I wouldn’t try to lay the following comment out there if the answer that the original poster was looking for (they’re great examples of Psychology) hadn’t already been given, and i probably shouldn’t attempt it anyway. But I’m going to! That said, be warned that this comment will attempt to use deep theory and will amount to an answer of “well, it depends”, and knowing me is likely to end up being confusing and potentially misguided in its efforts. Proceed at your own risk! That said...
Well, it depends. It’s not the elements themselves that are important so much as the relationship between them. For instance, I believe it’s accurate to say that Dramatica isn’t looking at your story to make sure that your story contains a Psychology element, but rather it’s looking at story and saying that the OS Gist is to the RS Gist as Psychology is to Physics. It’s this relationship that needs to hold true over anything else.
One way to look at that statement is that Dramatica isn’t looking at Element 1 (E1) in your story and saying that it is an absolute measure of Psychology, but that it’s saying that E1 in a vacuum isn’t a measure of anything. Only when E1 is viewed in conjunction with E2 and E2 appears as a measure of Physics relative to E1 does E1 begin to look like a measure of Psychology.
Another way to view it would be that there’s not even multiple elements in a story. There’s just E1. And when E1 is viewed from one corner of the mind, the relative position of that corner in the mind will make E1 look like a measure of Psychology when the dynamically opposing view makes E1 look like Physics.
Now, IF that’s accurate, then it wouldn’t make sense to merely ask if “thinking highly of yourself” is a good example of Psychology UNLESS it was assumed to mean is it a good example of Psychology relative to a good example of Physics.
Just as an example, if one asks “is thinking highly of yourself a good example of Psychology in relation to building a shrine?” then the answer might be yes because thinking highly of yourself is to building a shrine what Psychology is to Physics. But if one asks “is thinking highly of yourself a good example of Psychology relative to thinking you’ll never amount to anything?” then the answer might be no, because those two do not have a Psych-Physics equivalent relationship.
Hopefully, that all holds true so far. Now, hoping that it does, I’ll try to go a step further and look at what happens if one were to ask “is thinking highly of yourself a good example of Universe in relation to a good example of Mind?” Can the answer to that question be yes?
I think it can as long as one takes a particulate view of thinking highly of oneself. That means it won’t be seen as a mental process describing how one feels about oneself, but that ‘thinking highly of oneself’ as a thing in the environment will be seen as a feature of that environment, or as the state of things.
Just to try to illustrate the difference, in a Psychology story, it could be that every time John thinks highly of himself there is conflict. But in a Universe story, it wouldn’t be the process of thinking of oneself that created conflict but the very existence within ones environment of the unchanging concept of thinking highly of oneself that creates conflict.
But now that I’ve typed all that out, I feel less like I’ve taken a daring and dangerous path and more like I took the long way around to saying something that could have been easy and maybe not even all that controversial. 🤷♂️