Sei sulla pagina 1di 34

The Self-Concept

Author(s): Viktor Gecas


Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 8 (1982), pp. 1-33
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2945986 .
Accessed: 30/09/2011 18:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org
Ann.Rev. Sociol. 1982. 8:1-33
Copyright? 1982 byAnnualReviewsInc. All rightsreserved

THE SELF-CONCEPT
Viktor
Gecas
Departments
of Sociologyand RuralSociology,Washington
State
University,
Pullman,Washington 99164

INTRODUCTION

The self-concept is undergoing something of a renaissancein contemporary


socialpsychology. It has, of course,been a centralconceptwithinsymbolic
interactionism sincetheseminalwritings ofMead (1934), Cooley(1902), and
James(1890). However,evenwithinthissociologicaltradition therehas been
a revitalization
ofinterest intheself-concept: withdevelopments inroletheory
(Turner1978; Gordon1976), withthe increasingfocuson the conceptof
identity(McCall & Simmons1978; Stryker 1980;Gordon1968;Guiot1977;
Burke1980),withthereemergence of interest in social structureandperson-
ality(House 1981;Turner1976;Kohn1969,1981;Rosenberg1979),andwith
thereconceptualization ofsmallgroupexperimental situations (Alexanderand
colleagues1971, 1981; Webster& Sobieszek1974).
Thereemergence oftheself-concept is evenmoredramatic withinpsycho-
logical social psychology.Much of this revitalization of interestin self-
phenomena (e.g. self-awareness, self-esteem, self-image, self-evaluation)is
duetothe"cognitive revolution"in psychology (Dember1974; Manis 1977),
generally at theexpenseof behaviorism.As a result,theself-concept has
becomeconspicuousin areas and traditions thatwerepreviously considered
alienterrain: withinbehaviorism via Bem's (1972) theoryof self-attribution;
within sociallearning theoryvia Bandura's(1977) focuson self-efficacy; and
within cognitive dissonancetheory via Aronson's(1968) andBramel's(1968)
reformulations. evidentintheoriesofattitude
It is also increasingly andvalue
formation and change(Rokeach1973, 1979), in attribution theory(Epstein
1973; Bowerman1978), and in variousotherrecenttheoriesof cognitive

1
0360-0572/82/0815-0001
$02.00
2 GECAS

processes(see Wegner& Vallacher1980). Perhapsas important as these


"intentional" theoretical developments in socialpsychology fortherefocuson
self-concept is whatone reviewercalls "theinadvertent rediscovery of self"
in experimental social psychology(Hales 1981a). This refersto theobser-
vationthatexperimental resultsfrequently couldbe explainedas wellorbetter
bytheoperation of self-processes withinthesesettings[suchas Alexander's
"situatedidentity theory"(1981)] thanby thetheoretical variablesunderin-
vestigation. This "inadvertent" discoveryof selfmayhavecontributed to the
so-called"crisis"in social psychology (Boutilieret al 1980; Hales 1981a).
In thisreviewI focuson developments andtrends inself-concept theory and
researchwithinsocial psychology.'However,as Stryker(1977) and House
(1977) pointout,thereareseveralsocialpsychologies. The majordistinction
is betweensocialpsychology developedwithinthesociologicaltradition and
thatemergingfromthe psychologicaltradition.The self-concept is in-
creasingly important withinbothdisciplines;developments withinbothare
reviewed.The twosocialpsychologies differ in theirfocus.Sociologytends
to focuson theantecedents of self-conceptions, andtypically looksforthese
withinpatterns of social interaction. Psychology, on theotherhand,tendsto
focuson theconsequencesof self-conceptions, especiallyas theserelateto
behavior.The latterfocusis morelikelythantheformer to lead to questions
ofmotivation (e.g. theself-esteem motive,consistency motive,efficacy mo-
tive).In a sense,sociologyand psychology have complementary biases re-
garding theself-concept. Ifthe"fundamental bias"ofpsychologists
attribution
is an overly"internal"view of the causes of behavior(Ross 1977), the
attributionbias ofsociologistsis a tendency tolookforthecausesofbehavior
outsidetheindividual-i.e. in culture,social structure, or social situation.
Severalaspectsoftheself-concept literature arenotreviewed:I do notdelve
intotheextensiveliterature on specificsocial identities, such as sexual and
genderidentities, variousoccupationalidentities, and specificdeviantidenti-
ties (e.g. delinquent,criminal,mentalpatient).Here I treatthe social-
psychological literatureon self-concept, largelyignoring theclinical,human-
istic,andphilosophical traditions.

THE NATURE OF THE SELF-CONCEPT


An initial distinctionmust be made between the terms "self" and
"self-concept."Muchconfusionin socialpsychology
overwhethertheselfis
a processor a structure
stemsfromthefailureto distinguish
between"self"

'The selfanditsderivativetermshaveoccupieda centralplace withinhumanistic


andclinical
orientations
in thesocialsciences.The reemergence
oftheself-concept refers
mainlytoitsstatus
withinsocial psychology.
THE SELF-CONCEPT 3

and "self-concept." Self as used here refersto a process, the processof


reflexivitywhichemanatesfromthe dialecticbetweenthe "I" and "Me".
Whilediscussionsof the relationship betweenthe "I" and the "Me" have
periodically appearedin the literature [see especiallyLewis (1979) for a
social-behaviorist interpretation
of the "I"; Carveth(1977) and Petryszak
(1979) fora biologicalinterpretation; and Weigert(1975) fora phenom-
enologicaltreatment], themajoroutlinesoftheconceptofselfhaveremained
largelyunchangedsince the formulations of James (1890) and Mead
(1934)-i.e. theselfis a reflexive phenomenon thatdevelopsin social inter-
actionand is based on thesocial character of humanlanguage.The concept
of selfprovidesthephilosophicalunderpinning forsocial-psychological in-
quiriesinto the self-concept but is itselfnot accessible to empiricalin-
vestigation.
The"self-concept," on theotherhand,is a productofthisreflexive activity.
Itis theconcepttheindividual hasofhimself as a physical,social,andspiritual
or moralbeing.2
Rosenberg definestheself-conceptbroadlyas "thetotality ofan individual's
thoughts and feelingshavingreference to himselfas an object" (1979:7).
Similarlybroadis Snygg& Combs's statement that"thephenomenalself
includesall thosepartsof thephenomenal fieldwhichtheindividualexperi-
ences as part or characteristic of himself"(1949:58). A more specific
definitionis providedbyTurner:"Typicallymyself-conception is a vaguebut
vitallyfeltidea of whatI am likein mybestmoments, of whatI am striving
towardandhave someencouragement to believeI can achieve,or of whatI
cando whenthesituation suppliesincentivesforunqualified effort"(1968:98).
In Turner's(1968, 1976)formulation, theself-concept also involves(to some
extent)thesenseof spatialand temporal continuity, a distinctionof essential
selffrommereappearanceandbehavior(whichhe terms"self-image"), and
theidentification of thepersonin qualitativeand locationaltermsas well as
in evaluativeterms.
Perhapsthemostnovelconceptualization of theself-concept is offeredby
Epstein(1973). Froman attribution perspective, Epsteinsuggeststhatthe
self-concept can bestbe viewedas a theory thata personholdsabouthimself
as an experiencing, functioningbeingin interaction withtheworld.In spite

2Self-awareness is centralto humanexperienceand a definingfeatureofthehumancondition,


butthereis some doubtaboutwhetherit is uniquelyhuman.Recentstudiesof chimpanzees
suggestthattheseprimates areatleastcapableofself-recognition,
as measuredbytheirresponses
to theirmirror-images (Gallup, 1977). In his reviewof the primatestudies,Meddin(1979)
concludesthatchimpanzeesare indeedcapable of reflexivethoughtand have at least a rudi-
mentary conceptofself.Furthermore, itappearsthatthissenseofselfarisesinchimpanzeesmuch
as itdoes(according toMead) inhumans-i.e. through socialinteraction,
symboliccapacity,and
role-takingability.
4 GECAS

of his overemphasis on knowledgeand beliefsas the foundation forself-


concepts(rather thanon values,attitudes, and motivations), Epstein'sinter-
estingformulation accountsformanyof therecurring featuresof the self-
conceptinthesocial-psychological literature.He wouldhavebeenevenmore
accurateifhe had conceptualized theself-concept as a self-ideology-when
itcomesto ourself-concepts, we aremuchless interested in "theorytesting"
thanin self-affirmationand self-protection (as we shallsee in thesectionon
self-conceptas a sourceof motivation). Nevertheless, Epstein'sideas about
the self-concept are compatiblewithsociologicalformulations, especially
thosestemming fromstructural versionsof symbolicinteractionism (Stryker
1980; Heiss 1968; Gordon1968). Thereare differences in emphasis,to be
sure;butwithinbothoftheseviews,theself-concept is conceptualized as an
organization(structure) of variousidentities and attributes,and theirevalu-
ations,developedout of the individual'sreflexive,social, and symbolic
activities.
As such,theself-concept is an experiential,
mostlycognitivephe-
nomenonaccessibleto scientific inquiry.This reviewdeals withthe self-
conceptand notwiththeconceptof self.

SOURCES AND DIMENSIONS OF SELF-CONCEPTION


Numerousdimensionsof the self-concept have been consideredin social
psychology (forelaboratetypologiessee Gordon1968; Rosenberg1979:Ch.
1). An elementary is betweenthe contentof self-
but usefuldistinction
conceptions (e.g. identities)
and self-evaluations
(e.g. self-esteem).
Identity
focuseson themeaningscomprising theselfas an object,givesstructure
and
contentto self-concept,and anchorstheselfto social systems.Self-esteem
deals withtheevaluativeand emotionaldimensionsof the self-concept. In
experiencethesetwoaspectsoftheself-concept arecloselyinterrelated:
Self-
evaluationsare typicallybased on substantive aspectsof self-concept,
and
typicallyhave evaluativecomponents.Withinsocial psychology
identities
thesetwodimensions involvelargelyseparateliteratures.

SourcesofSelf-Evaluation
Self-evaluation
or self-esteemrefersto theevaluativeandaffective aspectsof
theself-concept(Wells & Marwell1976; Shibutani1961). Mostresearchon
theself-conceptfocuseson thisdimension, so thatsometimes is
self-concept
equatedwithself-esteem (Wells & Marwell 1976). For example,Wylie's
(1974, 1979) extensivereviewsof the self-concept literaturedeal almost
withself-evaluation.
exclusively The mainreasonforthepreeminence ofthis
aspectof self-concept is the motivational significanceof self-esteem(see
below).
THE SELF-CONCEPT 5

In muchof thisliterature, self-esteem refersto an individual'soverall


self-evaluation[Rosenberg's(1965) unidimensional scale is one of themost
widelyusedmeasuresofself-esteem]. Increasingly, however,variousaspects
of self-esteemhave been differentiated-e.g. sense of powerand sense of
worth(Gecas 1971); "inner"and "outer"self-esteem(Franks& Marolla
1976);evaluation andaffection (Wells& Marwell1976);senseofcompetence
and self-worth(Smith1978); self-evaluation and self-worth (Brissett1972);
andcompetence and morality (Rokeach1973; Vallacher1980; Hales 1980).
Commontothesesubdivisions is thedistinctionbetween(a) self-esteem based
on a senseof competence, power,or efficacy and (b) self-esteem based on
a senseofvirtueormoralworth.The importance ofthisdistinction lies inthe
suggestion thatthesetwobases of self-esteem maybe a function of different
processesof self-concept formation (Wells & Marwell1976) and thatthey
constitutedifferentsourcesof motivation.Briefly,competency-based self-
esteemis tied closelyto effective performance (Bandura1978; Franks&
Marolla1976; Gecas 1979; Harter1978; Mortimer & Lorence1979; Smith
1968).As a result,itis associatedwithself-attribution andsocialcomparison
processes.Self-esteem based on virtue(termedself-worth) is groundedin
normsand valuesconcerning personaland interpersonal conduct e.g. jus-
tice,reciprocity,honor.The processof reflected appraisal(see below) con-
tributesto the formation of self-worth (Vallacher1980; Gecas 1971). The
distinctionbetween"self-efficacy" and "self-worth," whileconceptually im-
portant,tendstoblurattheexperiential level. Senseofworthmaybe strongly
affectedbysenseofcompetence andvice versa[see, forexample,Covington
& Beery(1976) on theinterconnection betweenthesesourcesof self-esteem
in school].
REFLECTEDAPPRAISALS Thatour self-concepts reflect
theresponsesand ap-
praisalsof othersis the dominantpropositionin the sociologyof self.
Grounded conceptof the"looking-glassself"
in Cooley's (1902) influential
andinMead's theory (1934) thattheself-conceptdevelopsthrough theprocess
ofrole-taking others,theprocessof reflected appraisalsis thecornerstone of
thesymbolicinteractionist perspective on self-conceptformation (see Rose-
nberg1979:64;Kinch 1963).
Givenits widespreadacceptancewithinsociologyand even psychology,
one wouldthinkthisproposition had been demonstrated empirically beyond
question;butthisis hardlythecase. To be sure,many(especiallysymbolic
have investigated
interactionists) therelationship betweenothers'appraisals
and the individual'sself-concept (e.g. see Miyamoto& Dornbusch1956;
Quarantelli& Cooper1966). However,thepoweroftheopinionsofothersto
initiateand/oraffectthe development of the self-concept is stillin doubt.
Shrauger& Schoeneman(1979) examinedthe empiricalevidenceforthe
6 GECAS

"looking-glass self" in over fiftystudies.They observethat:(a) People's


self-perceptions agreesubstantially withtheway theythinkothersperceive
them.However,(b) thereis verylittleagreement betweenpeople's self-
perceptions andhowtheyareactuallyviewedbyothers.Shrauger & Schoene-
man concludethat"thereis no clear indicationthatself-evaluations are
influenced by the feedbackreceivedfromothersin naturallyoccurring
situations"(1979:549).
Thereare a numberof reasonswe shouldnotbe surprised at thedisparity
betweenself-concepts and theappraisalsof others.One is thedifficulty of
gettinghonestfeedbackfromothers,especiallyifitis negative(Felson1980).
The normsof adultsocial interaction in ourculture,whichGoffman (1959)
examinedwithsuch insight,inhibithonestappraisalof others,substituting
"tact"and proper"deferenceand demeanor"to protectself-esteem. As a
result,we mayoftenbe unawareof whatothersthinkof us.
Anotherreasonforthe mismatchbetweenself-concept and others'ap-
praisalsis thatnotall othersare equallysignificant to us. In a largestudyof
Baltimore schoolchildren, Rosenberg(1973) foundthatthecredibility andthe
value of thesignificant other'sevaluationssignificantly affected thechild's
self-concept. Similarly, Webster& Sobieszek(1974) foundthatthecredibility
of the evaluatorhad a substantialeffecton the individual'stask-specific
self-perceptions.
Perhapsthe mostimportant reasonforthe low correspondence between
self-concept andtheappraisalsofothersis theactivedistorting influence ofthe
self-concept. Our perceptions of others'evaluationsof us are biasedtoward
favorableassessments.The self-esteem or self-enhancement motivehas a
distorting effecton our perceptions,concepts,and memories.Rosenberg
(1973) demonstrates howthisprocessof selectivity is evenreflected in whom
we choosetobe oursignificant others,as wellas inothersourcesofinfluence
on ourself-concepts (Rosenberg,1979).
Giventhegenerally low correlationsbetweenself-evaluations andtheactual
evaluationsof others,and the generallystrongrelationships betweenself-
evaluations and theperceivedevaluationsof others,we mustfocusresearch
muchmoreon such neglectedconsiderations as: How is information from
othersabouttheselftransmitted, received,interpreted, and actedupon(Sh-
rauger& Schoeneman,1979)? If role-taking is the fundamental process
through whichappraisalsare reflected, whataffectsthecontentof whatis
"taken"in role-taking? Even thoughthe hypothesis of reflected appraisals
remainsimportant in thetheoryof self-concept formation, empiricaldemon-
strationof itsvalidityhas becomeproblematic in recentyears.
SOCIAL COMPARISONS Social comparison is theprocessin whichindividuals
assesstheirown abilitiesand virtuesby comparing themto thoseof others.
THE SELF-CONCEPT 7

According toFestinger's (1954) theory ofsocialcomparisons, themainfunc-


tionoftheprocessis reality-testing, whichis mostlikelytooccurin situations
whereknowledgeabout a self-attribute is ambiguousor uncertain.In the
experimental researchguidedbythistheory, comparison processeshavebeen
initiated by exposingthe subjectto the presenceof anotherperson.For
example,Morse& Gergen(1970) used "Mr. Clean" and "Mr. Dirty"as the
comparison othersina "job application" situation,andfoundthatthepresence
of"Mr.Clean"produceda significant decreaseinsubjects'self-esteem, while
thepresenceof the undesirableother("Mr. Dirty")significantly enhanced
subjects'self-esteem.
It wouldbe a mistake,however,to thinkof social comparison as merelya
meansof reality-testing, fortheindividualis nota neutralobserverbut an
activeconstructor of social reality.Veblen's (1899) penetrating analysisof
conspicuousconsumption by the leisure class for the purposeof self-
enhancement revealsthemoreinsidiousside of socialcomparison processes.
Within sociology,socialcomparison processesaremostlikelytobe studied
viatheconceptofthereference group,whichserves(a) as a normative group
(i.e. thesourceofnormsandvaluesfortheindividual) and(b) as a comparison
group[i.e. as theprovider of standards (Kelley,1952)]. In
of self-evaluation
theformer usage,thereference group'snormsmaybecometheinternalized
standard againstwhichtheindividual judgeshimself. Thiswouldbe consistent
withJames's(1890) conceptualization of self-esteemas a function of the
discrepancy betweenaspirations and achievements.
Mostsociologicalresearchon socialcomparison processestreatsreference
groupsas comparison groups.Davis's (1966) studyofthecampusas a "frog
pond"(emphasizing theimportance ofthelocal frameofreference) is a good
example.
Social comparison processesare mostlikelyto operatewithinlocal groups
underconditions of competition [see Covington& Beery(1976) on thecon-
sequencesof "gradingon the curve"for students'self-esteem] and great
subgroup andvisibility.
differentiation Rosenberg(1975) focusedon thelatter
condition in a studyof theeffectsof "contextualdissonance"on students'
self-esteem. He used "contextualdissonance"to denotethe resultof the
interaction, in a socialcontextsuchas a classroom,betweenthemajority and
a disvaluedminority. Rosenbergfoundthatminority statuswithregardto
race,social class, competence, or values had a negativeeffecton students'
self-esteem. The findings ofBachman(1970), andDrury(1980), showingthe
negativeconsequencesof schoolintegration fortheself-esteem ofblackchil-
dren,are consistent withRosenberg'sanalysis.
OTHER PROCESSES AFFECTING SELF-EVALUATION Bem's (1972) "self-per-
ceptiontheory"proposesthatindividualsdetermine
whattheyare feeling
8 GECAS

and thinkingby makinginferencesbased on observingtheirown overtbe-


havior.ThusBem suggeststhatwe learnaboutourselvesandothersin essen-
tiallythesameway-i.e. fromobserving behaviorand makingdispositional
inferences.
theorycan be subsumedunderthemoregeneralattribution
Self-perception
theory,whichdeals withhow individuals makecausal inferences abouttheir
ownandothers'behavior.Attribution theory ingeneralis moreappropriate to
theconsideration as a causal factorin social interaction
of self-concept than
to questionsof self-conceptdevelopment. This distinction becomesrather
blurred,however,sincetheself-concept is an important "cause" of itsown
formation.For example,Rosenberg's(1979) discussionof "psychological
andGergen's(1971) discussionof"biasedscanning"as processes
centrality"
ofself-conceptformation, referto mechanisms
essentially orprocesseswithin
theself-conceptwhichare instrumental in theformation of self-conceptions.
Someof theseprocesseswillbe thefocusof thesectionon self-concept as a
sourceof motivation.
SOCIAL-STRUCTURAL VARIATIONS IN SELF-ESTEEM A good deal has been writ-
tenon variations inself-esteem acrosssuchcategories as raceandsocialclass.
Withregardto race,current researchhas foundeitherno difference between
theself-esteem levelsofblacksandwhites,orthatblackshaveslightly higher
self-esteem thanwhites(Yancey et al 1972; Rosenberg& Simmons1972;
Jacques& Chason1977;Taylor& Walsh1979). Thiscounterintuitive finding
has generated theoretical speculation.McCarthy& Yancey(1971) developed
theidea thatblacksaremorelikelythanwhitestoblamethe"system"(exter-
nalizeblame)fortheirrelatively low status,thereby minimizing theeffectof
social stratification
on self-esteem. Rosenberg& Simmons(1972) propose
"valueselectivity" (i.e. devaluingthedomainwhereone has low status)as a
methodof mitigating the effectsof low economicstatus.Heiss & Owens
(1972) suggestthattheblacksubculture is a reference groupthatprovidesa
buffer betweenthelargersocietyand blackself-esteem. All of these expla-
nationssoundreasonable, butnonehasreceivedmuchempirical support so far
(see Taylor&Walsh, 1979). In a recentreviewof researchon blackidentity
and self-esteem, Porter& Washington(1979) observethatgeneralcom-
parisonsshedlittlelighton thedevelopment of self-esteem withinminority
groups:"Atthispoint,we do notneedmorestudiesof generaldifferences in
self-esteem betweenblack and whitepopulations.Variationsin racial and
personalself-esteem shouldbe investigated withcarefulattention bothto the
effectof macrostructural factorsand to thespecificsituational and personal
contexts in whichthesefactorsoperate"(1979:70). I wouldadd thatgreater
specificationofdimensions ofself-evaluation andof self-concept is advisable
inthisareaofresearch.Porter& Washington (1979), forexample,foundthat
THE SELF-CONCEPT 9

blacksreported higherlevels of self-regard but lowerfeelingsof personal


efficacy thanwhites.Taylor& Walsh's (1979) decomposition of self-esteem
intoseveralcontext-specific dimensions revealedracialdifferences thatwould
havebeen hiddenif onlyglobal self-esteem had been considered[see also
Schwartz& Stryker's (1970) dimensionalization of self-esteem].
Likewise,the literature on social class and self-esteem is fraught with
contradictory, inconsistent,and generallyweak findings(see Wylie 1979:
57-116). Theexception tothisgeneralization is theworkofRosenberg andhis
colleagues[see Rosenberg(1979) fora synthesis of muchof thisresearch].
Pursuing thequestionof how thebroadersocial environment structuresthe
immediate interpersonal interactions of theindividual,Rosenberg& Pearlin
(1978) masterfully demonstrate how social class impingeson theself-esteem
ofadultsthrough fourprocessesof self-concept formation (i.e. reflectedap-
praisals,social comparisons, self-attribution, and psychologicalcentrality),
and whythe operationof theseprocessesproducesnegligiblesocial-class
differences forchildren.
Rosenberg hasshownthesamesensitivity inhisanalysisofsocial-structural
influences on self-esteem inothersocialcontexts, especiallyschoolandfamily
(Rosenberg1965, 1975;Rosenberg& Simmons1972). In thefamilycontext,
Rosenberg foundthattheinfluence of suchstructural variablesas birthorder
and"brokenfamilies"on theself-esteem of childrenis substantially affected
by a numberof conditionalvariables-e.g. religiousbackground,age of
mother at divorceor separation, child'sage, andnumberand sex of siblings.
An important intervening variableis theextentto whichparentalinterest and
support forthechildis affected by thesestructural and conditional variables,
sinceparental is positively
interest relatedto child'sself-esteem. Thisfinding
ofa positiverelationship betweenparentalsupport/affection and child'sself-
esteemis one of the mostconsistent in thefamilyresearchon self-esteem
formation (Coopersmith 1967;Gecas 1971; Hales 1980;Thomaset al 1974).
Onelimitation ofRosenberg'sextensive researchis thatittreatsself-esteem
as a globalandunidimensional variable.Thereis someevidence,forexample,
thattheefficacy andworthdimensions ofself-esteem aredifferently relatedto
familyprocesses.Gecas (1971) foundparentalsupportto have a stronger
positiverelationship withadolescents'feelingsof self-worth thanwiththeir
feelings of self-efficacy.Self-efficacy, on theotherhand,was moresensitive
to thepowerrelationships withinsocial contexts-i.e. senseof self-efficacy
waslowerwhentheindividual was ina subordinate position,suchas in school
(Gecas 1972). Furthermore, Gecas (1972) foundthatparentalbehaviorsas
antecedents of theadolescents'"familyself-esteem" (i.e. self-esteem within
thefamily)had littleeffecton self-esteem in othersocialcontexts(i.e. when
peersorschoolwereusedas theframeofreference forself-evaluations). This
suggeststhatresearchon self-esteem formation mustincreasingly refineits
10 GECAS

focusbyspecifying antecedentsanddelimiting boththeconceptofself-esteem


andthecontexts in whichit operates[a conclusionalso reachedbySchwartz
& Stryker(1970:122-23)in theirattempt to explaintheiranomalousfindings
regardingtheself-esteemof"badNegroboys"].Suchrefinement is beginning
tobe pursuedintheresearchon socialclass andself-esteem (Walsh& Taylor,
forthcoming)andmayhelpto increasetheamountof variancein self-esteem
thatcan be explainedby social class (now typically4% or less).

Identities
ContentofSelf-Concepts:
If thereis a centralthemein thesociologicalliterature on theself-concept it
is theideathatthecontent andorganization ofself-concepts reflectthecontent
and organization of society.Prominent as theevaluativedimensionof self-
conceptis in socialpsychology, itdoes notbeardirectly on thisproposition.
The conceptof identity does. Perhapsthisis one reasonthatthemostpromi-
nentcontributor to thesociologicalresearchon self-esteem has urgedthatwe
"go beyondself-esteem" (Rosenberg1979). Beyondself-esteem lies thecon-
ceptof identity, thatvastdomainof meanings attached to the selfand com-
prisingthecontentand organization of self-concepts.
The interpenetration of selfand societyis mostdirectly addressedin the
symbolicinteractionist tradition[tracedprimarily to Mead (1934), Cooley
(1902), and Thomas(1923)]. This tradition has splitintotwo major(and
severalminor)variantsthatdifferon fundamental conceptualizations and
assumptions regarding self and society,on substantive foci, and on meth-
odology.The two mainvariantsare the "processualinteractionists" (more
commonly knownas the"ChicagoSchool")andthe"structural interactionists"
(associatedwiththe"Iowa School"). The divisionsbetweenthesetwoorien-
tationsreflect inmanyrespectsthefundamental divisioninthesocialsciences
betweenhumanistic/interpretive orientationsand positivistic/nomothetic ori-
entations[forreviewsof the "Chicago" and "Iowa" schools of symbolic
interactionism, see Kuhn(1964) and Meltzeret al (1975)]. The conceptof
"identity" has a somewhatdifferent character in each of theseorientations.
NEGOTIATING IDENTITIES IN SOCIAL INTERACTION The key featureof the pro-
cessualinteractionist byBlumer(1969), itsmajor
as exemplified
perspective,
and others(Glaser & Strauss1967; Strauss1978; Becker 1964;
architect,
Stone1962), is itsemphasison thesocial situationas thecontextin which
identities through
are establishedand maintained theprocessof negotiation.
Thisidentitynegotiation,oridentity
bargaining(Blumstein1973),is a central
aspect of the individual'sbroadertask of "definingthe situation"and
"constructingreality."Meaningis viewedas an emergent of thisfluidand
reciprocalprocessofinteraction.
Actionandinteraction areseenprimarily as
indeterminate "I" and theprobleminvolvedin
becauseof theunpredictable
THE SELF-CONCEPT 11

aligningactions.The construction of identitiesforself and othersin the


situationis alwaysa problematic activitybasedon a tenuousconsensusofthe
participants. Role-takingbecomesan important cognitiveactivity in thisdia-
lecticalprocess(Turner1962), as is the processof altercasting [imposing
identitieson others(Weinstein & Deutschberger 1963)]. In sum,identity from
theprocessualinteractionist perspective is situated,emergent, reciprocal, and
negotiated. Furthermore, processualinteractionists view theself-concept as
inseparable cause and consequencein social interaction.
Theinseparability ofself-concept as cause andconsequenceis mostevident
in Goffman's (1959, 1963, 1967) imaginative and influentialvariantof pro-
cessual symbolicinteractionism.3 Utilizingthe metaphorof social life as
theater,Goffman describesinconsiderable detailthe"stagingoperations" and
"impression-management" involvedin thepresentation of selfin social en-
counters. Desiredidentities are theprizessoughtin theseinteraction arenas,
whichareacquiredas muchbycompetent performance oftheactorsas bythe
socialconstraints ofthesituation andthedispositions oftherelevant othersin
theinteraction. In Goffman'sview, self and othersconstruct identities by
staginga definition of thesituationthatinvolvesall participants. We are at
oncetheproductsand thecreatorsof theseencounters.
The methodological predilection of theprocessualinteractionists has been
theobservation (especiallyfromthevantagepointof a participant) of social
interaction in "natural"social settings. The rationale[emphasized by Blumer
(1969)] is thattheinvestigator can bestcapturetheprocessof identity con-
struction by entering the "universeof discourse"of thissocial worldas a
role-taking participant.Othermethodologies havealso beenusedtorevealthe
situated,processual,andmeaningful worldof theinteractantse.g. lifehis-
tories,historicalanalysis,and even the laboratory experiment when it is
viewed as a social situationcreated by the scientist(Denzin 1970; McPhail
1979).
Severalresearchstreamsrelevantto thedevelopment of theself-concept
havebeengenerated bytheprocessualinteractionist
orientation.
One bodyof
research,inspiredlargelyby Goffman'swork,deals withthedynamicsof
and altercasting
self-presentation [see Arkin(1980) and McCall & Simmons
(1978) forreviews].These studieshave focusedon suchtopicsas tacticsof
identitybargaining(Weinstein1966; Blumstein1973, the presentation of
motives,disclaimers,and accounts(Hewitt& Stokes1975; Scott& Lyman

3Thereis somequestionregarding Goffman's "fit"within


theprocessualsymbolicinteractionist
For example,Gonos (1977) makes a persuasivecase for viewingGoffmanas a
tradition.
"structuralist"
ratherthanas an "interactionist"
because of Goffman'semphasison theformal
of social interaction
properties ratherthanon processper se and itsinfinite
variations-a point
madewithsomecondemnation by Denzin& Keller(1981).
12 GECAS

1968;Blumstein
et al 1974), and embarrassment
and face-saving
processes
(Goffman1967; Gross & Stone 1964; Modigliani 1971).4
In contrast methodsof mostsymbolicinteractionist
to thenaturalistic re-
search,some recentstudieson thesetopicsuse experimental
methods.Of
special note is the work of Alexander and his colleagues (1971, 1977, 1981)
on "situatedidentity theory."Buildingon Goffman'sideas aboutthe im-
portanceof "expressionsgivenoff" as the basis formakingdispositional
inferences, Alexander& Lauderdaledefinesituatedidentities as "theattri-
butionsthatare made aboutparticipants in a particularsettingas a con-
sequenceoftheiractions"(1977:225). The establishment of identities is con-
sideredthefundamental taskof social encounters. Alexanderconsidersan
identity to be a workingself-meaning constructed out of thematerialof a
particular andnotan aspectof a person'sself-concept
situation, carriedfrom
one situationto another(Alexander& Wiley 1981). Alexanderarguesthat
people act (because of the self-esteem motive)to createthe mostsocially
desirablesituated identityavailable(Alexander& Wiley1981).Alexander has
testedsituatedidentity theoryin a numberof experimental studiesoriginally
designedtotestothersocial-psychological theories(e.g. cognitive dissonance,
riskyshift,prisoner'sdilemma,and expectationstates).He has foundthat
situated identity
theory can accountfortheresultsoftheseexperiments atleast
as well as theothertheoriesproposed.
It shouldbe noted,however,thatthe"situatedidentities" in Alexander's
studiesaredescribedby evaluativeterms-warm,friendly, honest-thatare
attachedto experimental outcomealternatives suchas "conforming subject"
vs. "non-conforming subject".Otherwaysofoperationalizing situatedidenti-
tieswouldpresumably producedifferent results.Furthermore, therelationship
between"situatedidentities" and theidentities actorsbringwiththeminto
socialsituations has notbeenexplored.Alexanderandassociatesareawareof
thisissue buthave not yetpursuedit themselves[see Alexander& Wiley
(1981)]. Doingso wouldtakethembeyondtheimmediate interaction situation
andcloserto theconcernsof thestructural symbolicinteractionists.
A secondbodyofworkinspired bytheprocessualinteractionist perspective
involves"labelingtheory."Labelingtheoryis an adaptationof the more
generalprocessofreflected appraisalto thedevelopment ofdeviantidentities
[Wells (1978) reviewsthe place of self-concept in theoriesof deviance].
Labelingtheory suggeststhatsociety'sreactionto an individual'sinitialdevi-
antbehavioris themajorfactorin thesystematization of deviance,sinceit
alterstheself-concept andsocialidentity ofthepersonlabeled(Lemert1951;
Becker1963; Scheff1966). This societalresponsecan be eitherformal(e.g.

4Theconceptsof "impression
management" and"self-presentation"
havebecomeincreasingly
prominent
withinpsychology as well (see, forexample,Tedeschi1981).
THE SELF-CONCEPT 13

arrestorimprisonment) or informal (e.g. stigmatization)(Goffman 1963). As


Wells (1978) pointsout, the self-concept is implicitin thisperspective on
deviance:"[It] functionsmoreas an intuitively obviousintervening process
thanas a variableto be actuallymeasuredin empiricalevents"(1978:193).
The relatedconceptof "self-fulfilling prophecy"has generated itsownbody
of researchshowinghow labelingprocessescreatecertain"self-fulfilling"
identitiesintheclassroomandelsewhere(Jones1977;Rosenthal& Jacobson
1968).
Labelingtheory, thedominant theoryof deviance,has beencriticizedand
debatedin thepast decade (Wells 1978; Glassner& Corzine1978), partly
becauseitpositedtoopassivea rolefortheindividualinbecominga deviant.
Conceptssuchas "self-labeling" (Rotenberg 1974)and"resistance tolabeling"
(Prus1975;Rogers& Buffalo1974)haveappearedreflecting thegeneraltrend
towardtheories of a moreassertiveselfin thesociologicalliterature on devi-
ance.
A thirdresearchstreamfromtheprocessualinteractionist perspectivehas
focusedon socialization.Some studieshavedealtwithchildsocializationand
self-concept development (Denzin 1972; Stone1970),butmosthavefocused
on adults(symbolicinteractionists seemrecluctant to studychildren).Mostof
thisresearch hasdealtwithoccupational socialization[e.g. Beckeretal (1961)
on socializationin medicalschool)], socializationintovarioussubcultures,
especiallydeviantsubcultures (Adler& Adler1978; Becker1963), and con-
textsofresocializationoridentity transformation (Lofland1977;Gecas 1981).
Mostof thesestudiesof socializationfromtheprocessualinteractionist per-
spectivearebasedon fieldresearch-i.e. ethnographic reports the
illustrating
operation ofgeneralsymbolicinteractionist assumptionsconcerning commu-
nication,social interaction,realityconstruction, and self-concept formation.
The processualinteractionists have contributed a numberof "sensitizing
concepts"and conceptualrefinements to thestudyof identity formation and
reformation. Empirically,theircontribution has illustratedmorethantested
theseideas (althoughtheincreasing turntowardexperimentation, mentioned
above,maychangethissituation). Processualinteractionists strongly maintain
thatselfand societyinterpenetrate. However,sincebothselfand societyare
viewedin fluid,processualterms,it is notclearhow social organization is
reflectedintheorganization ofself-conceptions. Theconceptsofstructure and
organization remaina problemat boththe social groupand theindividual
levels[in spiteof thevaliantefforts of Maines (1977) and Strauss(1978) to
arguethecontrary].

THE CONCEPT OF IDENTITY IN STRUCTURAL SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM What


theconceptof "situation"is to theprocessualinteractionists,
theconceptof
"role"is to thestructural
interactionists
as theentreforconsidering
identity
14 GECAS

Identities
andself-concept. roles.The con-
areviewedmainlyas internalized
nectionbetweenthesetwo conceptsis so close thattheyare oftenused
(Stryker1980:60; McCall & Simmons 1978:16;
together,as in "role-identity"
Burke& Tully1977).Thisconnection directlylinksself-conceptions tosocial
structuresbecauserolesare seen as elementsof social structure, and it pro-
videsthebasis forconsidering theself-concept in organizational terms-i.e.
as a multidimensional configurationofrole-identities. Stryker putitthisway:
"Theselfis seenas embracing multipleidentities linkedto therolesandrole
relationshipsthat constitutesignificantelementsof social structures"
(1979:177).Gordonelaborates justhowroleslinkpersonstosocialstructures:
"thevalue aspectsof rolesconnectpersonsto culture;thenormative aspects
ofrolesprovidemotivation to conductand structure to social action;and the
'sense-making' aspectsof rolesdetermine
or interpretive muchof personal
cognition, predispositions,
attitudinal memories,andplans"(1976:405). The
term"role"typically refersto thebehavioralexpectations associatedwitha
positionor status(eitherformalor informal) in a social system.However,
"role"and "position"are frequently used interchangeably, especiallywhen
they are translatedinto identities e.g. "father,""handball player,"
mediator".
The structureof self-conceptis viewedas a hierarchical organization of an
(Stryker1968;
individual'srole-identities McCall & Simmons 1978; Heiss
1968). Strykerdevelopedtheidea of self-concept as a saliencehierarchy of
identitiesmost fullythroughthe concept of commitment.He proposes that
''oneis committed to an identityto thedegreethatone is enmeshedin social
relationshipsdependenton thatidentity" (1979:177). In thisview of self-
structure,thegreater the commitment to an identity, themoreconsequential
itis fortheindividual'sconduct[elaborated in Stryker (1980), especiallypp.
83-84]. Note thatStryker'sconceptionof commitment emphasizesthere-
The natureandextensiveness
lationalaspectofrole-identities: ofthe"role-set"
(Merton 1957) or "identity-set"(i.e. the network of identitiesand role-
relationshipsa givenidentityimplies)affectthedegreeofcommitment to the
identity.
Turner(1978) expandsourvisionof theidentity commitment process.He
casts theproblemof commitment in the formof role-person mergerand
examinestheconditions underwhichthisis mostlikelytooccur.A distinction
is madebetween"situational determinants" and "individualdeterminants".
The former are circumstancesunderwhichobserversconsiderthepersonas
revealedin therole. Underthelattercategory,Turneridentifies threeprin-
ciplesgoverning role/personmerger:(a) Individuals tendto mergewiththose
rolesbywhichsignificant othersidentify them;(b) theytendtomergeroleand
personselectively so as to maximizeautonomy (cf. theself-efficacymotive)
THE SELF-CONCEPT 15

andpositiveself-evaluations (cf. theself-esteem motive);and(c) theytendto


mergewiththoserolesin whichtheirinvestment has beengreatest (1978:13).
Turnerformulates numerouspropositions derivedfromtheseprinciplesof
role-person merger.This workconstitutes the mostextensiveand formal
attempt to integrate roletheoryand selftheory.
Researchon self-concept by structural symbolicinteractionists has often
usedtheTwentyStatements Test(TST), an open-ended instrument thatsimply
asks personsto give twentyanswersto thequestion"Who am I?" [Other
measuresof identity have recentlyappeared e.g. Burke& Tully (1977),
Jackson(1981), Turner& Schutte(1981).] Originally developedbyKuhn&
McPartland (1954) theTST has been used in numerousstudiesfocusingon
identitiesand theirorganization [see Spitzeret al (1971) fora review].The
TST [and a parallelinstrument developedwithinphenomenological self-
psychology byBugental& Zelen (1950) calledthe"WhoareYou?" (W-A-Y)
technique] is nota measureofself-concept buta stimulus forself-descriptions.
Measurement becomespossiblewhentheresponsesarecoded.Variouscoding
schemeshavebeen developed,fromtheinitiallysimpledistinction between
"consensual" (public)and"subconsensual" (personal)identities (Kuhn& Mc-
Partland1954), to theelaborate,computer-based schemedevelopedby Gor-
don (1968). Most such schemesaim to developidentity categoriesthat(a)
enableexamination of thelinkbetweenself-conceptions and social systems,
and (b) revealpatterns amongtheidentities thatcompriseself-conceptions.
Self-descriptions mentioned first in theTST haveoftenbeenconsidered to be
moreimportant to therespondent thanthosementioned later[an assumption
questioned byGordon(1968) and McPhail& Tucker(1972); theimportance
of sequencehas been shown to vary across populations].Some coding
schemes[e.g. Kuhn& McPartland's(1954) distinction between"consensual"
and"subconsensual"identities, andGordon's(1968) categories of"rolesand
memberships"] explicitlyfocuson the"anchorage"of individualsin social
institutions. Comparisonsare typicallymade betweenpopulations(men vs
women;lowerclass vs middleclass; college studentvs oldersubjects,etc)
withregard,forexample,to theirstructural integration or theirdiversityof
self-designations.
OtherresearchusingtheTST has isolatedparticular identitiesforspecial
attention,suchas gender,ethnic,or familyidentities (Wellman1971; Gecas
1973).Theseparticular identitieshave,ofcourse,receivedconsiderable atten-
tionoutsideof structural symbolicinteractionism as well, and have been
subjected to variousmeasurement strategies[see Wylie(1979) fora review].
Thebulkof theresearchon specificidentities focuseseitheron socialization
intotheidentity (e.g. themassiveliterature on sex-rolesocialization),evalu-
ationsoftheidentity [whichcharacterizes muchoftheresearchon racialand
16 GECAS

ethnicidentities],
or conflict
and strainin theself-conceptas a consequence
of role-transitions
[e.g. Lopata (973) on adjustments to widowhood;and
Weigert& Hastings(1977) on identity loss in thefamily].
SOCIAL STRUCTURAL INFLUENCES ON SELF-CONCEPTION The influence ofsocial
structureon self-conceptions has been mostapparentat the macrolevelsof
analysis-i.e. wherethe societyor its majorinstitutions are the focusof
attention.
Turner's(1976) workon "therealself"is exemplary. He arguesthat
"thearticulationof real selveswithsocial structure shouldbe a majorlinkin
thefunctioning and changeof societies"(1976:990). By "real self"Turner
meansthelocus of an individual'ssenseof authenticity, responsibility, and
accountability."To varyingdegrees,"Turnerproposes,"people acceptas
evidenceof theirreal selveseitherfeelingsand actionswithan institutional
focusoronestheyidentify impulse"(1976:990). Thisdistinction
as strictly is
reminiscent ofKuhn& McPartland's (1954) distinctionbetween"consensual"
and"subconsensual" identities,although Turnerelaboratesto a muchgreater
extenttheconsequencesof thesetwo self-anchorages forpersonalbehavior,
forsocial structure,and forsocial change."Institutionals" are likelyto be
future-oriented;theyadhereto highmoralstandards and considertheselfto
be createdthrough theiractions."Impulsives,"on theotherhand,are likely
tobe orientedtowardthepresent, tofeelconstrained byinstitutional roles,and
toviewtheselfas something tobe discovered.Turnerseekstolocatethe"real
self"byusingan open-ended format to elicitresponseson thecircumstances
in whichpeople feelmost"authentic" or "inauthentic"(Turner& Schutte
1981). An important feature of Turner'sapproachto self-concept is notonly
itsconcernwithwhattheselfis (experientially), butalso withwhattheself
is not(Turner& Gordon1981).
Considering social change,Turner(1976) hypothesizes thatoverthepast
fewdecadestherehas beena substantial shiftawayfroman institutional and
towardan impulsivelocus of self. (He also speculatesaboutFreud'srole in
thisshift.)Othershaveobservedsimilarchangesinself-orientation
facilitating
as a function of changesin society:Riesmanet al (1950) arguedforan
historicalshiftfrom"inner-directed" to "other-directed"motivational types;
Lifton's(1970) chameleon-like "proteanman" and Snyder's(1979) high
''self-monitoring"individualare offeredas prototypes of the individualin
contemporary society.Zurcher(1977) proposedthe"mutableself" to be a
healthyadaptation torapidsocialchange.Marginality anduncertainty seemto
facilitate
thedevelopment of a "mutableself". Even if such conditionsare
becoming increasingly prevalent, thereis somequestionwhether rootlessness,
lack of commitment to social institutions, and "goingwiththe situational
flow"are salutary features of theselfeven in a rapidlychangingsociety.
Symbolicinteractionists havenotbeenaloneinconsidering therelationship
THE SELF-CONCEPT 17

betweensocialorganization andtheself-concept. Thisconcernis increasingly


evidentin studiesof social structureand personality [see House (1981) and
Simpson(1980) forreviews].For example,Kanter's(1977) analysisof the
psychological consequencesof powerand opportunity in theworkplace,and
Kohn's (1969, 1981) extensiveworkon theconsequencesof occupational
conditionsforself-values andintellectual flexibility
(bothforming theirargu-
mentsin thesociologicaltradition of Durkheim, Weber,andMarx)arerele-
vanthere.In general,theMarxistperspective (and variousderivatives) has
encouragedexaminationof social organizational conditionsin the devel-
opmentof self-estrangement, powerlessness, alienation,and othernegative
aspectsoftheself-concept [see, forexample,Bowles & Gintis(1976) on the
negativeeffectsof thepublicschoolsystemon students'self-concepts]. An
earlyimpressive workfromthisperspective is Luria's (1976) research,con-
ductedin theearly1930s,on theeffectsof thecommunist revolutionon the
consciousness andself-conceptions ofpeasantslivingintheremotevillagesof
Uzbekistan, USSR. Throughextensiveinterviews withthesepeasants,Luria
andhiscolleaguesfoundthatdegreeof exposureto communist ideologyand
involvement in collectivefarmworkhad a dramaticeffecton thelevel and
natureofself-awareness. SomeofLuria'sconclusionsmayhavebeencolored
byhiscommitment toMarxist-Leninist ideologyandhisdesiretodemonstrate
itsbeneficialconsequences.The specificcontentof theideologymaybe less
important in explainingchangesin cognitiveprocessesand self-awareness
thantheexperience ofa revolutionarymovement itself,especiallya movement
thatradicallyredefinesrelationships betweenindividualsand betweenthe
individualand society.Inkeles's(1960) work,forexample,has shownthat
modernization has similarconsciousness-expanding consequences.

SELF-CONCEPT AS A SOURCE OF MOTIVATION


Theself-conceptis, toa largeextent,an agentofitsowncreation.Thissection
focuseson threemajormotivesassociatedwiththe self-concept: the self-
efficacymotive;the self-esteem or self-enhancement motive;and the self-
consistencymotive.Whilesociologistshave occasionallyventured intothis
domain,ithasbeendominated bypsychologists,withtheirhistorically
greater
interest
in questionsof humanmotivation.

Motive
Self-Efficacy
Perhapsthemostfundamental senseof self-conceptas cause is foundin the
notionof humanagency,expressedin such termsas effectance motivation
(White1959;Harter1978),personalcausation(deCharms1968),self-efficacy
(Bandura1977), intrinsicmotivation(Deci 1975), intentionality(Weigert
18 GECAS

1975; Giddens 1979; Taylor 1977), internallocus of control(Rotter1966) and


(Mischel& Mischel1977). Thattheselfis an originating
self-control agent
seemscrucialto the fundamental experienceof self. As Turnerobserves,
"behaviorsthoughtto revealthe trueself are also ones whose causes are
perceivedas residingin thepersonratherthanthesituation" (1976:991).
Historically,symbolicinteractionism has strongly advocatedan active,
creative,and agentiveview of theself.One of thebasic assumptions of this
perspectiveis thatmanis an actoras well as a reactor.BothJamesandMead
emphasizedthe creativeaspectsof humanaction,attributing theseactive
propertiesto the"I" aspectof theself.Even Cooley,his looking-glass meta-
phornotwithstanding, consideredeffective actionas thewellspring oftheself
[see Franks& Seeberger(1980) and Reitzes(1980) forexaminations of this
themeinCooley'swork].The activeselfis also quiteevidentincontemporary
expressionsof symbolicinteractionism, constituting a hallmarkof the
"processualinteractionist"orientation.It is apparent, forexample,in Goff-
man's(1959) workonimpression management as interpersonal Wein-
control,
stein's(1969) workon altercastingas identity manipulation, andvariousother
discussionsof constructingsituations andnegotiating realities(Blumer1969;
Stone & Farberman1970).
Centralas theideaofhumanagencyis tosymbolic theyhave
interactionists,
beenreluctanttocastitinmotivational terms.[Stone& Farberman (1970:467)
reflect
thesymbolicinteractionists'antipathy fortheconceptof motivation.]
As a result,theactiveselfis seen primarily as themajorsourceof indeter-
minancyin humanconduct,ratherthanas a sourceof motivation and self-
determination.Therehasbeenno suchreluctance on thepartofpsychologists
to conceptualizemotivationalprocessesemanating fromtheself.One of the
mostinfluentialformulations has beenWhite's(1959) conceptof effectance
or competence motivation. Whitemade a strongcase fortheoperationof a
motivationformastery and theexperienceof selfas a causal agentin one's
environment. He notedthatexploratory and manipulative behaviors(in ani-
malsas well as man) are rewarding in theirown rightand characteristically
occurwhenbasic physiologicaldrivesare satisfied[see deCharms& Muir
(1978) fora reviewof the"intrinsic motivation" and Ross (1976)
literature,
fora reviewof conditionsunderwhichextrinsic rewardsundermine intrinsic
motivation].Foote & Cottrell's(1955) concept of "interpersonal com-
petence,"whichtheydefineas theabilitytoproduceintended effects (p. 38),
Brehm's(1966) conceptof"psychological reactance"(themotivation to seek
freedomfromconstraints), Adler's (1927) conceptof "mastery,"Smith's
(1968, 1978) discussion of the "competentself," Franks & Marolla's (1976)
conceptof "innerself-esteem" (self-esteem action),and
based on efficacious
McClellands ' (1975) "powermotive"(strivingforpowerandcontrol)all stress
thebasic motivational elementof the activeself.
THE SELF-CONCEPT 19

The importance of self-efficacy as a majormotivation becomesapparent


whenwe considertheconsequencesof its inhibition or suppression. Within
sociology,thishas been associatedwiththeconceptof alienation(Seeman
1959).Theclassicstatement on thisassociationwas formulated byMarx,who
arguedthatthemostimportant consequenceof powerlessness is alienation.
Alienation hererefersto thefeelingof self-estrangement producedwhenthe
products ofworkareno longerreflections oftheself.Thishappenswhenlabor
becomesmerelyinstrumental and theindividualloses controloverthedirec-
tionandproductsof his work.
Within psychology, thecase fortheimportance ofself-efficacy is addressed
by Seligman(1975), who has tiedhis conceptof "learnedhelplessness"to
depression.Learnedhelplessnessrefersto a chronicsense of inefficacy re-
sulting fromlearningthatone's actionshaveno effecton one's environment.
In recentformulations ofthetheory, Seligmanandhiscolleagues(Abramson
etal 1978)arguethatdepression stemming fromlearnedhelplessness is likely
tooccurwhentheindividual attributeshisinefficacy topersonalfailurerather
thanto universalconditions.Seligmanviews learnedhelplessnessas a
sufficientbutnota necessaryantecedent of depression.His work,however,
accentuates theimportance of self-efficacyforpsychological well-being.
The conditionsand consequencesof theperception of self-as-cause have
becomea majorfocusofcontemporary attributiontheory.Especiallyrelevant
herearetheself-attributions individuals makewithregardtopersonalcontrol
overeventsthataffectthem.Rotter(1966) distinguishes between"internal"
and "external"loci of control,as generalizedexpectanciesthatindividuals
developin relationto theirenvironment. DeCharms(1968) distinguishes
"origins"from"pawns".Kelley(1971) discussestheneedtoperceiveoneself
as exercisingeffectivecontrolinattribution processes.In mostoftheliterature
on consequencesof thesegeneralizedexpectancies,it is betterto be origin
(internalcontrol)thanpawn(externalcontrol)[see Wortman (1976) andLef-
court(1976) forreviewsof causal attributions and personalcontrol].
Bandura(1974, 1977, 1978, 1981), who has recently been developinga
highlycognitiveversionof social learningtheory centered on self-evaluation
processes,has addedseveralrefinements to theself-efficacy literature. Band-
uramakesan important distinction betweenefficacy expectations andoutcome
expectations. An outcomeexpectation is an estimate thata givenbehaviorwill
lead to a certainoutcome;an efficacy expectation is thebeliefthatone can
successfully perform thebehaviorrequiredto producetheoutcome(Bandura
1977:193).The former is a beliefaboutone's environment, thelattera belief
aboutone's competence.Feelingsof futility mayresultfrom(a) low self-
efficacyor (b) perception of a social structure as unresponsive to one's ac-
tions."To alterefficacy-based futilityrequiresdevelopment of competencies
andexpectations of personaleffectiveness. By contrast to changeoutcome-
20 GECAS

basedfutilitynecessitateschangesin prevailing environmental contingencies


thatrestorethe instrumental value of the expectanciesthatpeople already
possess"(Bandura,1977:205).ThusBanduradifferentiates perceptions ofself
fromperceptions of self in relationto social structurea distinction that
providesa bridgeto traditional sociologicalconcerns.
The motivational significance ofbeliefsregarding self-efficacy
is also evi-
dentin theliteratureon self-fulfilling
prophecies(Jones1977). Whenpeople
actonerroneous beliefstheycan sometimes altersocialrealityinthedirection
of theinitially
mistaken belief(Bandura1981; Merton1957). Self-fulfilling
prophecies,ofcourse,can eitherincreaseordecreaseself-efficacy, depending
on thenatureof theindividual'sbeliefor expectation.

Motive
Self-Esteem
The motivationto maintain andenhancea positiveconception of oneselfhas
beenthought to be pervasive,even universal(Rosenberg1979; Wells 1978;
Kaplan 1975; Rokeach1979; Hales 1981a). Wells & Marwellobservethat
everyselftheorypositssome variantof thismotive(1976:54). Even some
social-psychological thatdidnotstartoutas selftheories
theories becamesuch
largelybecauseoftheoperation oftheself-esteem motive.Themostdramatic
transformationoccurredfor cognitivedissonancetheory[see especially
Greenwald & Ronis(1978)]. The originalversionof thetheory, in whichthe
motivationalfactorwas a perceivedincongruity betweentwo cognitiveele-
ments,has essentially beenreplacedwithone in whichself-esteem motivates
dissonance-reducing actions. Aronson(1968) and Rokeach (1968, 1973)
arguedthatcognitive dissonanceis a significant
motivationalforceonlywhen
theself-conceptis involved.Greenwald& Ronisdescribethepresentstateof
cognitivedissonancetheoryas follows:"The motivational forcein present
versionsof dissonancetheoryhas muchmoreof an ego-defensive charac-
ter. . . . The theoryseems now to be focused on cognitivechanges occurring
in theserviceof ego defense,or self-esteem maintenance,ratherthanin the
interestof preserving
psychological consistency"(1978:54-55).
Othernotabletheorieshaveincreasingly becomeselftheories becauseofthe
perceived importanceoftheself-esteem motiveincognitive functioning-e.g.
Rokeach'svalue theory(1973, 1979), and attribution theory.Rokeachhas
recentlystated:"Thus,in thefinalanalysis,I havecometo viewtheproblem
of attitudechangeand behaviorchangeas being ultimately linkedto the
problem ofhowchangesarebrought aboutin theself"(1979:53). Rokeach's
theory resemblesthereformulated cognitivedissonancetheoryin thatboth
locatethemotivating mechanismin thediscrepancy betweena cognitiveor
behavioral elementand theperson'sself-conception. Such discrepanciesare
motivating, Rokeachpointsout,becausetheythreaten self-maintenance
and
self-enhancement (1979:53).
THE SELF-CONCEPT 21

As aspectsoftheself-esteem motive,self-enhancement emphasizesgrowth,


expansion,andincreasing one's self-esteem,whileself-maintenance focuses
on notlosingwhatone has. The twoengender behavioralstrategies.
different
In theirexamination of self-esteem in the classroom,Covington& Beery
(1976) describethesetwomotivational orientationsas "striving forsuccess"
and"fearof failure."In general,personswithlow self-esteem aremotivated
moreby self-maintenance thanby self-enhancement.
In Duval & Wicklund's(1972) self-awareness theory,a motivation to
changearisesfromone's awarenessofan incongruity betweenone's idealized
self-concept and one's self-image(the self as it appearsin behavior).The
individual'sevaluationof selfas less thandesirablemotivates himor herto
improve his/herbehaviorinordertomaintain self-esteem. Duval & Wicklund
emphasizeself-focused attention as theinitialstepinthewholeprocess.They
arguethatcomponentsof self (values, beliefs,identities, etc) exertlittle
influence on individualfunctioning untilactivated.(Thisviewis at oddswith
mostsociologicalandmanypsychological conceptions ofself.)Activation can
be inducedby anystimulussuggestiveof theself-Duval & Wicklundused
mirrors and voice recordings in their studies.Once self-directed attention
comesintoplayitwillgravitate towardthemostsalientfeature oftheself.The
natureofsalienceis notwelldevelopedin thistheory.[By contrast, Rokeach
confronts subjectswithfeedbackdesignedto increasetheirawarenessof
apparent discrepanciesin salientaspectsof theirself-conceptions (Rokeach
1973).] Wicklund(1979) suggeststhat"once attention comes to bear on a
specificdimension of self,self-evaluation takeshold"(1979:189). Thiseval-
uationcan be eitherpositiveor negative;but,accordingto Wicklund,only
negativeself-evaluations have important motivationalconsequences.At first
glance,"self-awareness theory" appearsto be a cognitiveconsistency theory;
butin facttheself-esteem motive,activatedby a negativeself-evaluation, is
offered as themajorimpetusforchange.[See criticism of thispointby Hull
& Levy (1979).]
Withinattribution theory, theemergence of theself-esteem motiveis most
evidentin discussionsof self-serving bias in attributionprocesses(Bradley
1978;Arkinet al 1980;Bowerman1978). Thisbias is thetendency ofpeople
totakecreditforpositiveoutcomeswhiledenyingresponsibility fornegative
outcomes.Bradley's(1978) reviewof theattribution researchrevealsstrong
supportforthe operationof self-serving, or defensive,causal attributions
[Miller& Ross (1975) presenta moreskepticalinterpretation].
Theself-esteem motiveis manifest inthegeneraltendency todistort reality
intheserviceofmaintaining a positiveself-conception, through suchstrategi-
es as selectiveperception(Rosenberg1979),reconstruction ofpersonalhistory
(Greenwald1980), and someof theclassicego-defensive mechanisms (Hil-
gard1949). Rosenberg(1979) showsthatselectivity protectsself-esteem by
22 GECAS

influencing(a) whichotherswill be significant (i.e. throughselectiveinter-


action,imputation, and valuation),(b) whichsocial comparisonswill be
made,and(c) whichaspectsoftheself-concept willbe central.Psychological
in theserviceof self-esteem
selectivity is also thebasis of Kaplan's (1975)
theoryof delinquent behavior.Kaplan (1975) proposesthatlow self-esteem
duetofailurein thepursuitof "legitimate"activities increasestheprobability
thata personwill engagein deviantactivitiesand selectdeviantothersas a
referencegroupin an effort
toincreaseself-esteem. His ownresearchandthat
ofothers(Rosenberg& Rosenberg1978) seemsto supportthismotivational
component of self-esteem
in theetiologyof devianceand delinquency.
SELF-ESTEEMAS AN INDEPENDENTVARIABLE There is a vast researchliterature
in whichtheself-concept is considerednotin motivational termsbutforits
effectson a widerangeofpsychological andbehavioralphenomena.Mostof
thisliterature focuseson the evaluative dimensionof self-concept, partly
becauseof the strength and pervasiveness of the self-esteemmotive.As a
result,self-esteem hasbeenrelatedtoalmosteverything atonetimeoranother
(Crandall1973:45). For example,self-esteem has been foundto affectcon-
formity orpersuasibility, interpersonalattraction,moralbehavior,educational
orientations, andvariousaspectsofpersonality andmentalhealth[see Wells
& Marwell(1976) andRosenberg(1981) forreviews].In mostresearchareas,
low self-esteem is associatedwithundesirableoutcomes,such as greater
propensity to engage in delinquentbehavioror lower academicinterests,
aspirations, and achievements.
Highself-esteem is generally viewedas havingfavorable consequences, but
theresearchliterature is by no meansclearon thispoint.To be sure,high
self-esteem is commonlyassociatedwitheffectiveand "healthy"personal
functioning-e.g. confidence andindependence (Rosenberg1965),creativity
and flexibility (Coopersmith 1967), and lowerdispositiontowarddeviance
(Kaplan 1975). But it can also be arguedthatdefensemechanisms operate
moreeffectively andforcefully underconditions ofhighself-esteemto inhibit
theperception of negativeinformation (Byrne1961), therebymakingthe
individualless open to new experiencesand change(Katz & Zigler 1967).
Othersarguethata "medium"amountof self-esteem is optimalforpsycho-
logicalfunctioning, considering boththehighand thelow positionsas dys-
functional (Cole et al 1967). Wells & Marwell(1976:69-73) reviewthe
confusing stateof theresearchon optimalself-esteem.
Partof thereasonforthisconfusionis thathighself-esteem maybe due
eithertogenuinely highself-evaluation, basedon effective performance, orto
"defensively" highself-esteem, based on insecurity and confounded witha
needforsocial approval(Hales 198ib; Crowne& Marlowe1964; Franks&
Marolla(1976). But theproblemis morecomplicatedthanthequestionof
differential bases of self-esteem. It has alreadybeen arguedthatthe self-
THE SELF-CONCEPT 23

esteemmotivedistorts perceptionsandcognitions,
resulting
in self-deception.
This may be bothfunctional and dysfunctionalforthe individual.In this
regard,someinteresting butdisconcertingfindings
havebeenreported on the
relationshipbetweenaccuracyof self-perception and depression(Alloy &
Abramson 1979;Lewinsohn& Mischel1980). Lewinsohn& Mischel(1980)
foundthatclinicallydepressedpatientswere morerealisticin theirself-
perceptions(as judgedby thedegreeof congruence betweenself-ratingsand
observerratingson a numberof social competencies)thanwerethosein the
"normal"controlgroup,who weremorelikelyto engagein self-enhancing
distortions.
This line of researchon the mixedbenefitsof self-esteem led
Mischelto speculatethat"self-enhancing informationprocessingand biased
self-encodingmay be botha requirement forpositiveaffectandthepricefor
achievingit" (1979:752).

Motive
Consistency
The motivation forconsistency and continuity in self-concepts is considered
weakerthanthatforself-enhancement (Jones1973). Some have evenques-
tionedits existenceas a selfmotive(Gergen1968). The researchevidence
seemsto supporttheclaimthatself-esteem is a morepowerfulmotivethan
self-consistency when the two are posed againsteach other(Jones 1973;
Krauss& Critchfield 1975). However,thismaybe due largelyto thenature
ofthecontrasts madeandtheareasoftheirapplication. Comparisons between
therelativeefficacy of self-esteem andself-consistency haveall beenmadeat
theevaluativelevel of theself-concept, a circumstance thatfavorstheself-
esteemmotive.Self-consistency is morerelevant tothesubstantive dimension
of the self-concept, the domainof identitiesand beliefsabout self. Two
literaturesin social psychology addresstheself-consistency motive:thepsy-
chologicalliterature on self-concept as a cognitive organization ofknowledge
and beliefs;and the sociologicalliterature on identities as sourcesof mo-
tivation.In the former, consistency refersto the cognitiveorganization of
attitudesabouttheself.In thelatter,consistency is thecongruence between
identitiesand rolebehaviors.
To considertheself-concept as an organization ofknowledgeis toempha-
size itsinformation processing(or encoding)functions, whichstrivetoward
perceivedconsistency[see Epstein (1973), discussedearlier;Greenwald
(1980);Markus(1977, 1980)]. Lecky(1951), an earlyadvocateoftheconsis-
tencymotive,viewedthemaintenance of a unifiedconceptualsystemas the
overriding needof theindividual.The self-concept as a self-theory (Epstein
1973)seekstomaintain a coherent viewofitselfinordertooperateeffectively
in theworld.Markus(1977) considerstheself-concept to be a collectionof
cognitive generalizations (self-schemata) thatorganizetheprocessing of self-
relevant information. These self-schemata becomeincreasingly resistantto
24 GECAS

inconsistentinformation [Fiske& Linville(1980) providea criticalassessment


oftheschemaconceptincurrent socialpsychology]. Hull& Levy(1979) have
recastDuval & Wicklund's(1972) self-awareness theory(whichis based on
theself-esteem motive)intoa theory ofself-concept emphasizing information
processingand the organizationof self-knowledge. They propose that
"self-awareness corresponds to the encodingof information in termsof its
relevancefortheself"(Hull & Levy 1979:757).Greenwald(1980) identifies
themotivational elementintheself-concept (as an organization ofknowledge)
as "cognitive conservatism," whichhe viewsas "thedisposition to preserve
existingknowledgestructures, suchas percepts,schemata(categories),and
memories"(1980:606). The motivationfor cognitiveconservatismand,
hence,perceivedself-consistency, manifests itselfintheactivereconstruction
ofmemories andpersonalhistory, as well as in selectiveperceptions (Green-
wald1980). Thisselectiveprocessing ofinformation is typicallyself-serving,
whichis whyitis sometimes difficult
to distinguish self-esteem theoriesfrom
self-consistencytheories[Greenwald (1980) considersthesetwoself-motives
complementary].
The self-concept as an organizationof identitiesalso providesa mo-
tivationalbasis forconsistency.Foote (1951) arguedthatindividualsare
motivated to act in accordancewiththe values and normsimpliedby the
towhichtheybecomecommitted.
identities Morerecently, Stryker (1980) has
arguedthatthehigherthesalienceof an identity withintheself-concept, the
greateris itsmotivational significance, a proposition thathas receivedsome
empiricalsupport(Jackson1981; Santee& Jackson1979; Stryker & Serpe,
1982). The motivationfor consistencyor congruencebetween self-
conceptions, rolepreferences, andbehaviorshasbeendemonstrated inseveral
studies(Backman& Secord 1968; Burke& Reitzes 1981). Note thatself-
consistencydoes not mean actual consistencyand continuityin self-
conception,but ratherthe sense or perceptionof consistency; we have a
tendency to createa sense of self-consistency even if consistency and con-
tinuitymaynotin factexist.

SELF-CONCEPT OVER THE LIFE CYCLE


Thetopicof stabilityandchangein self-conceptsoverthelifecyclehas been
of longitudinal
neglected,partlyowing to the difficulties research.Also,
life-cycleconcernshave been dominatedby developmental psychologists
(especiallyPiaget and Kohlberg),withtheir major interestin childhood
development, and by neo-Freudians [especiallyErikson(1959)], withtheir
focus on personalityratherthan on self-conceptper se. A promising
development is theincreasing tohistorical
attention onthelifespan,
influences
suchas Elder's (1974) excellentlongitudinalstudyof a cohortof children
THE SELF-CONCEPT 25

duringtheDepressionand in thefollowingdecades. Some of thishistorical


research has triedto demonstrate thesociohistorical relativity
of someof our
life-spanconceptsand assumptions, especiallyour ideas aboutchildhood,
adolescence, andold age (Gergen1980;vandenBerg1961). Buthereas well,
theself-concept tendsto be an incidental concern.
However, some attempts have been made to considerself-concept changes
in thecontextof life-stageanalyses.Gordon(1976), forexample,uses a
"stage-developmental" modelbasedlargelyonErikson's(1959) delineation of
stage-specific dilemmastodiscusschangesinself-concepts overthelifecycle.
Mostresearchon life-cyclechangesin self-concepts has tendedto focuson
transitions to or froma specific"stage"of development. The bulk of this
researchhas focusedon the transition to adolescence,inspiredlargelyby
Erikson's(1959) notionof an identity crisisassociatedwiththisstage.The
researchevidence,while farfromconsistent(cf Long et al 1967), seems
generally to supportthe idea of a self-concept disturbance in adolescence
(Rosenberg1979; Simmonset al 1973; Simmonset al 1979). Rosenberg
(1979)foundthatthisdisturbance in self-conceptis due,notonlytobiological
andhormonal changes,butespeciallyto theshiftfromelementary schoolto
juniorhigh.The interacting effectsof biological,environmental, and social
factorson self-esteem in earlyadolescenceareexaminedin greaterdetailby
Simmons etal (1979), whofoundthattheshiftfromelementary tojuniorhigh
is morestressful forgirlsthanboys,andis especiallyhardon theself-esteem
of earlymaturing (pubertal)girlswhohavebegundating.The shifttojunior
highhadlittleeffect on boys' self-esteem, butearlyphysicaldevelopment had
a positive effect.Clausen(1975) also foundearlymaturation to be advan-
tageousforboys' self-concepts, especiallyforthosefromthelowerclass.
Alongwithself-esteem and body-image,otheraspectsof the self-concept
foundto be affected by thetransition fromchildhoodto adolescenceare the
locusand contentof self-knowledge [e.g. see Rosenberg(1979) on theshift
from"external" to "internal"selfattributions, Gordon(1976) on changesin
thecontentof role-identities, and Montemayor & Eisen (1977) on changes
fromconcreteto abstractmodesof self-representation].
Laterlifestageshavenotreceivednearlyas muchattention as adolescence.
Recently, someinterest has beendirectedtowardthe"middleyears"andthe
"mid-lifecrisis"(Brim1976; Levinson,1978), and towardold age and the
varioustransitions associatedwithit, suchas retirement, the"emptynest,"
bereavement, anddeath.Thesearepromising developments, thoughthislite-
rature
is onlyindirectly concernedwithmatters of self-concept.
Focuson stagesofthelifecycleis notnecessarily thebestwayofaddressing
thequestionof continuity and changein self-concepts over time.Another
approach is toexaminethestructure andcontent of self-concepts acrosstime,
withan eyeto determining theirstability,variability,andmodeofinteraction
26 GECAS

withlifeevents.In a sophisticated andinnovative analysis,Mortimer andher


colleagues(Mortimer et al 1981; Mortimer & Lorence1980) examinedsta-
bilityand changein self-concept in a panel studyof 368 men. Usingfour
separatecriteriaof self-conceptstability,Mortimer et al (1981) founda high
levelof stabilityforthissampleon fourself-concept dimensions.Theyalso
demonstrate how earlyself-concept (focusingon the"senseof competence"
dimension) shapesone's lifeeventsin theareasofworkandfamily,andhow
theselifeevents,inturn,havean independent effect on self-concept.Through
a seriesof regression analyses,Mortimer et al (1981) demonstrate "thatthe
relationshipbetweenlifeexperiences andtheself-concept is truly
reciprocal."

MEASURING THE SELF-CONCEPT

Measurement continuesto be a seriousproblemfacingresearchon theself-


conceptandthemajorobstacletocumulative andvalidknowledge inthisarea.
Thereare severalexcellentreviewsand critiquesof the multitude of self-
conceptmeasures:Crandall(1973), Wells & Marwell(1976), and Wylie
(1974, 1979) focusmainlyon measuresof self-evaluation; and Spitzeret al
(1971; Spitzer1976) deal withtheTwentyStatements Test. Wylie's(1974,
1979) extensivereviewsgive themostdismalpictureof themethodological
stateofself-concept research.She amplydocuments theprevalenceofinstru-
mentsofuntested orquestionable reliabilityandvalidity,manyusedonlyonce
or twice.Note, however,thatsuch problemscharacterize mostsocial and
psychological measurement (Wells& Marwell1976:250),andhaveespecially
plaguedcognitiveand motivational constructs.
Scholarsin thisarea are at leastbecomingsensitiveto problemsof mea-
surement [whichevenWylie(1974:324) acknowledges as a favorablesign].
This is mostevidentin the studyof substantive self-concept (identities),
where,indeed,themostworkhas beenneeded.The TST, themostfrequently
used measureof identities,has been severelycriticizedas a measureof
self-conceptforits lack of reliabilityand its questionablevalidity(Wells &
Marwell1976:120;Wylie1974:246),as well as forthelimitations itimposes
on statistical
analysis(Jackson1981). Severalpromising measuresof identi-
tieshaverecently appeared.Burke& Tully(1977) haveproposedtheuse of
multiple-discriminant analysison an "Osgood-type"semanticdifferential
scaleto discoverempirically the(connotative) meaningsassociatedwithpar-
ticularrole-identites.
Burke(1980) considersthisprocedureto be consistent
withthemeasurement requirements foran interactionist
conceptionof role-
identities.
Another development is Jackson's(1981) measureof commitment
to role-identities,
a 23-itemindexwithapparently good reliabilityand con-
structvalidity.Burke& Tully,as well as Jackson,have shunnedtheopen-
THE SELF-CONCEPT 27

endedformat oftheTST. Turner(Turner& Schutte1981),on theotherhand,


is developing
an open-ended instrument people's
to elicitresponsesregarding
senseof their"real selves" and "falseselves." For certainaspectsof self-
concept,an open-endedformat is stillthemostappropriate measure.

CONCLUSION

The self-concept is rapidlybecomingthedominant concernin socialpsychol-


ogy. In sociology,whereit has long been a centralconcernof symbolic
interactionists, the past decade has seen increasedefforts to examinethe
relationship betweensocial organization and thecontentand organization of
self-concepts. In psychology,the past decade or so has witnessedthe
emergence of a number of specificselftheoriesandtheconversion of several
majorcognitiveandbehavioraltheoriesintoselftheories.The pervasiveness
of theprocessesof self-concept maintenance and enhancement may have
precipitated whathas cometo be considereda crisisin socialpsychology. A
key factorin thiscrisisforpsychologicalsocial psychologyhas been the
realizationthatthe laboratoryexperiment is a social situationin which
"demandcharacteristics" and "situatedidentities"are as relevantto the
subjects'behavioras are theintendedexperimental manipulations.
Sociologicalsocialpsychology has tendedto focuson thedevelopment of
self-concepts, withan eyeto social structural andcontextual influences.Psy-
chologicalsocialpsychology has beenmoreinterested in theconsequencesof
self-concepts forindividual functioning. Still,severaltrendsin therecentself
literatureare commonto bothdisciplines.One is theincreasing tendency to
viewtheself-concept as active.The themeofhumanagencyis, ofcourse,an
oldonein socialpsychology (as wellas inphilosophy). New is theattempt to
capture thisactiveaspectoftheself-concept empirically. A relatedtrendis the
increasing recognition thattheselfanditssocialworldarereciprocally deter-
mined,an idea withbothmethodological and theoretical implications (of
Snyder1981; Wentworth 1980). This bringsme to thethirdtrend:greater
concern[mainlydissatisfaction (Wylie,1974)] withthecurrent stateof self-
conceptmeasurement. One hopes thisintellectual discomfort will be con-
vertedintothecreationof moreadequatemeasuresof self-constructs.
Thecurrent "crisis"in socialpsychology mayultimately be resolvedbyan
integratedself-theory, as severalscholarshavesuggested (Marlowe& Gergen
1969:643;Sherif1977); butwe stillhavea long wayto go. How toreconcile
theneedfora moreanthropomorphic conception ofthehumanbeing(McCall
& Simmons1978:254), one sensitiveto the reciprocity in the self-con-
cept/environment relationship, withtheneedforgreatermethodological pre-
cisionis themajorchallengein thestudyof theself-concept.
28 GECAS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wishto thankMorrisRosenberg,JeylanMortimer, Susan Hales, Milton


Rokeach,Michael Schwalbe,DrethaPhillips,and Ralph Turnerfortheir
helpfulcomments and criticisms
of earlierdrafts.Workon thispaperwas
supportedin partby Project0364, Departmentof RuralSociology,Agricul-
turalResearchCenter,Washington StateUniversity.
Literature
Cited
Abrahamson, L. Y., Seligman,M. E. P., tiveson theSelf,ed. J. Suls. Hillsdale,NJ:
Teasdale,J. D. 1978. Learnedhelplessness Erlbaum
in humans:critiqueand reformulation. Ab- Becker,H. S. 1960. Noteson theconceptof
norm.Psychol.87:49-74 commitment. Am.J. Sociol. 66:32-40
Adler,A. 1927. The Theoryand Practiceof Becker,H. S. 1963. Outsiders.Studiesin the
IndividualPsychology.NY: Harcourt SociologyofDeviance. NY: FreePress
Adler,P.A., Adler,P. 1978. Tinydopers:A Becker,H. S. 1964. Personalchangein adult
case studyof deviantsocialization.Symb. life.Sociometry 27:40-53
Interact.1:90-105 Becker, H. S., Hughes, E. C., Greer,B.,
Alexander, N. C., Knight,G. W. 1971. Situ- Strauss,A. 1961. Boys in White:Student
atedidentities and social psychological ex- Culturein Medical School. Chicago:Univ.
perimentation. Sociometry 34:65-82 ChicagoPress
Alexander, N. C., Lauderdale,P. 1977. Situ- Bern,D. J. 1972. Self-perception theory.In
atedidentities andsocialinfluence. Sociom- AdvancesinExperimental Social Psycholo-
etry40:225-33 gy,ed. L. Berkowitz Vol. 6. NY: Academic
Alexander,N. C., Wiley,M. G. 1981. Situ- Blumstein,P. W. 1973. Audience,machia-
atedactivity and identity formation.In So- vellianism,and tactics of identitybar-
ciologicalPerspectives on Social Psycholo- gaining.Sociometry 36:346-65
gy,ed M. Rosenberg, R. Turner.NY: Basic Blumstein, P. W. et al. 1974. The honoringof
Alloy,L. B., Abramson,L. Y. 1979. Judg- accounts.Am. Sociol. Rev. 39:551-66
mentof contingency in depressedand non- Blumer,H. 1969. SymbolicInteractionism:
depressedstudents:sadder but wiser? J. Perspective andMethod.EnglewoodCliffs,
Exp. Psychol.Gen. 108:441-85 NJ:Prentice-Hall
Arkin,R. M. 1980. Self-presentation. In The R. G., Roed,J.C., Svendsen,A. C.
Boutilier,
Selfin Social Psychology, ed. D. M. Weg- 1980. Crisesin thetwosocialpvhocevic
ner,R. R. VallacherNY: Oxford A critical comparison. Soc. I", '. '
Arkin,R. M., Appelman,A. J.,Burger,J.M. 43:5-17
1980. Social anxiety,self-preservation, and Bowerman,W. R. 1978. Subjectivecom-
theself-serving bias in causal attribution.
J. petence:the structure process, and func-
Person.Soc. Psychol.38:23-35 tioningon self-referentcausal attributions.
Aronson, E. 1968. Dissonance theory: J. Theor.Soc. Behav. 8:45-77
progress andproblems.In TheoriesofCog- Bowles, S., Gintis,H. 1976. Schoolingin
nitiveConsistency: A Sourcebook,ed. R. P. CapitalistAmerica.NY: Basic Books
Abelsonet al. Chicago:Rand McNally Bradley,G. W. 1978. Self-serving biases in
Bachman,J. G. 1970. TheImpactofFamily the attributionprocess:a reexamination of
Backgroundand Intelligenceon Tenth- thefactor fictionquestion.J. Person.Soc.
Grade Boys. Vol. 2. Youthin Transition. Psychol.36:56-71
AnnArbor,Mich: Inst.Soc. Res. Bramel,D. 1968.Dissonance,expectation and
Backman,C. W., Secord,P. F. 1968.The self the self. In Theoriesof CognitiveConsis-
androleselection.In TheSelfin Social In- tency,ed. R. P. Abelsonet al. Chicago:
teraction, ed. C. Gordon,K. J.GergenNY: Rand McNally
Wiley.Vol. 1. Brehm,J.W. 1966.A TheoryofPsychological
Bandura,A. 1974. Behaviortheoryand the Reactance.NY: Academic
modelsof man.Am. Psychol.29:859-69 Brim,0. G. Jr. 1976. Theoriesof the male
Bandura,A. 1977. Self-efficacy: towarda uni- mid-lifecrisis.Counsel.Psychol.6:2-9
fying theory ofbehavioralchange.Psychol. Brissett,D. 1972. Toward a clarification of
Rev. 84:191-215 self-esteem. Psychiatry35:255-63
Bandura,A. 1978. The selfsystemin recip- Bugental,J., Zelen, S. 1950. Investigations
rocaldeterminism. Am.Psychol.33:344-58 intotheself-concept:theW-A-Ytechnique.
Bandura, A. 1981.Theselfandmechanisms of J. Personal. 18:483-98
agency.In Social PsychologicalPerspec- Burke,P. J. 1980. The self:measurement re-
THE SELF-CONCEPT 29

quirements froman interactionist perspec- a theory of a theory. Am. Psychol.


tive.Soc. Psychol.Q. 43:18-29 28:404-16
Burke,P. J., Reitzes,D. C. 1981. The link Erikson,E. H. 1959. Identity and thelifecy-
betweenidentity androleperformance. Soc. cle. Psychol.Iss. 1:1-171
Psychol.Q. 44:83-92 Felson,R. B. 1980. Communication barriers
Burke,P. J.,Tully,J. 1977.The measurement and the reflectedappraisalprocess. Soc.
of role-identities.
Soc. Forces 55:881-97 Psychol.Q. 43:223-33
Byrne,D. 1961. The repression-sensitization Felson, R. B. 1981a. Self and reflected ap-
scale: rationale,reliability,
and validity.J. praisalsamongfootballplayers:a testofthe
Personal.29:334-49 Meadian hypothesis.Soc. Psychol. Q.
Carveth, D. L. 1977.Thedesembodied dialec- 44:116-26
tic:a psychoanalytic critiqueofsociological Felson,R. B. 1981b. Social sourcesof infor-
relativism.Theor.Soc. 4:73-102 mationin thedevelopment of self. Sociol.
Clausen,J. A. 1975. The social meaningof Q. 22:69-79 Soc. Psychol.Q. 44:64-69
differentialphysicaland sexualmaturation. Festinger,L. 1954. A theoryof social com-
In Adolescencein theLifeCycle,ed. S. E. parisonprocesses.Hum.Relat. 7:117-40
Dragastin, G. H. Elder,Jr.NY: Wiley Fiske,S. T., Linville,P. W. 1980. Whatdoes
Cole, C., Oetting,E. R., Hinkle,J. 1967. theschemaconceptbuyus? Personal.Soc.
Non-linearity of self-concept discrepancy: Psychol.Bull. 6:543-57
the value dimension. Psychol. Rep. Foote,N. N. 1951. Identification as thebasis
21:58-60 fora theory of motivation. Am.Socio. Rev.
Cooley,C. H. 1902. HumanNatureand the 16:14-21
Social Order.NY: Scribner Foote,N. N., Cottrell, L. S. Jr.1955.Identity
Coopersmith, S. 1967. The Antecedentsof and InterpersonalCompetence.Chicago:
Self-Esteem. San Francisco:W.H. Freeman Univ. ChicagoPress
Covington, M. V., Beery,R. G. 1976. Self- Franks,D. D., Marolla,J. 1976. Efficacious
worthandschoollearning.NY: Holt,Rine- actionand social approvalas interacting di-
hartandWinston mensionsof self-esteem: A tenativeformu-
Crandall,R. 1973. The measurement of self- lationthrough construct validation.Sociom-
esteemand relatedconstructs. In Measures etry39:324-41
of Social PsychologicalAttitudes,ed. J. Franks,D. D., Seeburger,F. F. 1980. The
Robinson,P. Shaver.AnnArbor,MI: Inst. personbehindthe word:Mead's theoryof
Soc. Res. universalsand a shiftof focusin symbolic
Crowne,W. J., Marlowe,D. 1964. The Ap- interactionism.Sym.Interact.3:41-58
provalMotive: Studiesin EvaluativeDe- Gallup, G. G. Jr. 1977. Self-recognition in
pendence.NY: Wiley primates-a comparativeapproachto the
Davis,J.A. 1966.The campusas a frogpond. bidirectionalpropertiesof consciousness.
Am.J. Sociol. 72:17-31 Am.Psychol.32:329-38
deCharms, R. 1968.PersonalCausation.NY: Gecas, V. 1971. Parentalbehavioranddimen-
Academic sionsofadolescentself-evaluation. Sociom-
deCharms, R., Muir,M. S. 1978. Motivation: etry34:466-82
social approaches. Ann. Rev. Psychol. Gecas, V. 1972. Parentalbehaviorand con-
29:91-113 textualvariations in adolescentself-esteem.
Decii, E. L. 1975. Intrinsic Motivation.NY: Sociometry 35:332-45
Plenum Gecas, V. 1973. Self-conceptions of migrant
Dember,W. N. 1974.Motivation andthecog- and settled Mexican Americans. Soc. Sci.
nitiverevolution. Am.Psychol.29:161-68 Q. 54:579-95
Denzin,N. K. 1970. TheResearchAct. Chi- Gecas, V. 1979. Beyondthe "looking-glass
cago: Aldine self" towardan efficacy-based model of
Denzin,N. K. 1977. ChildhoodSocialization: self-esteem.Paper presentedat the Ann.
Studiesin the Developmentof Language, Meet. Sociol. Assoc., Boston
Social Behavior,and Identity.San Fran- Gecas, V. 1981. Contextsof socialization.In
cisco:Jossey-Bass Social Ps chology:Sociological Perspec-
Denzin,N. K., Keller, C. M. 1981. Frame tives,ed. M. Rosenberg,R. Turner.NY:
analysis reconsidered.Contemp. Sociol. Basic
10:52-59 Gergen,K. J. 1968. Personalconsistency and
Drury,D. W. 1980. Black self-esteem and thepresentation ofself.In TheSelfinSocial
desegregated schools. Sociol. Educ. Interaction.ed. C. Gordon,K. J. Gergen.
53:88-103 NY: Wiley
Duval,S., Wicklund, R. A. 1972.A Theoryof Gergen,K. J. 1971. TheConceptofSelf.NY:
ObjectiveSelf-Awareness. NY: Academic Holt,Rinehart and Winston
Elder,G. H. Jr.1974. Childrenof theGreat Giddens,A. 1979. CentralProblemsinSocial
Depression.Chicago:Univ. ChicagoPress Theory.Los Angeles:Univ. Calif.Press
Epstein,S. 1973.The self-concept or Glaser,B. G.. Strauss,A. L. 1967.Awareness
revisited
30 GECAS

ofDying:A StudyofSocialInteraction. Chi- ality. In Social Psychology:Sociological


cago: AldinePress Perspectives, ed. M. Rosenberg, R. Turner.
Glassner,B., Corzine,J. 1978. Can labeling NY: Basic
theory be saved?Symb.Interact.1:74-89 Hull, J. G., A. S. Levy, 1979. The organi-
Goffman, E. 1959. ThePresentation ofSelfin zationalfunctions of self:an alternative to
Everyday Life. NY: Doubleday and the Duvall and Wicklundmodel of self-
Company awareness. J. Person. Soc. Psychol.
Goffman, E. 1963.Stigma.EnglewoodCliffs, 37:756-68
NJ:Prentice-Hall Inkeles,A. 1960. Industrial man:therelation
Goffman, E. 1967. InteractionRitual. NY: of statusto experience, perception, andval-
Doubleday ue. Am.J. Sociol. 66:1-31
Gonos,G. 1977. "Situation"versus"frame": Jackson, S. E. 1981. Measurement ofcommit-
The "interactionist" and the "structuralist" mentto roleidentities. J. Person.Soc. Psy-
analysisof everyday life.Am. Sociol. Rev. chol. 40:138-46
42:854-67 Jacques,J. M., Chason, K. J. 1977. Self-
Gordon,C. 1968. Self-conceptions: config- esteemand low statusgroups:a changing
urationsof content.In The Self in Social scene?Sociol. Q. 18:399-412
Interactions,ed. C. Gordon,K. J. Gergen, James,W. 1890. Principlesof Psychology.
Vol. 1. NY: Wiley NY: Holt
Gordon,C. 1976. Developmentof evaluated Jones,R. A. 1977. Self-Fulfilling Prophecies.
roleidentities.Ann.Rev. Sociol. 2:405-33 NY: Wiley
Greenwald, A. G. 1980. The totalitarianego: Jones,S. C. 1973. Selfandinterpersonal eval-
fabricationandrevisionofpersonalhistory. uations:esteemtheoriesversusconsistency
Am.Psychol.35:603-18 theories.Psychol. Bull. 79:185-99
Greenwald, A. G., Ronis,D. L. 1978. Twenty Kanter,R. 1977.Men and WomenoftheCor-
yearsofcognitivedissonance:case studyof poration.NY: Basic
the evolutionof a theory.Psychol. Rev. Kaplan,H. B. 1975. Self-attitudes anddeviant
85:53-57 behavior.PacificPalisades,CA: Goodyear
Gross,E., Stone,G. P. 1964. Embarrassment Publ.
andtheanalysisofrolerequirements. Am.J. Katz, P., Zigler, E. 1967. Self-imagedis-
Sociol. 70:1-15 parity:a developmental approach.J. Per-
Guiot,J. M. 1977. Attribution and identity son. Soc. Psychol.5:186-95
construction: somecomments. Am. Sociol. Kelley,H. H. 1971. Attribution in Social In-
Rev. 42:692-704 teraction.In Attribution: Perceivingthe
Hales,S. 1980.A developmental modelofself- Causes ofBehavior,ed. E. E. Joneset al.
esteembased on competence and moralbe- Morristown, NJ:GeneralLearningPress
havior:a longitudinal and cross-sectional Kelley,H. H. 1952. Two functions of refer-
analysis. PhD thesis. Univ. California, encegroups.In ReadingsinSocial Psychol-
Berkeley ogy,ed. G. E. Swansonet al. NY: Holt
Hales, S. 1981a. The inadvertent rediscovery Kinch,J.W. 1963. A formalized theory ofthe
of "self" in social psychology.Paper pre- self-concept. Am.J. Sociol. 68:481-86
sentedat theAm. Psychol.Assoc. Meet., Kohn, M. L. 1969. Class and Conformity.
Los Angeles Homewood,IL: DorseyPress
Hales, S. 1981b. Understanding therelation- Kohn, M. L. 1981. Personality, occupation,
ship betweenself-esteemand social de- and social stratification: a frameof refer-
sirability:A longitudinalstudy. Paper ence. In Research in Social Stratification
presentedat the Soc. Res. Child Devel. and Mobility,ed. D. J. Trieman,R. V.
Meet.,Boston Robinson,Vol. 1. Greenwich,CT: JAI
Harter,S. 1978. Effectance motivation recon- Press
sidered:towarda developmentalmodel. Krauss,H. H., Critchfield, L. L. 1975. Con-
Hum.Devel. 21:34-64 trasting self-esteem theoryand consistency
Heiss,J. 1968.FamilyRoles and Interaction. theory in predictinginterpersonal attraction.
Chicago:RandMcNally Sociometry 38:247-60
Heiss, J., OwensS. 1972. Self-evaluation of Kuhn,H. 1964. Major trendsin symbolicin-
blacks and whites. Am. J. Sociol. 78: teractionist theoryin the past twenty-five
360-70 years.Sociol. Q. 5:61-84
Hewitt,J. P., Stokes,R. 1975. Disclaimers. Kuhn,M. H., McPartland, T. 1954.Anempir-
Am.Sociol. Rev. 40:1-11 ical investigation of self-attitudes.Am. So-
Hilgard,E. R. 1949. Humanmotivesand the ciol. Rev. 19:68-76
conceptof theself.Am.Psychol.4:374-82 Lefcourt, H. M. 1976.LocusofControl.Hills-
House, J. S. 1977. The threefaces of social dale, NJ:Erlbaum.
psychology. Sociometry 40:161-77 Lemert, E. 1951. Social Pathology. NY:
House,J.S. 1981.Social structure andperson- McGraw-Hill
THE SELF-CONCEPT 31

Levinson,D. J. 1978. TheSeasonsofa Man's Boston:Routledgeand Kegan Paul


Life.NY: Ballantine Merton,R. 1957. Social Theoryand Social
Lewinsohn, P. M., Mischel,W. 1980. Social Structure. Glencoe,IL: The Free Press
competence anddepression: theroleof illu- Miller,D. T., Ross, M. 1975. Self-serving
soryself-perceptions. J. Abnorm.Psychol. biasesin theattribution of causality:factor
89:203-12 fiction? Psychol.Rev. 82:213-25
Lewis,J.D. 1979. A social behaviorist inter- Mischel,W. 1979. On the interface of cog-
pretationofthemeadian"I". Am.J. Sociol. nitionand personality: Beyondtheperson-
85:261-87 situationdebate.Am.Psychol.34:740-54
Lifton,R. J. 1970.Boundaries:Psychological Mischel, W., Mischel, H. N. 1977. Self-
Man inRevolution. NY: RandomHouse controland the self. In The Self: Psycho-
Lofland,J. 1977. Becominga world-saver re- logical and PhilosophicalIssues, ed. T.
visited.Am.Behav. Sci. 20:805-18 Mischel.Oxford:Basil Blackwell
Long,B. H., Henderson, E. H., Ziller,R. C. Miyamoto,S., Dornbusch,S. 1956. A testof
1967. Developmentalchangesin the self- the interactionisthypothesis of self-
conceptduringmiddlechildhood.Merrill- conception. Am.J. Sociol. 15:399-403
PalmerQ. 13:210-15 Modigliani,A. 1971. Embarrassment, face-
Lopata,H. Z. 1973. Self-identity in marriage work,and eye contact:testinga theoryof
andwidowhood.Sociol. Q. 14:407-18 embarrassment. J. Person. Soc. Psychol.
Luria,A. R. 1976.Cognitive Development: Its 17:15-24
Culturaland Social Foundations.Cam- Montemayor, R., Eisen,M. 1977. The devel-
bridge,MA: HarvardUniv. Press opmentof self-conceptions fromchildhood
Maines,D. R. 1977. Social organization and to adolescence.Devel. Psychol.13:314-19
social structure in symbolicinteractionist Morse, S., Gergen,K. 1970. Social com-
thought. Ann.Rev. Sociol. 3:235-59 parison,self-consistency, andtheconceptof
Manis,M. 1977. Cognitivesocialpsychology. self.J. Person.Soc. Psychol.16:148-56
Personal.Soc. Psychol.Bull. 3:550-66 Mortimer, J. T., Finch,M. D., Kumka,D.
Markus,H. 1977. Self-schemataand pro- 1981. Persistence a! J- -I i m]rnande-
cessinginformation abouttheself.J. Per- velopment: the l ia -i.: self-
son. Soc. Psychol.35:63-78 concept.In Life-SpanDevelopment and Be-
Marlowe,D., Gergen,K. J. 1969. Personality havior,ed. P. B. Baltes, 0. G. Brim,Jr.
and social interaction.In TheHandbookof NY: Academic.Vol. 4.
Social Psychology,ed. G. Lindzey, E. Mortimer,J. T., Lorence, J. 1979. Oc-
Aronson.Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley, cupationalexperienceand theself-concept:
2nded. Vol. 3. a longitudinalstudy. Soc. Psychol. Q.
McCall,G. J.,Simmons,J.L. 1978.Identities 42:307-23
andInteractions, NY: The FreePress.rev. Mortimer,J. T., Lorence, J. 1980. Self-
ed. conceptstability and changefromlateado-
McCarthy, J.D., Yancey,W. L. 1971. Uncle lescenceto earlyadulthood.In ResearchIn
TomandMr.Charlie:Metaphysical pathsin Community and MentalHealth,ed. R. G.
the studyof racism and personaldisor- Simmons.Greenwich:JAIPress.Vol. 2.
ganization. Am.J. Sociol. 76:648-72 Petryszakk, N. 1979. The biosociologyof the
McClelland,D. C. 1975. Power: The Inner social self.Sociol. Q. 20:291-303
Experience.NY: Irvington Porter,J. R., Washington, R. E. 1979. Black
McPartland,T. S. 1965. Manual for the identity and self-esteem. Ann.Rev. Sociol.
Twenty-Statements Problem.Kansas City: 5:53-74
Greater KansasCityMentalHealthFounda- Prus,R. C. 1975. Resistingdesignations: an
tion.rev. ed. extensionof attribution theoryintoa nego-
McPhail,C. 1979. Experimental researchis tiatedcontext.Sociol. Inq. 45:3-14
convergent withsymbolicinteraction. Sym- Quarantelli,E. L., Cooper, J. 1966. Self-
bol. Interact.2:89-94 conceptionsand others:a further test of
McPhail,C., Tucker,C. W. 1972. The class- Meadianhypotheses. Sociol. Q. 7:281-97
ificationand orderingof responsesto the Reitzes,D. C. 1980. Beyondthelooking-glass
question, "Who am I?". Sociol. Q. self:Cooley'ssocialselfanditstreatment in
13:329-47 introductory textbooks.Contemp.Sociol.
Mead, G. H. 1934. Mind,Self,and Society. 9:631-40
Chicago:Univ. ChicagoPress Riesman,D., Glazer,N., Denney,R. 1950.
Meddin,J. 1979. Chimpanzees,symbols,and TheLonelyCrowd.New Haven,CT: Yale
the reflectiveself. Soc. Psychol. Q. Univ. Press
42:99-109 Rogers,J.W., Buffalo,M. D. 1974. Fighting
Meltzer, B. N., Petras,J.W., Reynolds,L. T. back: ninemethodsof adaptation to a devi-
1975. SymbolicInteractionism: Genesis, antlabel. Soc. Probl. 22:101-18
Varietiesand Criticism.London/Henley/Rokeach,M. 1979. Someunresolved issuesin
32 GECAS

theoriesofbeliefs,attitudes, andvalues.Pa- Am. Sociol. Rev. 33:46-62


perpresented attheNebraskaSymp.on Mo- Seeman,M. 1959. On themeaningof alien-
tivation,March,1979 ation.Am. Sociol. Rev. 24:783-91
Rokeach,M. 1968. A theoryof organization Seligman,M. E. P. 1975. Helplessness:On
andchangewithin value-attitude systems. J. Suppression, Development, and Death. San
Soc. Iss. 24:13-32 Francisco:Freeman
Rokeach,M. 1973.TheNatureofHumanVal- Sherif,M. 1977.The crisisin socialpsycholo-
ues. NY: FreePress gy.Personal.Soc. Psychol.Bull. 3:368- 82
Rosenberg, F. R., Rosenberg,M. 1978. Self- Shibutani,T. 1961. Societyand Personality.
esteemand delinquency. J. YouthAdolesc. EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall
7:279-94 Shrauger,J. S., Schoeneman,T. J. 1979.
Rosenberg, M. 1965. Societyand theAdoles- Symbolic interactionistview of self-
centSelf-Image.Princeton,NJ: Princeton concept:through the lookingglass darkly.
Univ.Press Psychol.Bull. 86:549-73
Rosenberg,M. 1973. Whichsignificant oth- Simmons,R. G., Blyth,D. A., Van Cleave,
ers?Am.Behav. Sci. 16:829-60 E. F., Bush, D. M. 1979. Entryintoearly
Rosenberg,M. 1975. The dissonantcontext adolescence:theimpactof schoolstructure,
and theadolescentself-concept. In Adoles- puberty,and earlydatingon self-esteem.
cence in the Life Cycle: Psychological Am. Sociol. Rev. 44:948-67
Changeand Social Context,ed. S. Drag- Simmons,R. G., Rosenberg,F., Rosenberg,
astin,G. H. Elder.Washington DC: Hemi- M. 1973. Disturbancein theself-imageat
sphere adolescence.Am. Sociol. Rev. 38:553-68
Rosenberg,M. 1976. Beyond self-esteem: Simpson,M. 1980.The sociologyofcognitive
someneglectedaspectsof theself-concept. development. Ann.Rev. Sociol. 6:287-313
Paperpresented at theAm. Sociol. Assoc. Smith,M. B. 1968. Competenceand social-
Meet.,New YorkCity ization.In Socializationand Society,ed. J.
Rosenberg, M. 1979.Conceiving theSelf.NY: A. Clausenet al. Boston:Little,Brown
Basic Smith,M. B. 1978. Perspectives on selfhood.
Rosenberg,M. 1981. The sociologyof the Am.Psychol.33:1053-63
self-concept. In Social Psychology:Socio- Snyder,M. 1979. "Self-monitoring process."
logicalPerspectives, ed. M. Rosenberg,R. Adv.Exper.Soc. Psychol.12:85-128
Turner.NY: Basic Snyder,M. 1981. On the influenceof indi-
Rosenberg,M., Pearlin,L. I. 1978. Social viduals on situations. In Personality,
class and self-esteem amongchildrenand Cognition, and Social Interaction,ed.
adults.Am.J. Sociol. 84:53-77 N. Cantor,J. F. Kihlstrom. Hillsdale,NJ:
Rosenberg, M., Simmons,R. G. 1972. Black LawrenceErlbaum
and WhiteSelf-Esteem: The UrbanSchool Snygg,D., Combs, A. W. 1949. Individual
Child.Washington DC: Am. Sociol. Assoc. Behavior:A Frame of Reference for Psy-
Rose Monogr.Ser. chology.NY: Harper
Rosenthal, R., Jacobson,L. 1968. Pygmalion Spitzer,S. P. 1976. Perceivedvalidityandas-
in the Classroom.NY: Holt, Rinehart& sessmentof theself:a decadelater.Sociol.
Winston Q. 17:236-46
Ross, L. 1977. The intuitive psychologist and Spitzer,S., Couch,C., Stratton, J. 1971. The
his shortcomings: distortions in the attri- Assessmentof the Self. Iowa City, IA:
butionprocess.InAdvancesinExperimental Sernoll
Social Psychology, ed. L. Berkowitz,Vol. Stone,G. P. 1962. Appearanceandtheself.In
10. NY: Academic HumanBehaviorand Social Processes,ed.
Ross,M. 1976.Theself-perception ofintrinsic A. M. Rose. Boston:HoughtonMifflin
motivation. InNewDirectionsinAttribution Stone,G. P. 1970. The playof littlechildren.
Research,J.H. Harvey,W. J. Ickes,R. F. In Social Psychology ThroughSymbolic In-
Kidd,Vol. 1. NY: Wiley teraction,ed. G. P. Stone, H. A. Far-
Rotenberg, M. 1974. Self-labeling: a missing berman.Waltham,MA: Ginn-Blaisdell
linkinthe"societalreaction" theory ofdevi- Stone,G. P., Farberman, H. A. 1970. Social
ance. Sociol. Rev. 22:335-54 PsychologyThroughSymbolicInteraction.
Rotter,J. B. 1966. Generalizedexpectancies Waltham,MA: Ginn-Blaisdell
forinternal versusexternalcontrolof rein- Strauss,A. L. 1978. Negotiations:Varieties,
forcement. Psychol.Monogr.80 Contexts, Processes,and Social Order.San
Scheff,T. J. 1966. BeingMentallyIll: A So- Francisco:Jossey-Bass
ciologicalTheory.Chicago:Aldine Stryker,S. 1968. Identitysalience and role
Schwartz,M., Stryker,S. 1970. Deviance, performance. J. Mar. Fam. 30:558-64
Selves,and Others.Washington DC: Am. Stryker, S. 1977. Developments in twosocial
Sociol. Assoc. psychologies: towardan appreciation ofmu-
Scott,M. B., Lyman,S. W. 1968. Accounts. tal relevance.Sociometry 40:145-60
THE SELF-CONCEPT 33

Stryker, S. 1979. The profession:comments cupationalcorrelatesof multidimensional


froman interactionist's perspective.Sociol. self-esteem:comparionsamong garbage-
Focus 12:175-86 collectors,bartenders, professors,andother
Stryker, S. 1980. SymbolicInteractionism: A workers.Sociol. Soc. Res. (Forthcoming)
SocialStructural Version.MenloPark,CA: Webster,M. Jr.,Sobieszek.B. 1974. Sources
Benjamin/Cummings of Self-Evaluation:A Formal Theoryof
Stryker,S., Serpe,R. T. 1982. Commitment, Significant OthersandSocialInfluence. NY:
identity salienceand role behavior:theory Wiley
andresearch examples.In Personality Roles Wegner,D. M., Vallacher,R. R., eds. 1980.
and Social Behavior, ed. W. Ickes, E. TheSelfin Social Psychology. NY: Oxford
Knowles.NY: Springer Univ. Press
Taylor,C. 1977. Whatis humanagency?In Weigert,A. J. 1975. Substantitial self:a prim-
TheSelf: Psychologicaland Philosophical itive termfor a sociologicalpsychology.
Issues,ed. T. Mischel.Oxford:Basil Black- Philos. Soc. Sci. 5:43-62
well Weigert,A. J., Hastings,R. 1977. Identity
Taylor,M. C., Walsh, E. J. 1979. Expla- loss, family,and social change.Am.J. So-
nationsofblackself-esteem: someexpirical ciol. 82:1171-85
tests.Soc. Psychol.Q. 42:242-53 Weinstein,E. A. 1966. Towarda theoryof
Tedeschi,J.T. 1981.Impression Management interpersonal tactics.In Problemsin Social
Theoryand Social PsychologicalResearch. Psychology,ed. C. W. Backman,P. F.
NY: Academic Secord.NY: McGraw-Hill
Thomas, D. L., Gecas, V., Weigert,A., Weinstein,E. A. 1969. The development of
Rooney,E. 1974. FamilySocializationand interpersonal competence.In Handbookof
the Adolescent.Lexington,MA: D. C. SocializationTheoryand Research,ed. D.
Heath A. Goslin.Chicago:Rand McNally
Thomas,W. I. 1923. The UnadjustedGirl. Weinstein,E. A., Deutschberger, P. 1963.
Boston:Little,Brown Some dimensionsof altercasting. Sociome-
Turner, R. H. 1962. Role-taking: processver- try26:454-66
susconformity. InHumanBehaviorand So- Wellman,B. 1971. I am a student.Sociol.
cial Processes, ed. A. M. Rose. Boston: Educ. 44:422-37
Houghton Mifflin Wells, L. E. 1978. Theoriesof devianceand
Turner,R. H. 1968. The self-conception in theself-concept. Soc. Psychol.41:189-204
socialinteraction. In TheSelfinSocialInter- Wells. L. E., Marwell,G. 1976. Self-Esteem:
action,ed. C. Gordon,K. Gergen. NY: Its Conceptualizationand Measurement.
Wiley BeverlyHills: Sage
Turner, R. H. 1976.Therealself:frominstitu- White,R. W. 1959. Motivation reconsidered:
tiontoimpulse.Am.J. Sociol. 81:989-1016 the conceptof competence.Psychol.Rev.
Turner, R. H. 1978. The roleand theperson. 66:297-333
Am.J. Sociol. 84:1-23 Wentworth, W. M. 1980. Contextand Under-
Turner,R. H., Gordon, S. L. 1981. The standing.NY: Elsevier
boundariesof the self: the relationship of Wicklund,R. A. 1979. The influence of self-
authenticity to inauthenticity
in theselfcon- awarenessof humanbehavior.Am. Sci.
ception.In The Self-Concept: Advances in 67:187-93
Theoryand Research,ed. M. Lynch,A. Wortman,B. 1976. Causal attributions and
Norem-Hebeisen, K. Gergen.Cambridge, personalcontrol.InNewDirectionsinAttri-
MA:Ballinger, Springer butionResearch,ed. C. H. Harvey,W. J.
Turner, R. H., Schutte,J. 1981. The trueself Ickes, R. F. Kidd, Vol. 1. NY: Wiley
methodfor studyingthe self-conception. Wylie, R. C. 1974. The Self-Concept.Lin-
Symbol.Interact.4:1-20 coln, NE: Univ. NebraskaPress.Vol. 1
Vallacher, R. R. 1980. An introductiontoself Wylie, R. C. 1979. The Self-Concept.Lin-
theory. In TheSelfinSocial Psychology, ed. coln, NE: Univ. NebraskaPress.Vol. 2
D. M. Wegner,R. R. Vallacher.NY: Ox- Yancey,W. L., Rigsby,L., McCarthy, J. D.
fordUniv.Press 1972. Social positionand self-evaluation:
Van denBerg,J. H. 1961. TheChangingNa- therelativeimportance of race. Am.J. So-
tureofMan. NY: Norton ciol. 78:338-59
Veblen,T. 1899. The Theoryof theLeisure Zurcher,L. A. Jr. 1977. The MutableSelf.
Class. NY: MacMillan BeverlyHills: Sage
Walsh, E. J., Taylor, M. C. 1982. Oc-