse, H., & Bastian, B. (2012). When group

membership gets personal: A theory of identity fusion. Psychological Review, 119, 441– 456.

doi:10.1037/a0028589

Hancock, D.R. (2000). Impact of verbal praise on college students’ time spent on homework.

Journal of Educational Research, 93, 384-389.

Hattie, J.A.C., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational

Research, 77, 81-112.


11

Hornsey, M. J., Oppes, T., & Svensson, A. (2002). “It’s ok if we say it, but you can’t”:

Responses to intergroup and intragroup criticism. European Journal of Social Psychology,

32, 293–307. doi:10.1002/ejsp.90

Hornsey, M. J. (2005). Why being right is not enough: Predicting defensiveness in the face of

group criticism. European Review of Social Psychology, 16, 301–334.

doi:10.1080/10463280500436040

Kamins, M. L., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). Person versus process praise and criticism:

Implications for contingent self-worth and coping. Developmental Psychology, 35, 835–847.

Mueller, C.M., & Dweck, C.S. (1998). Praise for Intelligence Can Undermine Children's

Motivation and Performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75, 33-52.

Rabinovich, A., & Morton, T. A. (2010). Who says we are bad people? The impact of

criticism source and attributional content on responses to group-based criticism. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 524–536. doi:10.1177/0146167210362980

Rabinovich, A., et al. (2012). Let another praise you? The effects of source and attributional

content on responses to group-directed praise. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(4),

753-61.

Swann, W. B., Jr., Stein-Seroussi, A., & Giesler, B. (1992). Why people self-verify. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 392-401.

Swann, W. B., Jr. (1990). To be adored or to be known : The interplay of self-enhancement

and self-verification. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.)Foundations of Social

Behavior, (Vol. 2, pp. 408-448). New York: Guilford.

Swann, W. B., Jr. (2005). The self and identity negotiation. Interaction Studies, 6, 69-83.

Swann, W.B., Jr. & Bosson, J. (2010). Self and Identity. Chapter prepared for S.T. Fiske,

D.T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed; 589-628), New

York: McGraw-Hill


12

Tafjel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.

Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.) The social psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7-

24). Monterey, CA: Brookes-Cole.

Zentall, S & Morris, B. (2010). ''Good job, you're so smart": The effects of inconsistency of

praise type on young children's motivation. Journal of Experimental Child

Psychology, 107(2), 155-163.


13

APPENDIX A

I. Value centrality manipulation

a) Being fun-‐loving is central to students

! ! !! © 2012 The Society of Education Issues

!53!

Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 83, No. 2, 2012, p. 53

What It Means to be a Student at University

University is considered to be a place for students to meet, socialize, and enjoy their newfound freedom for the majority of youth. It serves a purpose to increase social opportunities, without the rules and restrictions of family life. It is a chance to enjoy the last few years of youth without responsibility or commitments. Indeed, this perception of what it means to be a student can be traced throughout the history of higher education in Britain. University culture has always been associated with freedom to explore new social situations and gain new experiences. Decadent student life has been often portrayed in English literature (such as “Hamlet”, “Great Expectations”). More recently, during the 60’s the carefree role of students in society has come to be defined by their rebellious behavior and involvement in fashion and music (e.g., during this time festivals such as Woodstock were established by the student community). To be a student meant to explore areas of life that had been previously considered taboo (such as “sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll”). During the last decade the popularity of becoming a University student has increased. The appeal of student life has been enhanced due to the wealth of socialization opportunities that come with “student culture” which is largely defined by playful and frivolous societies (such as cake club, cocktail society, and call of duty), and fun events such as Safer Sex Ball, Itchy Feet, and Fresher’s Ball. For most young people, being a student means

making the most of such opportunities and experiences. A recent survey found that when asked what they liked most about University, the majority of students mentioned meeting new people and the social life. The centrality of socializing to student life is also demonstrated by extremely high attendance rates at club events such as ‘Carnage U.K.’ (which reports the attendance of 250,000 students across Britain annually). There are also data that demonstrate that students who participate in fun University events and partake in drinking culture are happier, more cheerful and content than those who do not. Overall, it seems that such carefree behaviour is central to student identity. For most students University is a chance to enjoy their independence and freedom through social opportunities.

Journal of Higher Education


14

b) Being responsible is central to students

! ! !! © 2012 The Society of Education Issues

!53!

Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 83, No. 2, 2012, p. 53

What It Means to be a Student at University

University is considered to be a place for students to learn, develop their abilities and acquire new skills. It serves a purpose to broaden one’s horizons, with outcomes such as better qualifications and higher involvement and participation in society. It is an opportunity for hardworking young people to build the foundations for the rest of their lives by taking control and responsibility. Indeed, this perception of what it means to be a student can be traced throughout the history of higher education in Britain. University culture has always been associated with intellectual development and active citizenship. Students have been politically active since the 1880’s, with the formation of student representative councils such as the National Union of Students. More recently, during the 1960’s students played central role in advocating moral and fair political choices. For example, in 1962, students began a series of protests against the Vietnam War to a great effect, and during the 1970's anti-racist protests became widespread. To be a student at that time meant to take responsibility for the world, and to a large extent this remains to be true today. During the last decades the popularity of becoming a student at University has increased. The appeal of higher education has been enhanced due to the wealth of development opportunities that accompany student life. For example, many students use opportunities to enhance their skills

and be involved with important societal problems offered by such groups as debating society, human rights society, course specific and charitable societies. They also make the most from events such as University Challenge, opportunities to gain prestigious academic awards and lecturers from guest speakers, such as leading scientists and business leaders. For most young people, being a student means making the most of opportunities to participate in groundbreaking research and to lead rich intellectual life. A recent survey found that when asked what they liked most about University, the majority of students mentioned discovering new ideas and becoming more knowledgeable and responsible. The importance of intellectual life to students is also demonstrated by high levels of academic achievement in student population overall (with 64% of undergraduate students obtaining a first or 2:1 class degree). Other data reveal that students who participate in University extra-curricular academic events and partake in University citizenship culture are happier, more cheerful and content than those who do not. Overall, it seems that inquisitive and responsible behaviour is central to student identity. For most students University is a chance to take responsibility for one’s development and prepare for one’s adult life by making most from the learning opportunities.

Journal of Higher Education


15

APPENDIX B

II. Praise content manipulation

a) Praise for being fun-‐loving


16

b) Praise for being responsible

THE EXETER EAGLE | Your Local Newspaper

What are Exeter University Students Up To? By JAMES SINGER Published: August 20, 2012

Exeter university students are active participants in important matters nationwide. Given opportunities offered by University life, students’ number one priority is to make their University time count. Non-government and non-profit organizations such as One voice, Green Peace and Amnesty are all well represented at Exeter University with students offering valuable input. Students actively contribute to political debates across the country with frequent conferences and demonstrations. There are often delegations from Exeter University who play an active role at these events.

Exeter University students are known for the high level of academic achievement they demonstrate – more than 4 in 5 students leave Exeter University with 2:1 or higher. A number of Exeter students win prestigious academic and literary awards. By taking their academic studies and social responsibility seriously, Exeter students embrace this special time in their lives, making the most of their student years. 6 Comments

BRILLIANT, student participation is essential to society…let’s see more of these great initiatives! !

These students are so right to do what they’re doing! It is wonderful to see them taking such a keen interest in current affairs. !

!

It’s really nice to see these young people achieving so much success in their studies. Well done!

!

These students have their priorities right. It’s true what they say – University years lay the foundation for the rest of your life.

!

It truly is encouraging to see the concerted effort Exeter students are making to become active and knowledgeable members of society.

They are absolutely doing the right thing! !


17

APPENDIX C

III. Manipulation checks

Value centrality (higher values = being fun-‐loving is more important)

To be a student means to enjoy being young Having a thriving social life is what it means to be a student A central part of being a student is to encounter new, fun experiences Socializing is central to what it means to be a student To be a student means to be hardworking and focused (reversed) A central part of being a student is being responsible (reversed) Studying hard is central to what it means to be a student (reversed) Gaining academic success is central to being a student (reversed) Being a student means to be focused on getting a good degree (reversed)

Praise content

Please briefly summarize the content of the article. Were the readers’ comments positive or negative? _________________________

IV. Dependent (outcome) measures

Group-‐based esteem

I feel that Exeter University students are people of worth, at least on an equal plane with others Exeter University students have a number of good qualities I think that most Exeter University students are able to do things as well as most other people Exeter University students do not have much to be proud of (reversed) Exeter University students are useless (reversed)

Connection with the group (identification)

Generally, I feel good when I think about myself as Exeter student I have a lot in common with other Exeter students


18

In general, being a student in Exeter is an important part of my self-‐image In general, I am glad to be a student in Exeter