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 ? 1982 byAnnual Copyright Reviews Inc. All rights reserved

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

INTRODUCTION
The self-concept is undergoing something of a renaissance in contemporary socialpsychology. It has, of course,been a central concept within symbolic interactionism sincetheseminal writings ofMead (1934), Cooley(1902), and James (1890). However, evenwithin thissociological has been tradition there a revitalization ofinterest intheself-concept: with inroletheory developments (Turner 1978; Gordon1976), withthe increasing focuson the conceptof identity (McCall & Simmons 1978; Stryker 1980;Gordon1968;Guiot1977; Burke1980),with thereemergence of interest in social structure andpersonality (House 1981;Turner 1976;Kohn1969,1981;Rosenberg 1979),andwith the ofsmallgroup reconceptualization situations and experimental (Alexander colleagues1971, 1981; Webster & Sobieszek1974). Thereemergence oftheself-concept is evenmoredramatic within psychoin selfof interest logical social psychology. Much of this revitalization is phenomena (e.g. self-awareness, self-esteem, self-image, self-evaluation) duetothe"cognitive in psychology Manis revolution" (Dember1974; 1977), As a result, at theexpenseof behaviorism. theself-concept has generally becomeconspicuous in areas and traditions werepreviously that considered alienterrain: of self-attribution; within behaviorism via Bem's (1972) theory within sociallearning and via Bandura's(1977) focuson self-efficacy; theory Bramel's within via Aronson's and dissonance cognitive theory (1968) (1968) andvalue intheories ofattitude reformulations. It is also increasingly evident formation and change(Rokeach1973, 1979), in attribution theory (Epstein theories of cognitive 1973; Bowerman 1978), and in variousotherrecent 1 0360-0572/82/0815-0001 $02.00

GECAS

as these processes(see Wegner& Vallacher1980). Perhapsas important on "intentional" theoretical developments in socialpsychology for therefocus of calls "the inadvertent self" self-concept is whatone reviewer rediscovery in experimental social psychology to theobser(Hales 1981a). This refers as wellorbetter vation that experimental results frequently couldbe explained bytheoperation of self-processes within thesesettings [suchas Alexander's in"situated identity theory" variables under (1981)] thanby thetheoretical vestigation. This "inadvertent" to the discovery of selfmayhavecontributed so-called "crisis"in social psychology (Boutilier et al 1980; Hales 1981a). In this inself-concept review I focus on developments and andtrends theory research within social psychology.' However, as Stryker (1977) and House (1977) point The majordistinction out,there areseveral socialpsychologies. is between tradition socialpsychology and developed within thesociological is inthatemerging The self-concept fromthe psychological tradition. creasingly important within bothdisciplines; developments within bothare in their reviewed. The twosocialpsychologies differ focus.Sociology tends to focuson theantecedents andtypically looksforthese of self-conceptions, within to patterns of social interaction. Psychology, on theother hand,tends focuson theconsequences of self-conceptions, as theserelateto especially behavior. The latter focusis morelikely than theformer to lead to questions ofmotivation mo(e.g. theself-esteem consistency efficacy motive, motive, tive).In a sense,sociologyand psychology have complementary biases regarding theself-concept. Ifthe"fundamental attribution bias"ofpsychologists is an overly"internal" view of the causes of behavior(Ross 1977), the attribution bias ofsociologists is a tendency tolookfor thecausesofbehavior outside theindividual-i.e. in culture, social structure, or social situation. Several oftheself-concept I do notdelve aspects literature arenotreviewed: intotheextensive literature on specific social identities, such as sexual and gender various and specific deviant identiidentities, occupational identities, ties (e.g. delinquent, criminal, mentalpatient).Here I treatthe socialon self-concept, psychological literature largely theclinical, ignoring humanistic,andphilosophical traditions.

THE NATURE OF THE SELF-CONCEPT

An initial distinction must be made between the terms "self" and Muchconfusion in socialpsychology "self-concept." overwhether theselfis a processor a structure stemsfrom thefailure to distinguish between "self"
'The selfanditsderivative terms haveoccupieda central humanistic andclinical place within orientations in thesocialsciences.The reemergence oftheself-concept refers toitsstatus mainly within social psychology.

THE SELF-CONCEPT

and "self-concept." Self as used here refers to a process, the processof reflexivity whichemanates from the dialecticbetweenthe "I" and "Me". Whilediscussions of 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 phenomenological treatment], themajor oftheconcept outlines ofselfhaveremained largelyunchangedsince the formulations of James (1890) and Mead (1934)-i.e. theselfis a reflexive phenomenon that developsin social interaction of human and is based on thesocial character language.The concept of selfprovides thephilosophical forsocial-psychological underpinning inquiriesinto the self-concept but is itselfnot accessible to empirical investigation. The"self-concept," on theother ofthis reflexive hand,is a product activity. Itis the concept theindividual hasofhimself as a physical, social,andspiritual or moral being.2 Rosenberg defines theself-concept as "thetotality ofan individual's broadly thoughts and feelings to himself havingreference as an object" (1979:7). Similarly broadis Snygg& Combs's statement that"thephenomenal self includes all thoseparts of thephenomenal whichtheindividual field experiences as part or characteristic of himself"(1949:58). A more specific definition is provided byTurner: is a vaguebut "Typically myself-conception vitally felt idea of whatI am likein mybestmoments, of whatI am striving toward andhave someencouragement to believeI can achieve,or of whatI cando when thesituation supplies incentives for unqualified effort" (1968:98). In Turner's (1968, 1976)formulation, theself-concept also involves (to some thesenseof spatialand temporal extent) a distinction of essential continuity, selffrom mereappearance andbehavior he terms"self-image"), (which and theidentification of theperson in qualitative and locational terms as well as in evaluative terms. Perhaps themostnovelconceptualization is offered of theself-concept by Epstein(1973). Froman attribution perspective, Epsteinsuggests thatthe can bestbe viewedas a theory self-concept that a person holdsabouthimself as an experiencing, with theworld.In spite functioning beingin interaction
is central 2Self-awareness to human experience and a defining ofthehuman feature condition, butthere is some doubtaboutwhether it is uniquely human.Recentstudiesof chimpanzees suggest that these primates areatleastcapableofself-recognition, as measured bytheir responses to their mirror-images (Gallup, 1977). In his reviewof the primate studies,Meddin(1979) concludes thatchimpanzees are indeedcapable of reflexive and have at least a rudithought mentary ofself.Furthermore, concept itappears that this senseofselfarises inchimpanzees much as itdoes(according toMead) inhumans-i.e. through socialinteraction, symbolic capacity, and role-taking ability.

GECAS

of his overemphasis forselfon knowledge and beliefsas the foundation concepts (rather thanon values,attitudes, and motivations), Epstein'sinteresting formulation accounts formanyof therecurring features of the selfconcept inthesocial-psychological literature. He wouldhavebeenevenmore accurate ifhe had conceptualized theself-concept as a self-ideology-when itcomesto ourself-concepts, we aremuchless interested in "theory testing" than in self-affirmation and self-protection (as we shallsee in thesection on self-concept as a sourceof motivation). Nevertheless, Epstein'sideas about the self-concept are compatible withsociologicalformulations, especially thosestemming from structural versions of symbolic interactionism (Stryker 1980; Heiss 1968; Gordon1968). Thereare differences in emphasis, to be as an sure; butwithin bothoftheseviews,theself-concept is conceptualized and attributes, and their evaluorganization (structure) of variousidentities ations,developedout of the individual's reflexive, social, and symbolic activities. As such,theself-concept is an experiential, mostly cognitive phenomenon This reviewdeals withthe selfaccessibleto scientific inquiry. concept and notwith theconcept of self.

SOURCES AND DIMENSIONS OF SELF-CONCEPTION

in social have been considered Numerous dimensions of the self-concept see Gordon1968; Rosenberg 1979:Ch. psychology (forelaborate typologies is betweenthe content of self1). An elementary but usefuldistinction conceptions (e.g. identities) and self-evaluations (e.g. self-esteem). Identity focuses on themeanings theselfas an object,givesstructure and comprising to self-concept, Self-esteem content and anchors theselfto social systems. In of the self-concept. deals withtheevaluative and emotional dimensions oftheself-concept arecloselyinterrelated: Selfthese twoaspects experience and evaluations are typically based on substantive aspectsof self-concept, Within identities typically have evaluative components. social psychology these twodimensions involvelargely literatures. separate

SourcesofSelf-Evaluation
of Self-evaluation or self-esteem refers to theevaluative andaffective aspects theself-concept on (Wells & Marwell1976; Shibutani 1961). Mostresearch theself-concept so that sometimes is on thisdimension, focuses self-concept equatedwithself-esteem (Wells & Marwell 1976). For example,Wylie's deal almost reviewsof the self-concept literature (1974, 1979) extensive The mainreason for ofthis with self-evaluation. thepreeminence exclusively of self-esteem is the motivational aspectof self-concept significance (see below).

THE SELF-CONCEPT

In muchof thisliterature, self-esteem refers to an individual's overall self-evaluation [Rosenberg's (1965) unidimensional scale is one of themost widely usedmeasures ofself-esteem]. Increasingly, however, various aspects of self-esteem have 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 (Brissett 1972); andcompetence and morality (Rokeach1973; Vallacher1980; Hales 1980). Common tothese subdivisions is thedistinction between (a) self-esteem based on a senseof competence, power,or efficacy and (b) self-esteem based on a senseofvirtue ormoral worth. The importance ofthisdistinction lies inthe suggestion that thesetwobases of self-esteem maybe a function of different processes of self-concept formation (Wells & Marwell1976) and thatthey constitute selfdifferent sourcesof motivation. Briefly, competency-based esteemis tied closelyto effective performance (Bandura1978; Franks& Marolla1976; Gecas 1979; Harter 1978; Mortimer & Lorence1979; Smith 1968).As a result, itis associated with self-attribution andsocialcomparison in is grounded processes.Self-esteem based on virtue (termed self-worth) norms and valuesconcerning personal and interpersonal conduct e.g. justice,reciprocity, honor.The processof reflected appraisal (see below) contributes to the formation of self-worth (Vallacher1980; Gecas 1971). The imwhileconceptually distinction between "self-efficacy" and "self-worth," tends toblurattheexperiential level. Senseofworth portant, maybe strongly affected andvice versa[see, forexample, bysenseofcompetence Covington of self-esteem between thesesources & Beery(1976) on theinterconnection in school]. reflect theresponses and apThatour self-concepts in the sociologyof self. praisalsof othersis the dominant proposition self" in Cooley's (1902) influential of the"looking-glass Grounded concept theprocess andinMead's theory theself-concept (1934) that develops through is thecornerstone of ofrole-taking theprocessof reflected others, appraisals on self-concept formation thesymbolic interactionist perspective (see Rosenberg 1979:64;Kinch 1963). Givenits widespread within acceptance sociologyand even psychology, one wouldthink had been demonstrated thisproposition empirically beyond butthisis hardly thecase. To be sure,many(especially question; symbolic others'appraisals have investigated therelationship between interactionists) and the individual's & Dornbusch1956; self-concept (e.g. see Miyamoto ofothers to thepoweroftheopinions & Cooper1966). However, Quarantelli is stillin doubt. affect of the self-concept initiate and/or the development evidenceforthe & Schoeneman Shrauger (1979) examinedthe empirical
REFLECTEDAPPRAISALS

GECAS

studies.They observethat:(a) People's "looking-glass self" in over fifty others perceive withtheway theythink self-perceptions agreesubstantially betweenpeople's selfthem.However,(b) thereis verylittleagreement & SchoeneShrauger areactually viewedbyothers. perceptions andhowthey are thatself-evaluations man concludethat"thereis no clear indication occurring influenced by the feedbackreceivedfromothersin naturally situations" (1979:549). at thedisparity of reasonswe shouldnotbe surprised Thereare a number of One is thedifficulty and theappraisals of others. between self-concepts ifitis negative (Felson1980). from others, especially getting honest feedback whichGoffman (1959) in ourculture, The norms of adultsocial interaction of others, substituting inhibit honest appraisal examined withsuch insight, As a to protect self-esteem. and demeanor" "tact"and proper"deference of us. think be unaware of whatothers result, we mayoften and others'apbetweenself-concept Another reasonforthe mismatch of to us. In a largestudy are equallysignificant praisals is that notall others andthe that thecredibility Rosenberg (1973) found Baltimore schoolchildren, thechild's affected other'sevaluations significantly value of thesignificant that thecredibility Webster & Sobieszek(1974) found self-concept. Similarly, task-specific of the evaluator effect on the individual's had a substantial self-perceptions. between reasonforthe low correspondence Perhaps the mostimportant ofthe is theactive influence ofothers andtheappraisals distorting self-concept of us are biasedtoward of others' evaluations self-concept. Our perceptions or self-enhancement motivehas a The self-esteem favorable assessments. Rosenberg on our perceptions, concepts,and memories. distorting effect in whom is evenreflected of selectivity (1973) demonstrates howthisprocess ofinfluence as wellas inother sources we choosetobe oursignificant others, on ourself-concepts 1979). (Rosenberg, self-evaluations andtheactual between Given thegenerally low correlations betweenselfof others, strong relationships evaluations and the generally of others, we mustfocusresearch evaluations evaluations and theperceived from as: How is information muchmoreon such neglected considerations and actedupon(Shothers interpreted, abouttheselftransmitted, received, is the fundamental process rauger& Schoeneman,1979)? If role-taking of whatis whataffects thecontent are reflected, through whichappraisals the hypothesis of reflected in role-taking? "taken" Even though appraisals demonof self-concept remains in thetheory formation, empirical important in recent stration of itsvalidity years. has becomeproblematic
SOCIAL COMPARISONS

is theprocessin whichindividuals Social comparison them to thoseof others. assesstheir own abilities and virtues by comparing

THE SELF-CONCEPT

themainfuncAccording toFestinger's (1954) theory ofsocialcomparisons, likely tooccurin situations tion oftheprocess is reality-testing, which is most or uncertain. In the whereknowledge about a self-attribute is ambiguous processes havebeen experimental research guided bythis theory, comparison person.For initiated by exposingthe subjectto the presenceof another as the example, Morse& Gergen (1970) used "Mr. Clean" and "Mr. Dirty" andfound that thepresence comparison others ina "job application" situation, insubjects' self-esteem, while of"Mr.Clean"produced a significant decrease thepresence enhanced of the undesirable other("Mr. Dirty")significantly subjects' self-esteem. as merely a It wouldbe a mistake, however, to think of social comparison meansof reality-testing, is nota neutral observer but an fortheindividual of activeconstructor of social reality. analysis Veblen's (1899) penetrating conspicuous consumption by the leisure class for the purposeof selfprocesses. enhancement reveals themoreinsidious side of socialcomparison Within tobe studied socialcomparison aremost likely sociology, processes viatheconcept serves (a) as a normative group ofthereference group, which and(b) as a comparison (i.e. thesource ofnorms andvaluesfor theindividual) of self-evaluation (Kelley,1952)]. In group [i.e. as theprovider of standards theformer maybecometheinternalized usage,thereference group'snorms Thiswouldbe consistent standard which theindividual against judgeshimself. of the withJames's(1890) conceptualization of self-esteem as a function and achievements. discrepancy between aspirations on socialcomparison treats reference Mostsociological research processes Davis's (1966) study ofthecampusas a "frog as comparison groups groups. is a good ofthelocal frame ofreference) theimportance pond"(emphasizing example. within to operate local groups Social comparison are mostlikely processes of competition & Beery(1976) on theconunder conditions [see Covington and great on the curve"for students' self-esteem] sequencesof "grading on thelatter andvisibility. differentiation Rosenberg (1975) focused subgroup on students' of "contextual dissonance" condition in a study of theeffects of the self-esteem. dissonance" to denotethe result He used "contextual and between themajority in a socialcontext suchas a classroom, interaction, statuswithregard to a disvalued foundthatminority minority. Rosenberg on students' effect or values had a negative race,social class, competence, the The findings self-esteem. ofBachman (1980), showing (1970), andDrury fortheself-esteem ofblackchilof schoolintegration negative consequences are consistent with dren, Rosenberg's analysis.
OTHER

determine whattheyare feeling ception theory" proposesthatindividuals

PROCESSES

AFFECTING

SELF-EVALUATION

Bem's (1972) "self-per-

GECAS

betheir own overt and thinking based on observing by making inferences in essenandothers that havior. ThusBem suggests we learnaboutourselves tially thesameway-i.e. from observing behavior and making dispositional under themoregeneral attribution can be subsumed Self-perception theory theory, which deals with how individuals makecausal inferences abouttheir ingeneral is more ownandothers' to behavior. Attribution theory appropriate in social interaction theconsideration of self-concept as a causal factor than to questions of self-concept development. This distinction becomesrather is an important "cause" of itsown blurred, however, sincetheself-concept formation. For example,Rosenberg's(1979) discussion of "psychological as processes centrality" andGergen's (1971) discussion of"biasedscanning" within orprocesses ofself-concept refer to mechanisms formation, essentially in theformation of self-conceptions. theself-concept which are instrumental as a on self-concept Someof theseprocesses willbe thefocusof thesection source of motivation. tenon variations inself-esteem as raceandsocialclass. acrosssuchcategories no difference between With to race,current research has found either regard theself-esteem orthat blackshaveslightly levelsofblacksandwhites, higher & Simmons1972; self-esteem thanwhites(Yancey et al 1972; Rosenberg & Chason1977;Taylor & Walsh1979). Thiscounterintuitive Jacques finding has generated & Yancey(1971) developed theoretical speculation. McCarthy theidea that blacksaremorelikely than whites toblamethe"system" (externalizeblame)fortheir low status, theeffect of relatively thereby minimizing social stratification on self-esteem. & Simmons Rosenberg (1972) propose "valueselectivity" (i.e. devaluing thedomain where one has low status) as a of mitigating of low economicstatus.Heiss & Owens method the effects is a reference that (1972) suggest that theblacksubculture group provides a buffer between All of these explathelarger and blackself-esteem. society nations sound so far reasonable, butnonehasreceived much empirical support reviewof research (see Taylor&Walsh, 1979). In a recent on blackidentity and self-esteem, & Washington Porter (1979) observethatgeneralcomon thedevelopment within shedlittle of self-esteem parisons light minority "Atthispoint, groups: we do notneedmorestudies of general differences in self-esteem between in racial and black and whitepopulations. Variations self-esteem shouldbe investigated careful personal with attention bothto the effect of macrostructural factors and to thespecific situational and personal in whichthesefactors contexts operate" (1979:70). I wouldadd that greater ofdimensions ofself-evaluation is advisable specification andof self-concept inthis areaofresearch. Porter & Washington (1979), for example, found that
SOCIAL-STRUCTURAL VARIATIONS IN SELF-ESTEEM

inferences.

A good deal has been writ-

THE SELF-CONCEPT

of personal but lowerfeelings blacksreported higher levels of self-regard of self-esteem efficacy than whites. Taylor& Walsh's (1979) decomposition racialdifferences that would into several context-specific dimensions revealed had been considered [see also havebeen hiddenif onlyglobal self-esteem Schwartz of self-esteem]. & Stryker's (1970) dimensionalization is fraught with Likewise,the literature on social class and self-esteem (see Wylie 1979: contradictory, inconsistent, and generally weak findings 57-116). Theexception tothis generalization is thework ofRosenberg andhis of muchof thisresearch]. colleagues [see Rosenberg (1979) fora synthesis the structures Pursuing thequestion of how thebroader social environment & Pearlin Rosenberg immediate interpersonal interactions of theindividual, on theself-esteem (1978) masterfully demonstrate how social class impinges ofadults formation (i.e. reflected apthrough four processes of self-concept and psychological centrality), praisals, social comparisons, self-attribution, social-class and whythe operation of theseprocessesproducesnegligible differences forchildren. inhisanalysis ofsocial-structural Rosenberg hasshown thesamesensitivity especially schoolandfamily influences on self-esteem inother socialcontexts, 1972). In thefamily context, (Rosenberg 1965, 1975;Rosenberg & Simmons order variables as birth Rosenberg found that theinfluence of suchstructural is substantially affected and"broken families" on theself-esteem of children age of by a number of conditional variables-e.g. religiousbackground, and sex of siblings. mother at divorce or separation, child'sage, andnumber to which parental interest and An important intervening variable is theextent and conditional variables, support forthechildis affected by thesestructural Thisfinding sinceparental is positively to child'sself-esteem. interest related ofa positive and child'sselfsupport/affection relationship between parental esteemis one of the mostconsistent in thefamily research on self-esteem formation (Coopersmith 1967;Gecas 1971; Hales 1980;Thomaset al 1974). ittreats Onelimitation is that self-esteem extensive research ofRosenberg's as a globalandunidimensional is someevidence, for variable. There example, related to that theefficacy andworth dimensions ofself-esteem aredifferently support to have a stronger family processes.Gecas (1971) foundparental withadolescents' of self-worth thanwiththeir positive relationship feelings of self-efficacy. on theother hand,was moresensitive feelings Self-efficacy, to thepowerrelationships within social contexts-i.e. senseof self-efficacy suchas in school waslower when theindividual was ina subordinate position, as Gecas (1972) foundthatparental behaviors (Gecas 1972). Furthermore, within antecedents of theadolescents' self-esteem" (i.e. self-esteem "family in other thefamily) had little on self-esteem socialcontexts (i.e. when effect forself-evaluations). This orschoolwereusedas theframe ofreference peers that mustincreasingly refine its research on self-esteem formation suggests

10

GECAS

ofself-esteem both theconcept focus byspecifying antecedents anddelimiting also reached bySchwartz andthecontexts in which it operates [a conclusion their to explain anomalous findings & Stryker (1970:122-23)in their attempt is beginning regarding theself-esteem of"badNegroboys"].Suchrefinement tobe pursued on socialclass andself-esteem (Walsh& Taylor, intheresearch of variance in self-esteem forthcoming) andmayhelpto increase theamount 4% or less). that can be explained by social class (now typically

Identities Content ofSelf-Concepts:

If there in thesociological literature on theself-concept it is a central theme thecontent is theideathat ofself-concepts reflect thecontent andorganization of selfas theevaluative dimension and organization of society.Prominent on thisproposition. is in socialpsychology, itdoes notbeardirectly concept that themost promiThe concept of identity does. Perhaps thisis one reason on self-esteem has urged that we nent contributor to thesociological research lies thecon"go beyond self-esteem" 1979). Beyondself-esteem (Rosenberg attached to theselfand comceptof identity, that vastdomainof meanings prising thecontent and organization of self-concepts. in the is mostdirectly addressed The interpenetration of selfand society primarily to Mead (1934), Cooley symbolic interactionist tradition [traced has splitintotwo major(and (1902), and Thomas(1923)]. This tradition and conceptualizations severalminor)variants thatdiffer on fundamental foci, and on methassumptions regarding self and society,on substantive interactionists" are the "processual (more odology.The two mainvariants interactionists" commonly known as the"ChicagoSchool")andthe"structural between thesetwoorienwith the"Iowa School"). The divisions (associated inthesocialsciences thefundamental division tations reflect inmany respects oriand positivistic/nomothetic between humanistic/interpretive orientations entations [forreviewsof the "Chicago" and "Iowa" schools of symbolic of et al (1975)]. The concept interactionism, see Kuhn(1964) and Meltzer character in each of theseorientations. has a somewhat different "identity"
NEGOTIATING IDENTITIES IN SOCIAL INTERACTION

cessualinteractionist as exemplified byBlumer (1969), itsmajor perspective, and others architect, (Glaser & Strauss1967; Strauss1978; Becker 1964; in which Stone1962), is itsemphasis on thesocial situation as thecontext theprocessof negotiation. through identities are established and maintained Thisidentity oridentity (Blumstein 1973),is a central negotiation, bargaining the situation" and aspect of the individual'sbroadertask of "defining of thisfluidand "constructing reality." Meaningis viewedas an emergent areseenprimarily as ofinteraction. Action andinteraction reciprocal process "I" and theproblem in involved indeterminate becauseof theunpredictable

The key featureof the pro-

THE SELF-CONCEPT

11

aligning actions.The construction of identities forself and othersin the situation is alwaysa problematic activity basedon a tenuous consensus ofthe participants. Role-taking becomesan important in thisdiacognitive activity lecticalprocess(Turner1962), as is the processof altercasting [imposing identities on others (Weinstein & Deutschberger 1963)]. In sum,identity from theprocessual interactionist is situated, perspective emergent, reciprocal, and negotiated. Furthermore, processual interactionists view theself-concept as inseparable cause and consequence in social interaction. Theinseparability ofself-concept as cause andconsequence is most evident in Goffman's (1959, 1963, 1967) imaginative and influential variant of processual symbolic interactionism.3 of social life as Utilizing the metaphor Goffman describes inconsiderable detail theater, the"staging and operations" "impression-management" in thepresentation involved of selfin social encounters. in theseinteraction Desiredidentities are theprizessought arenas, which areacquired as much oftheactors bycompetent performance as bythe socialconstraints ofthesituation andthedispositions oftherelevant others in theinteraction. In Goffman's construct identities view, self and others by a definition of thesituation thatinvolvesall participants. staging We are at oncetheproducts of theseencounters. and thecreators The methodological of theprocessual predilection interactionists has been theobservation from thevantage of social (especially pointof a participant) in "natural" interaction social settings. The rationale [emphasized by Blumer (1969)] is that theinvestigator can bestcapture theprocessof identity construction of discourse" by entering the "universe of thissocial worldas a role-taking participant. Other methodologies havealso beenusedtoreveal the andmeaningful worldof theinteractants situated, processual, e.g. lifehishistorical tories, analysis,and even the laboratory when it is experiment
viewed as a social situationcreated by the scientist(Denzin 1970; McPhail

1979). Severalresearch streams relevant to thedevelopment of theself-concept havebeengenerated bytheprocessual interactionist orientation. One bodyof research, inspired largely by Goffman's work,deals withthedynamics of and altercasting self-presentation [see Arkin (1980) and McCall & Simmons These studies have focused on suchtopicsas tactics (1978) forreviews]. of identity bargaining (Weinstein of 1966; Blumstein 1973, the presentation and accounts & Stokes1975; Scott& Lyman motives, disclaimers, (Hewitt
3There is somequestion regarding Goffman's "fit" within theprocessual symbolic interactionist For example,Gonos (1977) makes a persuasivecase for viewingGoffman tradition. as a "structuralist" rather thanas an "interactionist" because of Goffman's on theformal emphasis of social interaction properties rather thanon process per se and itsinfinite variations-a point madewith somecondemnation by Denzin& Keller(1981).

12

GECAS

1968;Blumstein et al 1974), and embarrassment and face-saving processes of mostsymbolic In contrast to thenaturalistic methods interactionist research,some recent studieson thesetopicsuse experimental methods. Of on "situated identity theory." Buildingon Goffman's ideas aboutthe importance of "expressions givenoff" as the basis formakingdispositional inferences, Alexander & Lauderdaledefine situated identities as "theattriin a particular butions thatare made aboutparticipants as a consetting sequence oftheir actions" of identities is con(1977:225). The establishment sidered thefundamental taskof social encounters. Alexander considers an identity to be a working constructed out of thematerial of a self-meaning carried from particular situation, andnotan aspectof a person'sself-concept one situation to another (Alexander & Wiley 1981). Alexander arguesthat people act (because of the self-esteem motive)to createthe mostsocially desirable situated identity available(Alexander & Wiley1981).Alexander has in a number of experimental tested situated studies identity theory originally totest other theories designed social-psychological (e.g. cognitive dissonance, and expectation that risky shift, prisoner's dilemma, states).He has found for ofthese situated can account theresults atleast identity theory experiments as well as theother theories proposed. in Alexander's that the"situated identities" It shouldbe noted,however, studies aredescribed honest-that are by evaluative terms-warm, friendly, suchas "conforming attached to experimental outcome alternatives subject" vs. "non-conforming situated subject". Other waysofoperationalizing identidifferent results. therelationship tieswould presumably produce Furthermore, actorsbring withtheminto "situated identities" and theidentities between Alexander andassociates areawareof socialsituations has notbeenexplored. thisissue buthave not yetpursued it themselves & Wiley [see Alexander theimmediate interaction (1981)]. Doingso wouldtakethem situation beyond andcloserto theconcerns of thestructural interactionists. symbolic A secondbodyofwork interactionist inspired bytheprocessual perspective is an adaptation of the more involves"labelingtheory." Labelingtheory ofreflected ofdeviant to thedevelopment general process appraisal identities in theories of deviance]. [Wells (1978) reviewsthe place of self-concept reaction to an individual's initial that deviLabeling theory suggests society's of deviance,sinceit in thesystematization antbehavior is themajorfactor oftheperson alters theself-concept andsocialidentity labeled(Lemert 1951; can be either Becker1963; Scheff formal 1966). This societal response (e.g.
and"self-presentation" 4The concepts of "impression management" havebecomeincreasingly Tedeschi1981). prominent within psychology as well (see, forexample,

(Goffman1967; Gross & Stone 1964; Modigliani 1971).4

special note is the work of Alexander and his colleagues (1971, 1977, 1981)

THE SELF-CONCEPT

13

arrest orimprisonment) or informal (e.g. stigmatization) (Goffman 1963). As on in thisperspective Wells (1978) pointsout, the self-concept is implicit deviance: "[It] functions moreas an intuitively obviousintervening process than as a variable to be actually measured in empirical events"(1978:193). The related concept of "self-fulfilling prophecy" has generated itsownbody of research showing how labelingprocessescreatecertain "self-fulfilling" identities intheclassroom andelsewhere (Jones1977;Rosenthal & Jacobson 1968). and Labeling theory, thedominant theory of deviance, has beencriticized debated in thepast decade (Wells 1978; Glassner& Corzine1978), partly inbecoming becauseitposited toopassivea rolefor theindividual a deviant. tolabeling" Concepts suchas "self-labeling" (Rotenberg 1974)and"resistance thegeneral trend (Prus1975;Rogers & Buffalo 1974)haveappeared reflecting on deviof a moreassertive toward theories selfin thesociological literature ance. A third has research stream from theprocessual interactionist perspective focused on socialization. Some studies havedealtwith childsocialization and self-concept development (Denzin 1972; Stone1970),butmosthavefocused on adults (symbolic interactionists seemrecluctant to study children). Mostof this etal (1961) research hasdealtwith occupational socialization [e.g. Becker on socialization in medicalschool)], socialization intovarioussubcultures, especially deviant subcultures (Adler& Adler1978; Becker1963), and contexts ofresocialization oridentity transformation (Lofland 1977;Gecas 1981). Mostof thesestudies of socialization from theprocessual interactionist perthe arebasedon field spective research-i.e. ethnographic reports illustrating operation ofgeneral symbolic interactionist assumptions concerning commuformation. social interaction, and self-concept nication, reality construction, of "sensitizing a number The processual interactionists have contributed of identity formation and and conceptual refinements to thestudy concepts" morethantested reformation. has illustrated Empirically, their contribution these ideas (although turn toward mentioned theincreasing experimentation, maintain interactionists above,maychange this situation). Processual strongly that selfand society are interpenetrate. However, sincebothselfand society viewedin fluid, processual terms, it is notclearhow social organization is intheorganization ofstructure reflected ofself-conceptions. Theconcepts and organization remain a problem at boththe social groupand theindividual levels[in spiteof thevaliant efforts of Maines (1977) and Strauss (1978) to thecontrary]. argue
THE CONCEPT OF IDENTITY IN STRUCTURAL SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM

theconcept of "situation" is to theprocessual interactionists, theconcept of "role"is to thestructural interactionists as theentre forconsidering identity

What

14

GECAS

roles.The conas internalized areviewedmainly Identities andself-concept. nection betweenthesetwo conceptsis so close thattheyare oftenused
(Stryker1980:60; McCall & Simmons 1978:16; as in "role-identity" together,

tosocial self-conceptions links directly Burke & Tully1977).Thisconnection and it proof social structure, becauserolesare seen as elements structures terms-i.e. in organizational theself-concept videsthebasis forconsidering putitthisway: Stryker ofrole-identities. configuration as a multidimensional to therolesandrole linked identities multiple "Theselfis seenas embracing elementsof social structures" significant that constitute relationships tosocialstructures: persons justhowroleslink elaborates (1979:177).Gordon aspects thenormative to culture; persons "thevalue aspectsof rolesconnect to social action;and the and structure to conduct motivation ofrolesprovide muchof personal aspectsof rolesdetermine or interpretive 'sense-making' andplans"(1976:405). The memories, predispositions, attitudinal cognition, witha associated expectations refers to thebehavioral term "role"typically However, in a social system. or informal) formal (either or status position when especially used interchangeably, are frequently "role"and "position" they are translatedinto identities e.g. "father,""handball player," mediator". of an organization is viewedas a hierarchical of self-concept The structure Heiss 1978; Simmons McCall & 1968; (Stryker role-identities individual's of as a saliencehierarchy theidea of self-concept developed 1968). Stryker in social one is enmeshed that to thedegree to an identity ''oneis committed of selfview In this (1979:177). identity" on that dependent relationships more consequential the identity, to an commitment the thegreater structure, pp. in Stryker (1980), especially [elaborated conduct itis for theindividual's thereemphasizes of commitment conception 83-84]. Note thatStryker's ofthe"role-set" andextensiveness ofrole-identities: The nature lational aspect and roleof identities network the or (i.e. "identity-set" 1957) (Merton to the ofcommitment affect thedegree implies) relationships a givenidentity identity. commitment process.He Turner (1978) expandsourvisionof theidentity and merger in the formof role-person of commitment casts theproblem tooccur.A distinction this is most which likely under examines theconditions determinants". and "individual determinants" is madebetween "situational as theperson consider whichobservers under The former are circumstances three Turner identifies prinin therole. Underthelatter category, revealed to merge with those tend (a) Individuals merger: role/person ciplesgoverning roleand tomerge tend them; (b) they others identify roles significant bywhich motive) (cf. theself-efficacy autonomy so as to maximize selectively person
He proposes that most fullythroughthe concept of commitment. identities

THE SELF-CONCEPT

15

tend to andpositive self-evaluations (cf. theself-esteem motive); and(c) they merge with those rolesin which their investment has beengreatest (1978:13). of Turner formulates numerous propositions derivedfrom theseprinciples role-person merger. This workconstitutes the mostextensive and formal attempt to integrate roletheory and selftheory. interactionists has often Research on self-concept by structural symbolic simply usedtheTwenty Statements Test(TST), an open-ended instrument that asks persons to give twenty answers to thequestion "Who am I?" [Other measures of identity have recently appeared e.g. Burke& Tully (1977), byKuhn& Jackson (1981), Turner & Schutte (1981).] Originally developed on McPartland (1954) theTST has been used in numerous studies focusing identities and their organization [see Spitzer et al (1971) fora review].The selfTST [and a parallelinstrument developedwithin phenomenological psychology byBugental & Zelen (1950) calledthe"WhoareYou?" (W-A-Y) for ofself-concept self-descriptions. technique] is nota measure buta stimulus coding Measurement becomes possible when theresponses arecoded.Various between schemes havebeen developed, from theinitially simpledistinction "consensual" (public)and"subconsensual" (personal) identities (Kuhn& Mcby GorPartland 1954), to theelaborate, computer-based scheme developed don (1968). Most such schemesaim to developidentity that(a) categories and social systems, enableexamination of thelinkbetween self-conceptions and (b) revealpatterns thatcomprise amongtheidentities self-conceptions. in theTST haveoften beenconsidered to be Self-descriptions mentioned first 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 "consensual" schemes [e.g. Kuhn& McPartland's (1954) distinction between of"rolesand and"subconsensual" andGordon's identities, (1968) categories of individuals in social focuson the"anchorage" memberships"] explicitly are typically made between (men vs institutions. Comparisons populations vs oldersubjects, etc) women;lowerclass vs middleclass; college student or their of with forexample,to their structural diversity regard, integration self-designations. forspecial Other identities research usingtheTST has isolatedparticular or family identities suchas gender, attention, ethnic, (Wellman1971; Gecas received considerable atten1973).Theseparticular identities have,ofcourse, tionoutsideof structural as well, and have been interactionism symbolic to various measurement subjected strategies [see Wylie(1979) fora review]. on socialization focuses either Thebulkof theresearch on specific identities into on sex-role evalusocialization), theidentity (e.g. themassiveliterature on racialand ations oftheidentity characterizes muchoftheresearch [which

16

GECAS

ethnic or conflict identities], and strain in theself-concept as 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 structure on self-conceptions has been mostapparent at the macrolevelsof analysis-i.e. wherethe societyor its majorinstitutions are the focusof attention. Turner's (1976) work on "therealself"is exemplary. He argues that "thearticulation of real selveswithsocial structure should be a majorlinkin thefunctioning and changeof societies"(1976:990). By "real self"Turner meansthelocus of an individual's senseof authenticity, responsibility, and accountability. "To varying degrees,"Turner proposes,"people acceptas evidence of their real selveseither and actions withan institutional feelings focus oronesthey is identify as strictly impulse" (1976:990). Thisdistinction "consensual" reminiscent ofKuhn& McPartland's between (1954) distinction and"subconsensual" although Turner elaborates to a muchgreater identities, extent theconsequences of thesetwo self-anchorages forpersonal behavior, forsocial structure, and forsocial change."Institutionals" are likelyto be and consider theselfto future-oriented; they adhere to highmoralstandards be created on theother through their actions."Impulsives," hand,are likely tobe oriented tofeelconstrained toward thepresent, byinstitutional roles,and toviewtheselfas something Turner seekstolocatethe"real tobe discovered. on thecircumstances self"byusingan open-ended format to elicitresponses in whichpeople feelmost"authentic" or "inauthentic" & Schutte (Turner to self-concept is notonly 1981). An important of Turner's feature approach itsconcern withwhattheselfis (experientially), butalso withwhattheself is not(Turner & Gordon1981). overthepast social change,Turner that Considering (1976) hypothesizes and fewdecadesthere has beena substantial shift an institutional awayfrom toward an impulsive aboutFreud'srole in locus of self. (He also speculates inself-orientation this Others haveobserved similar facilitating shift.) changes as a function of changesin society:Riesmanet al (1950) arguedforan historical shift from to "other-directed" motivational "inner-directed" types; Lifton's(1970) chameleon-like man" and Snyder's(1979) high "protean as prototypes of the individual in individual are offered ''self-monitoring" the"mutable self" to be a contemporary society.Zurcher (1977) proposed torapid anduncertainty healthy adaptation socialchange.Marginality seemto facilitate thedevelopment of a "mutable self". Even if such conditions are there is somequestion whether becoming increasingly prevalent, rootlessness, lack of commitment to social institutions, and "goingwiththe situational flow"are salutary of theselfeven in a rapidly features changing society. therelationship Symbolic interactionists havenotbeenaloneinconsidering

THE SELF-CONCEPT

17

between is increasingly socialorganization andtheself-concept. Thisconcern evident in studies of social structure and personality [see House (1981) and Simpson (1980) forreviews].For example,Kanter's(1977) analysis of the psychological consequences of powerand opportunity in theworkplace, and Kohn's (1969, 1981) extensive workon theconsequences of occupational conditions forself-values andintellectual flexibility (bothforming their arguments in thesociological tradition of Durkheim, Weber,andMarx)arerelevanthere.In general, theMarxist perspective (and variousderivatives) has of social organizational conditions in the develencouraged examination opment of self-estrangement, powerlessness, alienation, and other negative oftheself-concept aspects Bowles & Gintis [see, forexample, (1976) on the An negative effects of thepublicschoolsystem on students' self-concepts]. workfrom conearly impressive thisperspective is Luria's (1976) research, in theearly1930s,on theeffects ducted of thecommunist on the revolution consciousness andself-conceptions ofpeasants intheremote of living villages USSR. Through interviews with thesepeasants, Luria Uzbekistan, extensive andhiscolleagues found of exposure to communist and that degree ideology involvement in collective farm workhad a dramatic effect on thelevel and nature ofself-awareness. SomeofLuria'sconclusions mayhavebeencolored byhiscommitment toMarxist-Leninist andhisdesire todemonstrate ideology itsbeneficial consequences. The specific content of theideology maybe less in explaining important changesin cognitive processesand self-awareness than the ofa revolutionary movement a movement experience itself, especially thatradically betweenindividuals and betweenthe redefines relationships individual and society.Inkeles's(1960) work,forexample,has shownthat modernization has similar consciousness-expanding consequences.

SELF-CONCEPT AS A SOURCE OF MOTIVATION

Theself-concept ofitsowncreation. Thissection an agent is, toa largeextent, focuseson threemajormotivesassociatedwiththe self-concept: the selfor self-enhancement efficacy motive;the self-esteem motive;and the selfmotive.Whilesociologists consistency have occasionally ventured intothis ithasbeendominated their with domain, bypsychologists, historically greater interest in questions of human motivation.

Motive Self-Efficacy
themostfundamental in the Perhaps senseof self-concept as cause is found notion of human in such terms as effectance motivation agency,expressed (White 1959;Harter causation 1978),personal (deCharms 1968),self-efficacy (Bandura1977), intrinsic motivation (Deci 1975), intentionality (Weigert

18

GECAS

agent self-control (Mischel& Mischel1977). Thattheselfis an originating of self. As Turner observes, seemscrucialto the fundamental experience "behaviors thought to revealthe trueself are also ones whose causes are (1976:991). perceived as residing in theperson rather thanthesituation" has strongly advocatedan active, Historically, symbolic interactionism of this creative, and agentive view of theself.One of thebasic assumptions BothJames andMead perspective is that manis an actor as well as a reactor. theseactive emphasized the creativeaspectsof humanaction,attributing metaproperties to the"I" aspectof theself.Even Cooley,his looking-glass oftheself phor notwithstanding, considered effective action as thewellspring of this [see Franks & Seeberger (1980) and Reitzes(1980) forexaminations incontemporary inCooley'swork]. theme The activeselfis also quiteevident a hallmarkof the of symbolicinteractionism, expressions constituting forexample,in Goff"processual interactionist" orientation. It is apparent, as interpersonal Weinman's(1959) work onimpression control, management other stein's on altercasting as identity andvarious (1969) work manipulation, of and realities (Blumer 1969; discussions constructing situations negotiating have is tosymbolic interactionists, they Central as theideaofhuman agency beenreluctant terms. & Farberman (1970:467) tocastitinmotivational [Stone of motivation.] fortheconcept reflect thesymbolic interactionists' antipathy As a result, as themajorsourceof indetertheactiveselfis seen primarily and selfminancy in human conduct, rather thanas a sourceof motivation on thepart ofpsychologists determination. hasbeenno suchreluctance There from to conceptualize theself.One of the motivational processes emanating of effectance mostinfluential has beenWhite's(1959) concept formulations of a or competence Whitemade a strong case fortheoperation motivation. of selfas a causal agentin one's formastery motivation and theexperience behaviors environment. and manipulative He notedthat (in aniexploratory in their own right and characteristically malsas well as man) are rewarding & Muir occurwhenbasic physiological drivesare satisfied [see deCharms motivation" literature, and Ross (1976) (1978) fora reviewof the"intrinsic undermine fora review of conditions intrinsic under which extrinsic rewards comFoote & Cottrell's(1955) concept of "interpersonal motivation]. toproduce effects which define as theability intended (p. 38), petence," they to seek Brehm's of"psychological reactance" (1966) concept (themotivation Smith's freedom from Adler's (1927) conceptof "mastery," constraints), of "inner based on efficacious self-esteem" action),and concept (self-esteem ' (1975) "power all stress for andcontrol) McClellands motive" (striving power of the activeself. thebasic motivational element
(1968, 1978) discussion of the "competentself," Franks & Marolla's (1976) Stone & Farberman1970).

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

THE SELF-CONCEPT

19

The importance of self-efficacy as a majormotivation becomesapparent of its inhibition or suppression. Within whenwe consider theconsequences sociology, thishas been associatedwiththeconceptof alienation (Seeman 1959).Theclassicstatement on this association was formulated byMarx,who of powerlessness is alienation. argued that themostimportant consequence Alienation hererefers to thefeeling of self-estrangement produced whenthe products ofwork areno longer reflections oftheself.Thishappens when labor becomes merely instrumental and theindividual loses control overthedirectionandproducts of his work. Within ofself-efficacy is addressed thecase for theimportance psychology, to by Seligman (1975), who has tiedhis conceptof "learned helplessness" redepression. Learnedhelplessness refers to a chronic sense of inefficacy haveno effect on one's environment. sulting from learning that one's actions In recent formulations ofthetheory, Seligman andhiscolleagues(Abramson is likely etal 1978)argue from that depression stemming learned helplessness tooccurwhen hisinefficacy topersonal failure theindividual attributes rather as a thanto universalconditions. Seligmanviews learnedhelplessness His work, sufficient of depression. butnota necessary antecedent however, accentuates theimportance of self-efficacy forpsychological well-being. of theperception of self-as-cause have The conditions and consequences a major relevant become focusofcontemporary attribution theory. Especially herearetheself-attributions individuals makewith regard topersonal control overevents thataffect them.Rotter (1966) distinguishes between "internal" and "external" loci of control, as generalized expectancies thatindividuals developin relation to theirenvironment. DeCharms(1968) distinguishes from theneedtoperceive oneself "origins" "pawns".Kelley(1971) discusses as exercising inattribution In most oftheliterature control effective processes. on consequences it is better to be origin of thesegeneralized expectancies, than (internal control) pawn(external control) [see Wortman (1976) andLefcourt (1976) forreviews of causal attributions and personal control]. a Bandura been developing (1974, 1977, 1978, 1981), who has recently on self-evaluation highly cognitive version of social learning theory centered processes, has addedseveral refinements to theself-efficacy literature. Banduramakes an important distinction between efficacy expectations andoutcome An outcome is an estimate that a given behavior will expectations. expectation lead to a certain is thebeliefthat one can outcome; an efficacy expectation to produce theoutcome successfully perform thebehavior required (Bandura 1977:193).The former is a beliefaboutone's environment, thelatter a belief from aboutone's competence. Feelingsof futility mayresult (a) low selfor (b) perception to one's acas unresponsive efficacy of a social structure tions. "To alter of competencies efficacy-based futility requires development andexpectations to changeoutcomeof personal effectiveness. By contrast

20

GECAS

basedfutility necessitates changes in prevailing environmental contingencies that restore the instrumental value of the expectancies thatpeople already possess" (Bandura, 1977:205).ThusBandura differentiates perceptions ofself from perceptions of self in relation to social structurea distinction that provides a bridge to traditional sociological concerns. The motivational significance ofbeliefs regarding self-efficacy is also evident in theliterature on self-fulfilling prophecies (Jones1977). Whenpeople actonerroneous beliefs they can sometimes alter socialreality inthedirection of theinitially mistaken belief(Bandura1981; Merton 1957). Self-fulfilling prophecies, ofcourse, can either increase ordecrease self-efficacy, depending on thenature of theindividual's beliefor expectation.

Motive Self-Esteem
a positive of oneself has The motivation to maintain andenhance conception beenthought to be pervasive, even universal (Rosenberg 1979; Wells 1978; Kaplan 1975; Rokeach1979; Hales 1981a). Wells & Marwellobservethat of thismotive everyselftheory positssome variant (1976:54). Even some that didnotstart outas selftheories becamesuch social-psychological theories oftheself-esteem Themost dramatic largely becauseoftheoperation motive. transformation occurredfor cognitivedissonancetheory[see especially in which version of thetheory, the Greenwald & Ronis(1978)]. The original two cognitive elemotivational factor was a perceived incongruity between ments, has essentially beenreplaced with one in which self-esteem motivates dissonance-reducing actions. Aronson(1968) and Rokeach (1968, 1973) is a significant motivational force that dissonance argued cognitive onlywhen of thepresent state theself-concept is involved. Greenwald & Ronisdescribe forcein present dissonance as follows:"The motivational cognitive theory characversions of dissonance has muchmoreof an ego-defensive theory
ter. .

in theservice of ego defense, or self-esteem rather thanin the maintenance, interest of preserving psychological consistency" (1978:54-55). Other becomeselftheories becauseofthe notable theories haveincreasingly incognitive oftheself-esteem motive perceived importance functioning-e.g. Rokeach'svalue theory Rokeachhas (1973, 1979), and attribution theory. I havecometo viewtheproblem stated: recently "Thus,in thefinal analysis, of attitude linkedto the changeand behaviorchangeas being ultimately ofhowchanges aboutin theself"(1979:53). Rokeach's problem arebrought in thatboth thereformulated dissonance resembles theory cognitive theory or in thediscrepancy between a cognitive locatethemotivating mechanism Such discrepancies are and theperson'sself-conception. behavioral element self-maintenance and Rokeachpoints threaten motivating, out,becausethey self-enhancement (1979:53).

. The theory seems now to be focused on cognitivechanges occurring

THE SELF-CONCEPT

21

growth, emphasizes self-enhancement motive, oftheself-esteem As aspects focuses whileself-maintenance one's self-esteem, andincreasing expansion, behavioral strategies. different what one has. The twoengender on notlosing & Beery Covington in the classroom, of self-esteem In their examination forsuccess" as "striving orientations thesetwomotivational (1976) describe aremotivated with low self-esteem persons and"fear of failure." In general, thanby self-enhancement. more by self-maintenance to theory, a motivation In Duval & Wicklund's(1972) self-awareness between one's idealized ofan incongruity from one's awareness change arises (the self as it appearsin behavior).The and one's self-image self-concept himor herto motivates of selfas less thandesirable evaluation individual's Duval & Wicklund self-esteem. inorder tomaintain behavior improve his/her stepinthewholeprocess.They attention as theinitial self-focused emphasize etc) exertlittle of self (values, beliefs,identities, arguethatcomponents until activated. (Thisviewis at oddswith on individual functioning influence ofself.)Activation can conceptions psychological andmany most sociological used of theself-Duval & Wicklund be induced suggestive by anystimulus attention in their studies.Once self-directed mirrors and voice recordings oftheself.The salient feature toward themost playitwillgravitate comesinto Rokeach in thistheory. [By contrast, ofsalienceis notwelldeveloped nature subjectswithfeedbackdesignedto increasetheirawarenessof confronts (Rokeach self-conceptions in salientaspectsof their discrepancies apparent comes to bear on a that"once attention (1979) suggests 1973).] Wicklund takeshold"(1979:189). Thisevalof self,self-evaluation dimension specific to Wicklund, only can be either or negative; but,according uation positive At first consequences. motivational have important negative self-evaluations consistency theory; to be a cognitive theory" appears "self-awareness glance, is activated self-evaluation, by a negative motive, butin facttheself-esteem of thispoint by Hull as themajorimpetus forchange.[See criticism offered & Levy (1979).] motive is most of theself-esteem Within attribution theemergence theory, in discussions of self-serving processes(Bradley bias in attribution evident ofpeople 1978). Thisbias is thetendency et al 1980;Bowerman 1978;Arkin fornegative whiledenying responsibility totakecredit forpositive outcomes revealsstrong research outcomes. Bradley's(1978) reviewof theattribution or defensive, causal attributions forthe operation of self-serving, support & Ross (1975) present a moreskeptical interpretation]. [Miller inthegeneral todistort motive is manifest reality Theself-esteem tendency suchstrategia positive intheservice ofmaintaining through self-conception, ofpersonal history es as selective 1979),reconstruction (Rosenberg perception mechanisms (Hil1980), and someof theclassicego-defensive (Greenwald self-esteem by selectivity protects (1979) showsthat gard1949). Rosenberg

22

GECAS

influencing (a) whichothers will be significant (i.e. through selective interaction,imputation, and valuation),(b) whichsocial comparisons will be made,and(c) which aspects oftheself-concept willbe central. Psychological in theserviceof self-esteem selectivity is also thebasis of Kaplan's (1975) theory of delinquent behavior. Kaplan (1975) proposes that low self-esteem duetofailure in thepursuit of "legitimate" activities increases theprobability that a person will engagein deviant activities and selectdeviant others as a reference group in an effort toincrease self-esteem. His ownresearch andthat ofothers (Rosenberg & Rosenberg 1978) seemsto support thismotivational component of self-esteem in theetiology of devianceand delinquency.
SELF-ESTEEM AS AN INDEPENDENTVARIABLE There is a vast researchliterature

in which theself-concept is considered notin motivational terms butforits effects on a widerange ofpsychological Mostof andbehavioral phenomena. thisliterature focuseson the evaluative dimension of self-concept, partly of the self-esteem becauseof the strength and pervasiveness motive.As a result, self-esteem hasbeenrelated toalmost atonetime oranother everything has been found to affect (Crandall1973:45). For example,self-esteem conorpersuasibility, educational formity interpersonal attraction, moral behavior, andvarious andmental orientations, aspectsofpersonality health [see Wells In most & Marwell research (1976) andRosenberg (1981) for reviews]. areas, low self-esteem is associatedwithundesirable outcomes,such as greater to engage in delinquent propensity behavioror lower academicinterests, and achievements. aspirations, but is generally viewedas having favorable Highself-esteem consequences, theresearch is by no meansclearon thispoint.To be sure,high literature self-esteem is commonly associatedwitheffective and "healthy" personal confidence andindependence functioning-e.g. (Rosenberg 1965),creativity and flexibility toward deviance (Coopersmith 1967), and lowerdisposition mechanisms (Kaplan 1975). But it can also be arguedthatdefense operate more to inhibit andforcefully under conditions ofhighself-esteem effectively theperception of negative information (Byrne1961), thereby makingthe individual less open to new experiences and change(Katz & Zigler 1967). Others of self-esteem a "medium" amount is optimal forpsychoarguethat logicalfunctioning, boththehighand thelow positions as dysconsidering functional (Cole et al 1967). Wells & Marwell(1976:69-73) reviewthe of theresearch state on optimal self-esteem. confusing Partof thereasonforthisconfusion is thathighself-esteem maybe due either togenuinely basedon effective orto high self-evaluation, performance, based on insecurity and confounded witha "defensively" highself-esteem, needforsocial approval & (Hales 198ib; Crowne& Marlowe1964; Franks Marolla(1976). But theproblem thanthequestion is morecomplicated of differential bases of self-esteem. It has alreadybeen arguedthatthe self-

THE SELF-CONCEPT

23

esteem motive distorts perceptions andcognitions, resulting in self-deception. In this This may be bothfunctional and dysfunctional forthe individual. on the regard, someinteresting butdisconcerting findings havebeenreported relationship between accuracyof self-perception and depression (Alloy & Abramson 1979;Lewinsohn & Mischel1980). Lewinsohn & Mischel(1980) foundthatclinically depressed patients were morerealistic in theirselfself-ratings and perceptions (as judgedby thedegreeof congruence between observer ratings on a number of social competencies) thanwerethosein the "normal" control group,who weremorelikelyto engagein self-enhancing led distortions. This line of research on the mixedbenefits of self-esteem information and biased Mischelto speculate that "self-enhancing processing affect andthepricefor self-encoding may be botha requirement for positive achieving it" (1979:752).

Motive Consistency
in self-concepts is considered The motivation forconsistency and continuity weaker thanthat forself-enhancement (Jones1973). Some have evenquesits existence evidence tioned as a selfmotive(Gergen1968). The research seemsto support is a morepowerful motive than theclaimthatself-esteem self-consistency when the two are posed againsteach other(Jones 1973; to thenature Krauss & Critchfield 1975). However, thismaybe due largely between ofthe contrasts madeandtheareasoftheir application. Comparisons of self-esteem andself-consistency haveall beenmadeat the relative efficacy a circumstance that favors theselftheevaluative level of theself-concept, is more tothesubstantive dimension esteem motive. Self-consistency relevant of the self-concept, and beliefsabout self. Two the domainof identities motive: theself-consistency thepsyliteratures in social psychology address ofknowledge on self-concept as a cognitive chological literature organization and beliefs;and the sociologicalliterature on identities as sourcesof moIn the former, refers to the cognitive of tivation. consistency organization between attitudes abouttheself.In thelatter, is thecongruence consistency identities and rolebehaviors. To consider ofknowledge is toemphatheself-concept as an organization size itsinformation whichstrive toward processing (or encoding) functions, perceived consistency [see Epstein (1973), discussedearlier;Greenwald (1980);Markus (1977, 1980)]. Lecky(1951), an early advocate oftheconsisof a unified as the viewedthemaintenance tency motive, conceptual system The self-concept as a self-theory needof theindividual. overriding (Epstein inorder a coherent tooperate viewofitself effectively 1973)seekstomaintain to be a collection of in theworld.Markus(1977) considers theself-concept of selfthat theprocessing cognitive generalizations (self-schemata) organize relevant becomeincreasingly resistant to information. These self-schemata

24

GECAS

(1980) provide a critical assessment inconsistent information [Fiske& Linville socialpsychology]. Hull& Levy(1979) have oftheschema concept incurrent theory (whichis based on recast Duval & Wicklund's (1972) self-awareness information ofself-concept emphasizing theself-esteem motive) intoa theory of self-knowledge. They propose that processing and the organization in terms of its of information "self-awareness corresponds to the encoding (1980) identifies relevance for theself"(Hull & Levy 1979:757).Greenwald (as an organization ofknowledge) the motivational element intheself-concept to preserve as "cognitive he viewsas "thedisposition conservatism," which and suchas percepts, schemata (categories), existing knowledge structures, and, for cognitiveconservatism memories" (1980:606). The motivation manifests itself intheactive reconstruction hence, perceived self-consistency, (Greenofmemories as well as in selective perceptions andpersonal history, is typically self-serving, wald1980). Thisselective ofinformation processing from which is whyitis sometimes difficult to distinguish self-esteem theories thesetwoself-motives (1980) considers self-consistency theories [Greenwald complementary]. of identities also providesa moThe self-concept as an organization are tivational basis forconsistency. Foote (1951) arguedthatindividuals withthe values and normsimpliedby the motivated to act in accordance Morerecently, (1980) has Stryker identities towhich they becomecommitted. the within theself-concept, argued that thehigher thesalienceof an identity a proposition that has received some greater is itsmotivational significance, & Serpe, 1979; Stryker empirical support (Jackson 1981; Santee& Jackson for consistencyor congruencebetween self1982). The motivation inseveral hasbeendemonstrated andbehaviors rolepreferences, conceptions, studies (Backman& Secord 1968; Burke& Reitzes 1981). Note thatselfin selfand continuity does not mean actual consistency consistency of consistency; we have a the sense or perception conception, but rather and coneven if consistency to createa sense of self-consistency tendency tinuity maynotin factexist.

SELF-CONCEPT OVER THE LIFE CYCLE

overthelifecyclehas been Thetopicof stability andchangein self-concepts of longitudinal research.Also, neglected, partly owing to the difficulties have been dominated by developmental psychologists life-cycle concerns in childhood (especially Piaget and Kohlberg),withtheir major interest Erikson(1959)], withtheir and by neo-Freudians [especially development, focus on personality ratherthan on self-concept per se. A promising onthelifespan, influences is theincreasing attention tohistorical development of a cohort of children suchas Elder's (1974) excellent longitudinal study

THE SELF-CONCEPT

25

during theDepression and in thefollowing decades. Some of thishistorical research has tried to demonstrate thesociohistorical relativity of someof our life-span concepts and assumptions, especiallyour ideas aboutchildhood, adolescence, andold age (Gergen 1980;vandenBerg1961). Buthere as well, theself-concept concern. tends to be an incidental someattempts havebeenmadeto consider self-concept changes However, in thecontext of life-stage analyses.Gordon(1976), forexample,uses a onErikson's of "stage-developmental" modelbasedlargely (1959) delineation inself-concepts stage-specific dilemmas todiscusschanges overthelifecycle. has tended to focuson Mostresearch on life-cycle changesin self-concepts The bulk of this transitions to or from a specific "stage"of development. research has focusedon the transition to adolescence,inspired largely by Erikson's (1959) notion of an identity crisisassociatedwiththisstage.The research evidence,while farfromconsistent (cf Long et al 1967), seems in adolescence to support disturbance generally the idea of a self-concept (Rosenberg 1979; Simmonset al 1973; Simmonset al 1979). Rosenberg in self-concept is due,notonlytobiological (1979)found that this disturbance andhormonal from schoolto changes, butespecially to theshift elementary of biological,environmental, and social junior high.The interacting effects in greater detailby factors on self-esteem in earlyadolescence areexamined tojunior Simmons theshift from etal (1979), whofound that elementary high is more stressful for girls than boys,andis especially hardon theself-esteem of early The shift tojunior maturing (pubertal) girlswhohavebegundating. butearly had high hadlittle effect on boys' self-esteem, physical development a positive effect. to be advanClausen(1975) also foundearlymaturation thelowerclass. tageousforboys' self-concepts, especiallyforthosefrom otheraspectsof the self-concept and body-image, Alongwithself-esteem from are the found to be affected childhood to adolescence by thetransition of self-knowledge locusand content [e.g. see Rosenberg (1979) on theshift from in "external" to "internal" selfattributions, Gordon(1976) on changes of role-identities, thecontent and Montemayor & Eisen (1977) on changes from concrete to abstract modesof self-representation]. as much as adolescence. Later lifestages attention havenotreceived nearly Recently, someinterest has beendirected toward the"middle years"andthe "mid-life old age and the crisis"(Brim1976; Levinson,1978), and toward the"empty various transitions associated withit, suchas retirement, nest," thislitebereavement, anddeath.Thesearepromising developments, though of self-concept. rature is onlyindirectly concerned withmatters ofthelifecycleis notnecessarily the Focuson stages bestwayofaddressing thequestion over time.Another of continuity and changein self-concepts andcontent of self-concepts acrosstime, approach is toexamine thestructure with an eyeto determining andmodeofinteraction their stability, variability,

26

GECAS

with lifeevents. In a sophisticated andinnovative analysis, Mortimer andher colleagues (Mortimer et al 1981; Mortimer & Lorence1980) examined stability and changein self-concept in a panel study of 368 men. Usingfour separate criteria of self-concept stability, Mortimer et al (1981) found a high levelof stability forthissampleon four self-concept dimensions. Theyalso demonstrate how earlyself-concept (focusing on the"senseof competence" dimension) shapesone's lifeevents in theareasofwork andfamily, andhow these lifeevents, inturn, havean independent effect on self-concept. Through a seriesof regression analyses, Mortimer et al (1981) demonstrate "that the relationship between lifeexperiences andtheself-concept is truly reciprocal."

MEASURING THE SELF-CONCEPT

on theselfMeasurement continues to be a serious problem facing research andvalidknowledge inthis area. concept andthemajor obstacle tocumulative Thereare severalexcellent reviewsand critiques of the multitude of selfconcept measures:Crandall(1973), Wells & Marwell(1976), and Wylie of self-evaluation; (1974, 1979) focusmainly on measures and Spitzer et al Test. Wylie's(1974, (1971; Spitzer1976) deal withtheTwenty Statements of themethodological 1979) extensive reviews give themostdismalpicture ofinstrustate ofself-concept theprevalence research. She amply documents ments ofuntested orquestionable reliability andvalidity, many usedonlyonce mostsocial and or twice.Note, however, characterize thatsuch problems measurement psychological (Wells& Marwell1976:250),andhaveespecially plagued cognitive and motivational constructs. in thisarea are at leastbecoming to problems of meaScholars sensitive as a favorable surement evenWylie(1974:324) acknowledges [which sign]. This is mostevidentin the studyof substantive self-concept (identities), work has beenneeded.The TST, themost where, indeed, themost frequently used measureof identities, has been severely criticized as a measureof forits lack of reliability and its questionable self-concept validity (Wells & itimposes Marwell thelimitations 1976:120;Wylie1974:246),as well as for on statistical of identimeasures analysis (Jackson 1981). Severalpromising tieshaverecently theuse of Burke& Tully(1977) haveproposed appeared. semantic differential multiple-discriminant analysison an "Osgood-type" scaleto discover associated with the(connotative) empirically meanings particular thisprocedure to be consistent role-identites. Burke(1980) considers with themeasurement foran interactionist of rolerequirements conception of commitment identities. Another development is Jackson's (1981) measure to role-identities, and cona 23-item indexwithapparently good reliability struct Burke& Tully,as well as Jackson, have shunned theopenvalidity.

THE SELF-CONCEPT

27

hand, (Turner & Schutte 1981),on theother ended format oftheTST. Turner people's to elicit responses regarding is developing an open-ended instrument aspectsof selfsenseof their "real selves" and "falseselves." For certain measure. is stillthemostappropriate concept, an open-ended format

CONCLUSION
in socialpsycholthedominant concern The self-concept is rapidly becoming of symbolic concern ogy. In sociology,whereit has long been a central efforts to examinethe interactionists, the past decade has seen increased of and thecontent and organization relationship between social organization In psychology, the past decade or so has witnessedthe self-concepts. of several andtheconversion of a number of specific selftheories emergence theories intoselftheories. The pervasiveness major cognitive andbehavioral and enhancement of theprocessesof self-concept maintenance may have A a crisisin socialpsychology. precipitated whathas cometo be considered has been the in thiscrisisforpsychological social psychology key factor in which is a social situation experiment realization thatthe laboratory to the are as relevant "demandcharacteristics" and "situatedidentities" experimental manipulations. subjects' behavior as are theintended of has tended to focuson thedevelopment Sociological socialpsychology andcontextual influences. Psyself-concepts, with an eyeto social structural in theconsequences of socialpsychology has beenmoreinterested chological in therecent self for trends functioning. Still,several self-concepts individual to tendency One is theincreasing literature are common to bothdisciplines. viewtheself-concept ofhuman is, ofcourse,an as active.The theme agency to oldonein socialpsychology New is theattempt (as wellas inphilosophy). A related is the trend this active empirically. capture aspectoftheself-concept deterarereciprocally that theselfanditssocialworld increasing recognition implications (of and theoretical mined,an idea withbothmethodological me to thethird trend: greater 1980). This brings Snyder 1981; Wentworth state of selfconcern dissatisfaction (Wylie,1974)] withthecurrent [mainly will be condiscomfort concept measurement. One hopes thisintellectual intothecreation of self-constructs. verted of moreadequatemeasures Thecurrent be resolved in socialpsychology byan mayultimately "crisis" as several havesuggested & Gergen scholars (Marlowe integrated self-theory, 1969:643; Sherif 1977); butwe stillhavea long wayto go. How toreconcile theneedfor a moreanthropomorphic ofthehuman being(McCall conception in the self-conto the reciprocity & Simmons1978:254), one sensitive withtheneedforgreater methodological prerelationship, cept/environment cisionis themajorchallenge in thestudy of theself-concept.

28

GECAS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wishto thank MorrisRosenberg, Jeylan Mortimer, Susan Hales, Milton Rokeach,Michael Schwalbe,DrethaPhillips,and Ralph Turner fortheir helpful comments and criticisms of earlier Workon thispaperwas drafts. supported in part by Project 0364, Department of RuralSociology,Agricultural Research Center, Washington StateUniversity.
Literature Cited Abrahamson, L. Y., Seligman,M. E. P., Teasdale,J. D. 1978. Learned helplessness in humans: critique and reformulation. Abnorm. Psychol.87:49-74 Adler,A. 1927. The Theory and Practiceof Individual Psychology. NY: Harcourt Adler,P.A., Adler,P. 1978. Tinydopers: A case study of deviantsocialization. Symb. Interact. 1:90-105 Alexander, N. C., Knight, G. W. 1971. Situatedidentities and social psychological experimentation. Sociometry 34:65-82 N. C., Lauderdale, Alexander, P. 1977. Situatedidentities andsocialinfluence. Sociometry 40:225-33 N. C., Wiley,M. G. 1981. SituAlexander, atedactivity and identity In Soformation. ciological Perspectives on Social Psychology,ed M. Rosenberg, R. Turner. NY: Basic Alloy,L. B., Abramson, L. Y. 1979. Judgof contingency ment in depressed and nondepressedstudents: sadder but wiser? J. Exp. Psychol.Gen. 108:441-85 R. M. 1980. Self-presentation. Arkin, In The Selfin Social Psychology, ed. D. M. Wegner,R. R. Vallacher NY: Oxford R. M., Appelman, Arkin, A. J.,Burger, J.M. 1980. Social anxiety, self-preservation, and theself-serving bias in causal attribution. J. Person.Soc. Psychol.38:23-35 Aronson, E. 1968. Dissonance theory: progress andproblems. In Theories ofCognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook, ed. R. P. Abelsonet al. Chicago:Rand McNally J. G. 1970. TheImpactofFamily Bachman, Backgroundand Intelligenceon TenthGrade Boys. Vol. 2. Youthin Transition. AnnArbor, Mich: Inst.Soc. Res. C. W., Secord,P. F. 1968.The self Backman, androleselection. In TheSelfin Social Ined. C. Gordon, K. J.Gergen teraction, NY: Wiley.Vol. 1. A. 1974. Behaviortheory Bandura, and the models of man.Am. Psychol.29:859-69 A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Bandura, a unitoward ofbehavioral fying theory change.Psychol. Rev. 84:191-215 A. 1978. The selfsystem Bandura, in reciprocaldeterminism. Am.Psychol.33:344-58 A. 1981.Theselfandmechanisms Bandura, of agency.In Social Psychological Perspectives on theSelf,ed. J. Suls. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum of Becker,H. S. 1960. Noteson theconcept commitment. Am.J. Sociol. 66:32-40 Becker,H. S. 1963. Outsiders. Studiesin the Sociology ofDeviance. NY: FreePress Becker,H. S. 1964. Personal changein adult life.Sociometry 27:40-53 Becker, H. S., Hughes, E. C., Greer,B., Strauss,A. 1961. Boys in White:Student Culture in Medical School. Chicago:Univ. ChicagoPress Bern,D. J. 1972. Self-perception theory. In AdvancesinExperimental Social Psychology,ed. L. Berkowitz Vol. 6. NY: Academic Blumstein, P. W. 1973. Audience,machiavellianism,and tactics of identity bargaining. Sociometry 36:346-65 Blumstein, P. W. et al. 1974. The honoring of accounts. Am. Sociol. Rev. 39:551-66 Blumer,H. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective andMethod. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall R. G., Roed,J.C., Svendsen, A. C. Boutilier, 1980. Crisesin thetwosocialpvhocevic 43:5-17 Bowerman,W. R. 1978. Subjectivecompetence:the structure process, and funcon self-referent causal attributions. tioning J. Theor.Soc. Behav. 8:45-77 Bowles, S., Gintis,H. 1976. Schoolingin America.NY: Basic Books Capitalist biases in Bradley,G. W. 1978. Self-serving the attribution of process:a reexamination thefactor fiction question. J. Person.Soc. Psychol.36:56-71 Bramel, D. 1968.Dissonance, expectation and the self. In Theoriesof Cognitive Consised. R. P. Abelsonet al. Chicago: tency, Rand McNally J.W. 1966.A Theory Brehm, ofPsychological Reactance.NY: Academic Brim,0. G. Jr. 1976. Theoriesof the male crisis.Counsel.Psychol.6:2-9 mid-life D. 1972. Toward a clarification of Brissett, self-esteem. 35:255-63 Psychiatry Bugental,J., Zelen, S. 1950. Investigations intotheself-concept: theW-A-Ytechnique. J. Personal. 18:483-98 Burke,P. J. 1980. The self:measurement reA critical comparison. Soc. I",
'.

'

THE SELF-CONCEPT

29

quirements from an interactionist perspeca 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 thelifecybetween identity 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 reflected appraisalprocess. 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 apscale: rationale, reliability, and validity. J. praisals among football players: a test ofthe Personal.29:334-49 Meadian hypothesis.Soc. Psychol. Q. D. L. 1977.Thedesembodied Carveth, 44:116-26 dialectic:a psychoanalytic ofsociological Felson,R. B. 1981 critique b. Social sources of inforrelativism. Theor.Soc. 4:73-102 in thedevelopment mation of self. Sociol. Clausen,J. A. 1975. The social meaning of Q. 22:69-79 Soc. Psychol.Q. 44:64-69 differential physical and sexualmaturation. Festinger, L. 1954. A theory of social comIn Adolescence in theLifeCycle,ed. S. E. parison processes. Hum.Relat. 7:117-40 Dragastin, G. H. Elder,Jr.NY: Wiley P. W. 1980. Whatdoes Fiske,S. T., Linville, Cole, C., Oetting, E. R., Hinkle,J. 1967. theschemaconcept buyus? 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 L. S. Jr.1955.Identity Foote,N. N., Cottrell, Coopersmith, S. 1967. The Antecedents and Interpersonal of Competence.Chicago: Self-Esteem. San Francisco:W. H. Freeman Univ. ChicagoPress M. V., Beery,R. G. 1976. Self- Franks, Covington, D. D., Marolla,J. 1976. Efficacious worth andschoollearning. NY: Holt,Rineactionand social approval as interacting dihart andWinston of self-esteem: A tenative formumensions R. 1973. The measurement of selflation through construct validation. SociomCrandall, and related esteem In Measures constructs. etry 39:324-41 of Social Psychological Attitudes, ed. J. Franks,D. D., Seeburger, F. F. 1980. The Robinson, P. Shaver.AnnArbor, MI: Inst. of personbehindthe word:Mead's theory Soc. Res. universals and a shift of focusin symbolic W. J., Marlowe,D. 1964. The ApCrowne, interactionism. Sym.Interact. 3:41-58 provalMotive: Studiesin EvaluativeDe- Gallup, G. G. Jr. 1977. Self-recognition in pendence. NY: Wiley primates-a comparative approachto the Davis,J.A. 1966.The campus as a frog bidirectional of consciousness. properties pond. Am.J. Sociol. 72:17-31 Am.Psychol.32:329-38 R. 1968.PersonalCausation.NY: anddimendeCharms, behavior Gecas, V. 1971. Parental Academic sionsofadolescent self-evaluation. Sociom34:466-82 deCharms, R., Muir,M. S. 1978. Motivation: etry social approaches. Ann. Rev. Psychol. Gecas, V. 1972. Parental behavior and conin adolescent 29:91-113 variations textual self-esteem. NY: 35:332-45 Decii, E. L. 1975. Intrinsic Motivation. Sociometry Plenum of migrant Gecas, V. 1973. Self-conceptions W. N. 1974.Motivation Dember, andthecogand settled Mexican Americans. Soc. Sci. nitive revolution. Am.Psychol.29:161-68 Q. 54:579-95 Act. Chi- Gecas, V. 1979. Beyondthe "looking-glass Denzin,N. K. 1970. TheResearch self" towardan efficacy-based cago: Aldine model of N. K. 1977. Childhood Denzin, Socialization: self-esteem. at the Ann. Paper presented Studiesin the Development Meet. Sociol. Assoc., Boston of Language, Social Behavior,and Identity. San Fran- Gecas, V. 1981. Contexts of socialization. In cisco:Jossey-Bass Social Ps chology:Sociological PerspecDenzin,N. K., Keller, C. M. 1981. Frame R. Turner.NY: tives,ed. M. Rosenberg, analysis reconsidered. Contemp. Sociol. Basic 10:52-59 K. J. 1968. Personal and Gergen, consistency D. W. 1980. Black self-esteem and thepresentation ofself.In TheSelfinSocial Drury, desegregated schools. Sociol. Educ. ed. C. Gordon, Interaction. K. J. Gergen. 53:88-103 NY: Wiley R. A. 1972.A Theory K. J. 1971. TheConcept Duval,S., Wicklund, of Gergen, ofSelf.NY: NY: Academic and Winston Objective Self-Awareness. Holt,Rinehart G. H. Jr.1974. Children A. 1979. Central Problems Elder, inSocial of theGreat Giddens, Depression. Los Angeles:Univ. Calif.Press Chicago:Univ. ChicagoPress Theory. S. 1973.The self-concept or Glaser,B. G.. Strauss, revisited A. L. 1967.Awareness Epstein,

30

GECAS

ofDying:A Study ofSocialInteraction. Chiality. In Social Psychology:Sociological R. Turner. ed. M. Rosenberg, Perspectives, cago: AldinePress NY: Basic Glassner, B., Corzine,J. 1978. Can labeling 1979. The organiA. S. Levy, Hull, J. G., theory be saved?Symb. Interact. 1:74-89 to zationalfunctions of self:an alternative Goffman, E. 1959. ThePresentation ofSelfin Everyday Life. NY: Doubleday and the Duvall and Wicklundmodel of selfawareness. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. Company 37:756-68 Goffman, E. 1963.Stigma. Englewood Cliffs, man:therelation NJ:Prentice-Hall Inkeles,A. 1960. Industrial andvalof status to experience, perception, Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction Ritual. NY: Doubleday ue. Am.J. Sociol. 66:1-31 ofcommitS. E. 1981. Measurement Gonos,G. 1977. "Situation" versus"frame": Jackson, The "interactionist" and the "structuralist" ment to roleidentities. J. Person.Soc. Psychol. 40:138-46 analysis of everyday life.Am. Sociol. Rev. 42:854-67 Jacques,J. M., Chason, K. J. 1977. Selfesteemand low statusgroups:a changing Gordon,C. 1968. Self-conceptions: configscene?Sociol. Q. 18:399-412 In The Self in Social urations of content. Interactions, ed. C. Gordon, K. J. Gergen, James,W. 1890. Principlesof Psychology. Vol. 1. NY: Wiley NY: Holt Prophecies. of evaluated Jones, R. A. 1977. Self-Fulfilling Gordon, C. 1976. Development roleidentities. Ann.Rev. Sociol. 2:405-33 NY: Wiley evalS. C. 1973. Selfandinterpersonal A. G. 1980. The totalitarian Greenwald, ego: Jones, versusconsistency theories uations:esteem fabrication andrevision ofpersonal history. theories. Am.Psychol.35:603-18 Psychol. Bull. 79:185-99 oftheCorR. 1977.Men and Women A. G., Ronis,D. L. 1978. Twenty Kanter, Greenwald, of years ofcognitive dissonance: case study poration.NY: Basic anddeviant the evolution of a theory. Psychol. Rev. Kaplan,H. B. 1975. Self-attitudes behavior. PacificPalisades,CA: Goodyear 85:53-57 Gross, E., Stone,G. P. 1964. Embarrassment Publ. disandtheanalysis ofrolerequirements. Am.J. Katz, P., Zigler, E. 1967. Self-image a developmental J. Perapproach. Sociol. 70:1-15 parity: son. Soc. Psychol.5:186-95 and identity Guiot,J. M. 1977. Attribution in Social Inconstruction: Am. Sociol. Kelley,H. H. 1971. Attribution somecomments. Rev. 42:692-704 teraction.In Attribution: Perceivingthe Causes ofBehavior,ed. E. E. Jones et al. model Hales,S. 1980.A developmental ofselfNJ:General Press Learning esteem Morristown, based on competence and moralbeof referhavior:a longitudinal and cross-sectional Kelley,H. H. 1952. Two functions In Readings inSocial Psycholencegroups. analysis. PhD thesis. Univ. California, ogy,ed. G. E. Swansonet al. NY: Holt Berkeley ofthe theory Hales, S. 1981a. The inadvertent rediscovery Kinch,J.W. 1963. A formalized of "self" in social psychology. Am.J. Sociol. 68:481-86 self-concept. Paper presented at theAm. Psychol.Assoc. Meet., Kohn, M. L. 1969. Class and Conformity. Homewood,IL: DorseyPress Los Angeles therelation- Kohn, M. L. 1981. Personality, occupation, Hales, S. 1981b. Understanding a frameof referand social stratification: and social deship betweenself-esteem ence. In Research in Social Stratification sirability:A longitudinalstudy. Paper and Mobility, ed. D. J. Trieman,R. V. at the Soc. Res. Child Devel. presented CT: JAI Robinson,Vol. 1. Greenwich, Meet.,Boston Press S. 1978. Effectance reconmotivation Harter, L. L. 1975. Considered:towarda developmental model. Krauss,H. H., Critchfield, and consistency Hum.Devel. 21:34-64 self-esteem theory trasting in predicting attraction. Roles and Interaction. interpersonal theory Heiss,J. 1968.Family 38:247-60 Sociometry Chicago:RandMcNally inof Kuhn,H. 1964. Major trends in symbolic Heiss, J., OwensS. 1972. Self-evaluation teractionist in the past twenty-five blacks and whites. Am. J. Sociol. 78: theory 360-70 years.Sociol. Q. 5:61-84 T. 1954.AnempirJ. P., Stokes,R. 1975. Disclaimers. Kuhn,M. H., McPartland, Hewitt, ical investigation of self-attitudes. Am. SoAm.Sociol. Rev. 40:1-11 ciol. Rev. 19:68-76 E. R. 1949. Humanmotives and the Hilgard, Hillsof theself.Am.Psychol.4:374-82 Lefcourt, H. M. 1976.LocusofControl. concept faces of social dale, NJ:Erlbaum. House, J. S. 1977. The three 40:161-77 psychology. Sociometry Lemert, E. 1951. Social Pathology. NY: andpersonMcGraw-Hill House,J.S. 1981.Social structure

THE SELF-CONCEPT

31

Levinson, D. J. 1978. TheSeasonsofa Man's Boston:Routledge and Kegan Paul Life.NY: Ballantine and Social Merton, R. 1957. Social Theory 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. factor J. Abnorm. biasesin theattribution of causality: Psychol. 89:203-12 fiction? Psychol.Rev. 82:213-25 Lewis,J.D. 1979. A social behaviorist of coginter- Mischel,W. 1979. On the interface ofthemeadian nition and personality: Beyondthepersonpretation "I". Am.J. Sociol. 85:261-87 situation debate.Am.Psychol.34:740-54 Lifton, R. J. 1970.Boundaries: Psychological Mischel, W., Mischel, H. N. 1977. SelfMan inRevolution. NY: RandomHouse control and the self. In The Self: PsychoLofland, J. 1977. Becoming a world-saver relogical and PhilosophicalIssues, ed. T. visited. Am.Behav. Sci. 20:805-18 Mischel.Oxford: Basil Blackwell Long,B. H., Henderson, S. 1956. A testof E. H., Ziller,R. C. Miyamoto, S., Dornbusch, 1967. Developmental changesin the selfthe interactionist hypothesis of selfAm.J. Sociol. 15:399-403 concept during middlechildhood. Merrillconception. PalmerQ. 13:210-15 faceModigliani,A. 1971. Embarrassment, of Lopata,H. Z. 1973. Self-identity a theory work,and eye contact: testing in marriage andwidowhood. Sociol. Q. 14:407-18 embarrassment. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. A. R. 1976.Cognitive Its 17:15-24 Luria, Development: Culturaland Social Foundations.Cam- Montemayor, R., Eisen,M. 1977. The develof self-conceptions from childhood opment bridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press Maines,D. R. 1977. Social organization to adolescence. Devel. Psychol.13:314-19 and social structure in symbolicinteractionist Morse, S., Gergen,K. 1970. Social comof thought. Ann.Rev. Sociol. 3:235-59 andtheconcept parison, self-consistency, self.J. Person.Soc. Psychol.16:148-56 M. 1977. Cognitive socialpsychology. Manis, Personal.Soc. Psychol.Bull. 3:550-66 J. T., Finch,M. D., Kumka,D. Mortimer, rnan Markus,H. 1977. Self-schemata de1981. Persistence a! J- I i m] and pro-i.: selfcessinginformation velopment: the li a abouttheself.J. PerIn Life-Span son. Soc. Psychol.35:63-78 and Beconcept. Development K. J. 1969. Personality havior,ed. P. B. Baltes, 0. G. Brim,Jr. Marlowe, D., Gergen, and social interaction. In TheHandbookof NY: Academic.Vol. 4. Social Psychology, J. T., Lorence, J. 1979. OcMortimer, ed. G. Lindzey, E. Aronson. Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley, cupational experience and theself-concept: 2nded. Vol. 3. a longitudinal study. Soc. Psychol. Q. 42:307-23 McCall,G. J.,Simmons, J.L. 1978.Identities andInteractions, NY: The FreePress.rev. Mortimer, J. T., Lorence, J. 1980. Selfed. lateadoconcept stability and changefrom In Research In J.D., Yancey,W. L. 1971. Uncle lescenceto earlyadulthood. McCarthy, TomandMr.Charlie: and MentalHealth,ed. R. G. in Metaphysical paths Community the studyof racism and personaldisorSimmons. JAIPress.Vol. 2. Greenwich: of the Am.J. Sociol. 76:648-72 N. 1979. The biosociology ganization. Petryszakk, D. C. 1975. Power: The Inner social self.Sociol. Q. 20:291-303 McClelland, NY: Irvington J. R., Washington, R. E. 1979. Black Experience. Porter, Ann.Rev. Sociol. and self-esteem. identity T. S. 1965. Manual for the McPartland, 5:53-74 Twenty-Statements Problem.Kansas City: Greater KansasCityMental Health an Founda- Prus,R. C. 1975. Resisting designations: tion.rev. ed. of attribution intoa negoextension theory tiated context. research is Sociol. Inq. 45:3-14 McPhail,C. 1979. Experimental withsymbolic convergent interaction. E. L., Cooper, J. 1966. SelfSym- Quarantelli, bol. Interact. 2:89-94 and others:a further test of conceptions C. W. 1972. The classMeadianhypotheses. Sociol. Q. 7:281-97 McPhail, C., Tucker, ification and ordering of responses to the Reitzes, D. C. 1980. Beyond thelooking-glass self:Cooley'ssocialselfanditstreatment in question, "Who am I?". Sociol. Q. 13:329-47 textbooks.Contemp.Sociol. introductory 9:631-40 Mead, G. H. 1934. Mind,Self,and Society. Riesman,D., Glazer,N., Denney,R. 1950. Chicago:Univ. ChicagoPress J. 1979. Chimpanzees, TheLonelyCrowd.New Haven,CT: Yale and Meddin, symbols, the reflectiveself. Soc. Psychol. Q. Univ. Press 42:99-109 J.W., Buffalo, M. D. 1974. Fighting Rogers, B. N., Petras, L. T. back: ninemethods of adaptation to a deviJ.W., Reynolds, Meltzer, 1975. SymbolicInteractionism: antlabel. Soc. Probl. 22:101-18 Genesis, Varietiesand Criticism.London/Henley/Rokeach, M. 1979. Someunresolved issuesin

32

GECAS

theories ofbeliefs, attitudes, andvalues.PaAm. Sociol. Rev. 33:46-62 perpresented attheNebraska of alienSymp.on Mo- Seeman,M. 1959. On themeaning tivation, March,1979 ation.Am. Sociol. Rev. 24:783-91 Rokeach, M. 1968. A theory of organization Seligman,M. E. P. 1975. Helplessness:On andchange within and Death. San value-attitude systems. J. Suppression, Development, Soc. Iss. 24:13-32 Francisco: Freeman Rokeach, M. 1973.TheNature ofHumanVal- Sherif, in socialpsycholoM. 1977.The crisis ues. NY: FreePress gy.Personal.Soc. Psychol. Bull. 3:368- 82 Rosenberg, F. R., Rosenberg, M. 1978. Self- Shibutani, T. 1961. Society and Personality. esteem and delinquency. J. Youth Adolesc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall 7:279-94 Shrauger, J. S., Schoeneman, T. J. 1979. Rosenberg, M. 1965. Society and theAdolesSymbolic interactionist view of selfcentSelf-Image. NJ: Princeton 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 intoearly E. F., Bush, D. M. 1979. Entry Rosenberg, M. 1975. The dissonant of schoolstructure, context adolescence: theimpact and theadolescent In Adolesself-concept. and earlydatingon self-esteem. puberty, cence in the Life Cycle: Psychological Am. Sociol. Rev. 44:948-67 Changeand Social Context, ed. S. Drag- Simmons, R. G., Rosenberg, F., Rosenberg, in theself-image at astin, G. H. Elder.Washington M. 1973. Disturbance DC: Hemisphere adolescence. Am. Sociol. Rev. 38:553-68 Rosenberg, M. 1976. Beyond self-esteem: Simpson, M. 1980.The sociology ofcognitive someneglected Ann.Rev. Sociol. 6:287-313 aspectsof theself-concept. development. Paperpresented at theAm. Sociol. Assoc. Smith, M. B. 1968. Competence and socialand Society, ed. J. Meet.,New YorkCity ization.In Socialization Rosenberg, M. 1979.Conceiving the Self.NY: Brown A. Clausenet al. Boston:Little, Basic Smith, M. B. 1978. Perspectives on selfhood. Rosenberg, M. 1981. The sociologyof the Am.Psychol.33:1053-63 In Social Psychology: process." self-concept. M. 1979. "Self-monitoring Socio- Snyder, R. logicalPerspectives, Adv.Exper.Soc. Psychol.12:85-128 ed. M. Rosenberg, Turner. M. 1981. On the influence NY: Basic of indiSnyder, Rosenberg, M., Pearlin,L. I. 1978. Social viduals on situations. In Personality, class and self-esteem amongchildren and 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 Lawrence Erlbaum and White Self-Esteem: The UrbanSchool Snygg,D., Combs, A. W. 1949. Individual Child.Washington for PsyDC: Am. Sociol. Assoc. Behavior:A Frame of Reference Rose Monogr.Ser. NY: Harper chology. S. P. 1976. Perceived andasRosenthal, R., Jacobson, L. 1968. Pygmalion Spitzer, validity in the Classroom.NY: Holt, Rinehart & of theself:a decadelater.Sociol. sessment Winston Q. 17:236-46 Ross, L. 1977. The intuitive and Spitzer, J. 1971. The psychologist S., Couch,C., Stratton, in the attrihis shortcomings: Assessment distortions of the Self. Iowa City, IA: bution InAdvances inExperimental Sernoll process. Vol. Stone, Social Psychology, G. P. 1962. Appearance andtheself.In ed. L. Berkowitz, 10. NY: Academic HumanBehavior and Social Processes,ed. Ross,M. 1976.Theself-perception A. M. Rose. Boston:Houghton Mifflin ofintrinsic InNewDirections motivation. inAttribution Stone,G. P. 1970. The playof little children. J.H. Harvey, In Social Psychology InW. J. Ickes,R. F. Through Symbolic Research, ed. G. P. Stone, H. A. FarKidd,Vol. 1. NY: Wiley teraction, M. 1974. Self-labeling: MA: Ginn-Blaisdell Rotenberg, a missing berman. Waltham, link inthe"societal H. A. 1970. Social reaction" ofdevi- Stone,G. P., Farberman, theory ance. Sociol. Rev. 22:335-54 Interaction. Psychology Through Symbolic J. B. 1966. Generalized MA: Ginn-Blaisdell Rotter, expectancies Waltham, A. L. 1978. Negotiations: forinternal versusexternal control of rein- Strauss, Varieties, forcement. Psychol.Monogr.80 Contexts, Processes,and Social Order.San T. J. 1966. BeingMentally Scheff, Ill: A SoFrancisco: Jossey-Bass salience and role S. 1968. Identity Stryker, ciologicalTheory. Chicago:Aldine S. 1970. Deviance, J. Mar. Fam. 30:558-64 Schwartz, M., Stryker, performance. in twosocial S. 1977. Developments DC: Am. Stryker, Selves,and Others.Washington Sociol. Assoc. an appreciation ofmutoward psychologies: M. B., Lyman, S. W. 1968. Accounts. tal relevance. 40:145-60 Scott, Sociometry

THE SELF-CONCEPT

33

Stryker, S. 1979. The profession: comments cupationalcorrelates of multidimensional from an interactionist's perspective. Sociol. self-esteem: comparionsamong garbageFocus 12:175-86 collectors, bartenders, professors, andother Stryker, S. 1980. Symbolic Interactionism: A workers. Sociol. Soc. Res. (Forthcoming) SocialStructural Version. MenloPark,CA: Webster, M. Jr., Sobieszek.B. 1974. Sources Benjamin/Cummings A Formal Theoryof of Self-Evaluation: Stryker, S., Serpe,R. T. 1982. Commitment, Significant Others andSocialInfluence. NY: identity salienceand role behavior: theory Wiley andresearch In Personality examples. 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 human agency?In Weigert, A. J. 1975. Substantitial self:a primTheSelf: Psychological and Philosophical itive termfor a sociologicalpsychology. Issues,ed. T. Mischel.Oxford: Basil BlackPhilos. Soc. Sci. 5:43-62 well Weigert, A. J., Hastings,R. 1977. Identity Taylor,M. C., Walsh, E. J. 1979. Explaand social change.Am.J. Soloss, family, nations ofblackself-esteem: someexpirical ciol. 82:1171-85 tests. Soc. Psychol.Q. 42:242-53 E. A. 1966. Towarda theory Weinstein, of Tedeschi, J.T. 1981.Impression in Social Management interpersonal tactics.In Problems Theory and Social Psychological Research. ed. C. W. Backman,P. F. Psychology, NY: Academic Secord.NY: McGraw-Hill Thomas, D. L., Gecas, V., Weigert,A., Weinstein, E. A. 1969. The development of Rooney, E. 1974. FamilySocialization and In Handbookof interpersonal competence. the Adolescent.Lexington,MA: D. C. Socialization and Research,ed. D. Theory Heath A. Goslin.Chicago:Rand McNally Thomas,W. I. 1923. The Unadjusted Girl. Weinstein, E. A., Deutschberger, P. 1963. Boston:Little, Brown Some dimensions of altercasting. SociomeR. H. 1962. Role-taking: Turner, verprocess 26:454-66 try susconformity. InHuman Behavior and SoWellman,B. 1971. I am a student. Sociol. cial Processes, ed. A. M. Rose. Boston: Educ. 44:422-37 Mifflin Houghton of devianceand Wells, L. E. 1978. Theories R. H. 1968. The self-conception Turner, 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 Conceptualization and Measurement. Wiley Hills: Sage Beverly R. H. 1976.Therealself:from Turner, institu- White, R. W. 1959. Motivation reconsidered: tion toimpulse. Am.J. Sociol. 81:989-1016 the conceptof competence. Psychol.Rev. R. H. 1978. The roleand theperson. Turner, 66:297-333 Am.J. Sociol. 84:1-23 W. M. 1980. Context and UnderWentworth, R. H., Gordon, S. L. 1981. The Turner, NY: Elsevier standing. boundaries of the self: the relationship of Wicklund, R. A. 1979. The influence of selfto inauthenticity authenticity in theselfconawarenessof humanbehavior.Am. Sci. In The Self-Concept: ception. in Advances 67:187-93 Theory and Research,ed. M. Lynch,A. B. 1976. Causal attributions Wortman, and InNewDirections Norem-Hebeisen, K. Gergen.Cambridge, control. inAttripersonal MA:Ballinger, Springer bution W. J. Research,ed. C. H. Harvey, Turner, R. H., Schutte, J. 1981. The true self Ickes, R. F. Kidd, Vol. 1. NY: Wiley method for studying the self-conception. Wylie, R. C. 1974. The Self-Concept. LinInteract. 4:1-20 Symbol. Press.Vol. 1 coln, NE: Univ. Nebraska Vallacher, R. R. 1980. An introduction toself Wylie, R. C. 1979. The Self-Concept. LinIn TheSelfinSocial Psychology, theory. ed. Press.Vol. 2 coln, NE: Univ. Nebraska D. M. Wegner, R. R. Vallacher.NY: Ox- Yancey,W. L., Rigsby, J. L., McCarthy, D. ford Univ.Press 1972. Social positionand self-evaluation: Van denBerg,J. H. 1961. TheChanging Natherelative of race. Am.J. Soimportance ture ofMan. NY: Norton ciol. 78:338-59 Veblen,T. 1899. The Theory L. A. Jr. 1977. The MutableSelf. of theLeisure Zurcher, Class. NY: MacMillan Hills: Sage Beverly Walsh, E. J., Taylor, M. C. 1982. Oc-