CHAPTER 6

Motivational Facets of the Self

In: Richard M. Sorrentino & E. Tary Higgins (Eds.)
(1986). Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: STEVEN J.BRECKLER
Foundations of Social Behavior. N e w York: Johns Hopkins University
Guilford Press.
ANTHONY G. GREENWALD
Ohio State University

Self-evaluation is a potent ene'rgizer of human activity. Behavior can be variably

directed at pleasing other people, pleasing oneself, or satisfying the goals, norms,
and expectations of important reference groups. In this chapter, we focus on this
important, persisting task of achieving a significant audience's favorable evalua-
tion. Central to this treatment is an approach called ego-task analysis, which offers a
general framework for analyzing the interaction of situation and personality in
determining behavior. A review of the literature on ego-involvement leads to the
identdication of three significant evaluative audiences: public, private, and
collective. The associated motivational facets of the self are then related to research
and theory on social influence, self-awareness/selfcdnsciousness, self-presentation,
and self-esteem.

EGO-TASK ANALYSIS: AN INTRODUCTION

Greenwald (1982a) introduced ego-task analysis to integrate the large literature

on ego-involvement (Allport, 1 9 4 3 ; Sherif & Cantril, 1 9 4 7 ; Sherif, Sherif, Bi
Nebergall, 1 9 6 J ) with more recent work on self-awareness theory (Buss, 1 9 8 0 ;
Duval & Wickland, 1 9 7 2 ; Scheier & Carver, 1983). T h e difficulty of that task
became apparent when the review led to the identification of three distinct
meanings of ego-involvement, each deriving from a different theoretical tradition.
The three meanings of ego-involvement nevertheless share a common theme-self-
evaluation. They differ in the source identified for the standard of
evaluation-other people, oneself, or one's reference groups.

Three Conceptions of Ego-Involvement

In one sense, ego-involvement refers to a concern about one's public impression, or

evaluation by others. This sense of ego-involvement is similar to evaluation
146 Part I. The Self Chapter 6 . Motivational Facets of the S e l f 147

apprehension (Rosenberg, 1 9 6 9 ) and approval motivation (Crowne & Marlowe, TABLE 6.1 Interrelationships of Facets of the Self, Ego Tasks, Personality
1 9 6 4 ) . I t is the type of ego-involvement that becomes engaged when subjects in a Measures, Experimental Procedures, and Performance Strategies
psychology experiment are instructed that performance in the experimental task
reflects a lralued, socially desirable skill (e.g., intelligence).
I n a second sense, ego-involvement refers t o a concern about one's self-
evaluation, o r private self-image. This second sense is sunilar t o self-esteem Ego-[ark. Hedonic Social Individual Collective
maintenance and achievement motivation (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & derignafion sarisfaction accrcditation, achicvemcnt achicvcmcnt
Lowell, 1913). This type of ego-involvement occurs when a subject compares task sclf-dcfmition
performance to a personal standard of achievement. I n this second sense of ego-
Barirhr , Attainment of Intcmal Intcmaliz-cd goals
involvement, the evaluator is oneself rather than others. relJleualuafion positivc affcct standards (inner of refcrcncc
A third usage of ego-involvement originated in the w o r k of Sherif and Cantril audicncc) group
( 1 9 4 7 ) , w h o wrote that "all attitudes that defme a person's status o r that give him
some relative role with respect to other individuals, groups, o r institutions are ego- Individual- Public Privatc
differenre s c l f t o n s c i ~ ~ ~ n c s s .selftonsciou;mcss.
involved" (p. 96). Those other individuals and groups are reference groups, which
mearurtr offark. nccd for nccd for
include "those groups t o which the individual relates himself as a part o r t o which oririrfafion approval, high achicvcmcnt, low
he aspires to relate himself psychologically" (Sherif, 1 9 16, p. 1 7 1). sclf-mogitoring scll-monito~g

The Concept of Ego Task Sifuational Anonymity in 'Minority scams Privacy. cxposurc Rcfcrcncc group
indurrrr of group; drug in groups, solo to pcrformancc salencc, cohestivc
I n day-to-day activity, peoFle are faced with a variety o f tasks to accomplish. fork. orienfafion intoxication bcforc aud~cncc, reply, mirror. group.
These can range from the relatively mundane tasks o f m a ~ l i n ga letter o r opening a camcra. public privatc failure supcrordinatc
failurc goals
d o o r t o relatively important tasks, such as giving a public presentation o r taking an
exam. A m o n g the most important tasks are the ones that become engaged - - under Sfroftgitr in Norm violation Conformity. Indcpcndcncc. Coopcration in
the various conditions o f ego-involvement. These are the tasks of establishing one's rrrvicc of~drk. obcdicncc, dcfiancc, opinion group cndcavors
self-worth by achieving a significant audience's favorable evaluation. W e shall call opinion rcsistancc
these very important tasks ego tasks. Ego-task goals-that is, achieving favorable modcration,
basking in
self-evaluations-take precedence o v e r the goals o f most other tasks. UnLke most
rcflcctcd glory
other tasks, however, obtaining the goal does n o t end an e g o task; the goal
continues t o be important.

Ego-Task Analysis
E g o tasks, like most tasks, have t w o components. O n e is a cognitive representa-
tion o f what is t o be accomplished-the task goal. T h e other includes strategies for
achieving the goal. T h e goal component is determined jointly b y incentives in the
situation and b y the goal preferences. Similarly, the strategy component is
influenced both b y the sinration and b y preferences a m o n g strategies.
Thus, ego-task analysis offers a general framework for analyzing the interaction of
situation and personality in determining behavior (Greenwald, 1 9 8 2 a ; see also
Magnusson & Endler, 1 9 7 7 ) .
Ego-task analysis can be illustrated b y considering the task o f achieving
parental approval. T w o goals may satisfy this task-gaining verbal praise o r
receilring a monetary reward. O n e situational determinant of the goal is the
presence of another. F o r example, verbal praise may be the desired goal when a
sibling has just been similarly complemented. Alternative]\.. one may have a
p e ~ s o t l r l lpreference for m o n e t a q rewards. Strategies can U e w i s e be determined by
situational influences, such as b y modeling a sibling's successful approach.
Strategies can also be determined b y personal preferences among the available alter-
natives (for example, getting praise by doing a favor rather than b y asking f o r it).
F O U R M O T I V A T I O N A L FACETS O F THE SELF
T h e three ego tasks, as identified in the three meanings of ego-involvement, can be
placed within a larger context that considers f o x motivational facets o f the self (cf.
Greenwald & Breckler, 1 9 8 1 ; Greenwald & Pratkanis, 1 9 8 4 ) . Table 6.1
summarizes these facets of the self-the diffuse, public, private, and collective
facets-within the ego-task analysis framework. T h e second, third, and fourth
facets of the self each correspond to one of the meanings of ego-involvement
described earlier. T h e f i s t facet represents a more primitive aspect o f the self.
The Diffuse Self
T h e diffuse facet o f the self is a very primitive self. I t is a condition o f n o t
distinguishing sharply between self and others. Behavior is simply guided t o w a r d
positive affective states. T h e task of the diffuse self can be called hedonic
satisfaction, which is not properly an ego task because it does not presuppose a
sense of self. Identification o f the diffuse self proves useful, however, in
considering past analyses of ego dn.elopment and in resolving a paradox in
treatments of deindividuation (see later discussion).
The Public Self
T h e public facet of the self can be associated with the first o f the three meanings o f
ego-involvement. T h e public self is sensitive to the ekduations of significant others
(e.g., parents a n d authorities) a n d seeks to win their approval. T h e ego task of the
public self can be described, in part, as social accrrditation-that is, earning credit
in exchange relationships with others. This facet of the self is the o n e most
commonly identified in treatments o f self-presentation (e.g., Goffman, 1 9 J 9 ) and
impression management (Schlenker, 1 9 8 0 ) . T h e public self was recognized b y
James ( 1 8 9 0 ) in his description of the social self, which includes "an innate
to get ourselves noticed, and noticed favorably, by our kind" (p.
293).
The Private Self
T h e private facet o f the self can be identified with the second mctaning of ego-
involvement. T h e private selfs ego task is individual achievement. T h e term
"achievement" is used, in the sense of McClelland e l al. ( 1 9 J 3 ) , to indicate
guidance by internal standards. By providing an inner audience for behavior, the
private self permits self-evaluation to be effected in the absence of others.
The Collective Self
T h e collective self is the we facet o f the self;'it can be identified with the third
meaning o f ego-involvement. Its ego task is collective achievement-that is,
achieving the goals of and W i g one's role in a reference group. Typical
reference groups include co-workers, religious organizations, clubs. athletic teams,
a n d family.
T h e relationship between the self a n d the other people w h o provide the basis
for self-evaluation is central to the distinction between the public and coliective
facets of the self. T h e public self seeks to win the approval of specific others,
especially those w h o control rewards and other reinforcements (e.g.. parents o r
teachers). I n satisfying this ego task, however, the public self cannot be assumed to
adopt the values, norms, o r attitudes of those others. T h e collective self, in
contrast. does adopt the values of others; it seeks to achieve thc goals of reference
grollps, as internalized by the person (cf. Sherif & Sherif. 1 9 6 4 ) .
Facets of the Self in Ego Development
T h c four rnotivationd facets of the self arc assumed to develop in the left-to-right
ordrr I Table 6 I T h e ddfuse self is best thought of as a prewlf. T h e public self
depends o n development of a cognitive discrimination between sclf and others u d
an ability to attend to those aspects of one's behavior that are also noticed b y
others. An i m p o r t m t aspect of the public selfs ego task is to internalize the
evaluative standards o f others, which leads to development of the private self. Thct
collective self represents a further developmental step in which the goals o f
referencct groups have become internalzed. This proposed developmental sequence
has support in several analyses b y developmental theorists, which w e review here
vctry brictfly.
The Diffuse Self
I n summarizing the mental development of the child, Piaget ( 1 9 6 4 1 1 9 6 7 )
noted that "at the outset of mental evolution there is no defmite differentiation
between the self and the external world" (p. 12). T h e neonate's behavior is guided
largely toward the satisfaction of certain hedonic impulses (e.g., to eat and to
sleep). Loevinger ( 1 9 7 6 ) similarly identified the initial stage of ego development
(the "presocial" stage) as o n e in which the infant is unable to differentiate self f r o m
the outer world.
The Public Self
T h e first real sense of self begins to emerge when the child is able to
distinguish self from others. As Piaget ( 1 9641 1 9 6 7 ) noted. "the young child must
cope n o t only with the universe.. . but also with t w o new and closely
&ctd worlds: the social world a n d the world of innrr representations" (p. 18).
T h e public sclf also has a correspondence in w h a t Loevingrr ( 1 9 7 6 ) has identified
as the "conformist" stage in ego development. As the label implies, the conformist
stage is marked by conformity to external rules, with conscious preoccupations
centering on appearance and social acceptability.
The Private Self
As the self develops, an internalization o f the evaluative standards o f others
begins to occur. Piaget ( 1 9 6 4 / 1 9 6 7 ) arriculated this internalization process as
"the general rule that o n e always ends by applying to oneself behavior acquired
from others" (pp. 40-4 1). T h e private self is also seen in the "conscientious" stage
of ego development (Loevinger, 1 9 7 6 ) . A t this stage, "the major elements o f an
adult conscience are present [including] long-term, self-evaluated goals a n d ideals,
differentiated self-criticism, and a sense of responsibility" (p. 20). T h e individual
achievement orientation of the private self is especially evident a t this stage, where
"achievement . . . is mctasured primarily by [one's] o w n standards, rather t h a n
mainly b y recognition o r by competitive advantage, as at lower levels" ( p . 2 1).
The Collective Self
Primarily the product of socialization experiences, the collective self represents
an internalization of the goals, norms, and expectations o f important reference
groups. In discussing the socialization of behavior, Piaget ( 196411 9 6 7 ) noted that
"among the older children there is progress in t w o directions: individual
concentration when the subject is working by himself a n d effectivr collaboration in
the group" (p. 39). T h e former direction of progress reflects the developing
 1J0 Purl I. Tht Self
private self, whereas the latter represents the emergence of a collective self. In
Piagetls treatment, however, it is n o t until the further developmental stages that
mark adolescence that the collective facet of the self fully develops (see also Piaget,
1 9 3 2 / 1 9 6 5). Analyses of altruism (a form of collective behavior) also support the
proposition that the collective self represents a relatively mature stage of ego
development ( C i a l d h i , Baurnann. b Kenrick, 1 9 8 1 ; Froming, Allen, & Jensen, in
press).
Facets of the Self in Social Influence
Three facets o f the self (the public, private, a n d collective facets) have a direct
correspondence t o Kelman's ( 1 9 6 1 ) analysis of social influence. K e h a n identified
three processes o f social influence: compliance, i n t e r n h a t i o n , and identification.
Con~liunceoccurs when another's influence is accepted "to achieve a favorable
reaction from the other" (p. 6 2 ) . Intermliqalion occurs "because the induced
behavior is congruent with [one's] value system" (p. 6 5 ) . Finally, identrfication
reflects behavior that is adopted because it satisfies "a role relationship that forms a
part o f the person's self-imagev (p. 6 3 ) .
T h e correspondence between Kelman's analysis and the present ego-task
formulation is s h o w n in Table 6.2, where parallels are d r a w n between compliance
and the public facet, between internalization a n d the private facet, and between
identification and the collective facet of self. I t can be seen from Table 6 . 2 that the
primary concern of the person being influenced corresponds directly to an ego
task's basis for self-evaluation (see Table 6.1). T w o important points follow from
the Table 6 . 2 summary. First, it implies that n o one of the three methods of social
influence is generally most effective; rather, each can be effective with the
appropriate combinaticm of situation and influence target. Second, it suggests a
basis h r describing individual differences in susceptibility t o the three types of
intluencc. For examplc, cornpLance may be most effective when one's prima:-
concern is to win favorable evaluations from other pcrsons. However, internal-
zation may bc the more effective type o f social Lflucnce for those w h o
disFo"irion,~lly strive toward achieving private goals and stnndards.
The Paradox of Deindividuation
"Deindividuation" rcfers t o a condition in which one's individual identifiability is
decreased and internal constraints against various types of action are reduced. I n
summarizing previous reviews (Diener, 1 9 7 7 , 1 9 8 0 ; Dipboye, 1 9 7 7 ) , Greenwald
( 1 9 8 2 b ) noted the following paradoxical aspects of deindividuation:
Deindividuatron is sometimes associated with loss of identity but other times with
acquisition of identity via a distinctive group (of which one is an indistinguishable
member): i t is sometLmes sought but other times avoided; and it is sometimes
asociated with chaotic, norm-violating behavior but other times with conform-
ing, uniform behavior. (p. 1 7 2 )
T h e distinction between the diffuse and collective facets of the selFcan heluI
resolve this paradox. All d e i n d i v i d u a t i q conditions reduce the salience of intema!
standards. These conditions include anonymity in a group, alcohol or drug
i n t o ~ c a t i o n ,and strong, unstructured stimulation. H o w e v e r , some situations can
make the subject's participation in a reference group salent-for example, being
m i d s r a shouting c r o w d o f home-team supporters at a football g m e o r wearing a
uniform that hides one's individual features while making- one's group
- - affiliation
apparent. Deindividuating procedures that make a reference group salcnt can
engage the collective self, leading t o coordinated o r norm-adhering behavior. This
is t o be contrasted to nonsocial conditions that fail to engage 3nv of the develoued. I '

o r socialzed, facets of the self and that can lead to s o c A ;ha& o r norm-violating
behavior. Greenwald ( 1 9 8 2 b ) suggested that the term "sociation" be applied t o
TABLE 6.2 Facets of the Self in Social Influe,nce
the former effects of social situations that elicit coordinated, norm-adhsring
Compliance lnrmlq~ion 1denriJira1ion behavior-ones that (in present terms) invoke the collective self. T h e term
"deindividuation" should be restricted t o the effects of nonsocial procedures that
F a e l o f he self Public Privatc CoUectivc
elicit norm-violating behavior-ones that, b y suppressing the public, private, and
Typ o f t f i r ~ i v e Powerful, uscs Expcn, rmstwonhy Acrractivc, mcmbers o f collective selves, effectively invoke the diffuse self.
~n)7uenm rewards and a refcrcncc g r o u p
punishments ACHIEVING EGO-TASK GOALS
Condirionr undrr Influcnccr is absent Exposure t o more Influcncc~luscs
L . ~ I CI ~I I ~ ~ U C I NI C ~ o r loses p u t i e r experr influencc attracrivcncss o r
Different strategies are specially suited for achieving the goals of different ego
/U.II changes influence tasks. T h e goal of the public selfs ego task is t o win the approval of other persons.
This is most often accomplished by conforming t o the expectations, requests, o r
P r i z q ( o w r n ~of Obtaining reward o r J u s ~ i f ~ belief
i n ~ or hjain~aining actions of high-status others or b y affiliating with another'5 success. T h e goal of
r~~/lupliiee a p p r w d , avoiding action in terms o f i d e n t i k a t i u n w.ith
the private selfs ego task is to meet one's personal standards of achievement. This
pmiqhment i n t e r n a L x d principles, reference g r o u p 101
being correct pcrrcm)
can be done, for example. by acting on the basis of one's o w n perceptions rather
than o n the basis of what others desire. F i n d y , achieving the intern,&ed goals of
Narc T h l r mhle is an application o f t h c facets-of-the-rev anal?rir t o the theori7.ation of Kelman a reference group (the collective selfs ego task) can be accomplished b y
(19hli
cooperating in group endeavors or by behaving in accordance with a reference
group's norms and expectations.
Of course, many everyday achievements serve two or more ego tasks
simultaneously. For example, winning a job promotion, earning a college degree,
and raising children are achievements that simultaneously earn the approval of
others, achieve success by ~ e r s o n a standards,
l and fulfdl a reference g o u p ' s !goals.
Indeed, these may be such strongly satisfying experiences precisely because they
serve the interests of a public self, a private self, and a coueccive self, all at the same
tune.
An Illustration of Ego-Task Strategies: The Conformity Experiment
Asch'? ( 1 9 j 1 , 1 9 j 6 ) classic conformity experiment can help illustrate the various
strategies used to achieve ego-task goals. T h e subject's explicit task in the
conformity experiment is to judge h e lengths. However, there are also some
implicit tasks, such as completing requirements for a psychology course, learning
about laboratory research in psychology, or trying to achieve a favorable
evaluation by the experimenter.
Neither the explicit task nor any of the implicit tasks of the conformity
experiment poses a problem to the subject until the first critical trial. It is at that
point that each of the experimenter's confederates gives a blatantly incorrect
response. It then becomes the subject's turn to respond. There are three important
audiences present, and the subject cannot choose a strategy that will please all
three. One audience is the experimenter. A second audience is the group of which
the subject is a part; to achieve the goal of this group, there should be consensus
among all group members. Thc remaining audience is the inner audience, which can
be pleased only by independence (i.e.; by the subject's rejecting the obviously
incorrect majority judgment).
The power of the conformity experiment, in ego-task analysis terms. is its
simultaneous evocation of at least two different ego tasks. That is, the ego task of
pleasing other people is in direct confict with the individual-achievement ego task
of pleasing oneself. Deciding whether to conform or to acc independently in the
face of t h s confLct is left to the subject's relative predispositions to please one or
another audience.
The Concept of Ego-Task Orientation
Almost every adolescent or adult should have some tendency to perform each of
the four ego tasks. Nevertheless, for any given person or situation, some ego tasks
may he more important than others. The relative inportance of an ego task can be
referred to as the strength of orieu~aliontoward that task. Consistent with the
framework of ego-task analysis, ego-task orientations can vary as a function of
both situational influences and personality differences
Results from Asch's ( 19J 1, 19 j 6 ) conformity esperirnzn~can help i l l ~ ~ s r r a ~ e
the concept of ego-task orientation. The conformity effect-that is, agreeing with
an incorrect unanimous majority-is sensitive to s e ~ e r a situtional
l variables. The
conformity effect depends, importantly, on the presence of incorrect and
unanimous others. Control subjects, who make their judgments in the absence of
otherh, are correct on virtuUy every trial. Asch also found t h ~ allowing
t - subjrcts
. to
record their judgments privately (compared to the public announcement of
judgments in the original experiment) substantially increases independence (Asch.
-
1 9 j 6 ) . These effects demonstrate the extent to which subjects' ,iudgments c m be
made to please different evalutive audiences under different situational con-
straints.
Asch ( 19 j 6 ) also observed systematic individual differences in the con-
formity experiment: "There were completely independent subjects, and there were
others who went over to the majority without exceptionw(p. 11). It is interesting
to examine subjects' explanations for their behavior. O n e subject was "concerned
over what his judgments might d o to the experimenter's results'' (p. 39). This
subject said. "I wanted to conform. Was picturing in my mind the graph of results
with a big dip in it-I wanted to make your results better" (p. 40). This subject,
appears to have been oriented tqward the social-accreditation ego task of the
public self. Indepcndent subjects (those who yielded on two or fewer trials) seemed
very much aware that they were going against a majority, but they also recognized
"the importance of thinking for oneself and being an individual" (p. 36). Thus,
independent subjects can be i d e n d e d as those who were oriented toward the
individd-achievement ego task of the private self. Finally, many yielders were
characterized as "trying desperately to merge in the group in order not to appear
peculiar" (p. 4 J ) . This strategy is consistent with the ego tasks of the public self
and of the collective self.
Asch's ( 1 9 j 6 ) quaLtative analyses emphasize the ,point that people differ
considerab!~in their orientations toward engaging in the ego tasks of the public,
private, and coUective selves as a function of both situational influences and
personality differences. W e now consider, in more detail, research demonstrating
situational and dispositional sources of influence, especially for the ego-task
orientations of the public and private selves.
Situational Determinants of Ego-Task Orientation
Situations vary in the opportunity they provide to evoke the various ego-task
orientations. The diffuse sclf can be engaged by drug intoxication, by isolation, o r
by anonymity in a group. Concern over one's public self is likcly to be engzged
when admired or socially powerful others are present. T h e individual-achievement
task (private set0 may be engaged most readily when the subject is alone. In
contrast, collective achievement should be engaged by the (actual or symbolic)
presence of an important reference group, such as by suggesting to subjects that
their performances will be compared with those of other racial, religious, o r ethnic
groups or with students from rival schools.
1 ~ 4 Part I. The SPY
Mirrors and Cameras
T w o general procedures for inducing the ego tasks of the public and private
selves correspond to procedures suggested by Buss ( 1 9 8 0 ) for inducing public and
private self-awareness, respectively. A camera implies the existence of an audience
of others and is therefore assumed to engage the public selis ego task. Consistent
with this interpretation, the presence of a camera has been shown to increase
susceptibility to conformity pressure (Duval, 1 9 7 6 ) , a strategy in the service of the
public selfs ego task. T h e presence o f a mirror-especially a small one, according
to Buss ( 1 980)-calls one's actions to the attention of the inner audience, thereby
evoking the private selfs individual-achievement ego t u k . I n support of this
the presence of a small mirror has been s h o w n to increase resistance to
persuasion (Carver. 1 9 7 7 ) , which reflects an ego-task strategy of the private
self.
Public and Private Responding
M%en an experimental task requires that a subject maLe public responses, the
ego task o f the public self is made salent. I n contrast, private and anonymous
reporting conditions should evoke the private s e l f s ego task. A smdy of the effects
of public versus private responding o n anticipatory attitudc change supports the
ego-task analysis predictions (McFarland, Ross, B C o n w a y , 1 9 8 4 ) . An antici-
patory change in attitude occurs when an individual's attitude shifts in the
direction of an anticipated, but not yet received, persussive appeal. O n e
explanation for this effect is that the change reflects a self-Fresentational effort to
>void appearing gullible o r easily persuaded. Indeed, when subjects are informed
that they will not be receiving the anticipated message. their attitudes "snap back"
to the original position (Cialdini, Herman, Levy, Kozloliski, & Petty, 1 9 7 6 ) .
b1cFarland etal. ( 1 9 8 4 ) demonstrated, however, that this self-presentational tactic
( m ego-task strategy of the public self) occurs only under pldlic reporting
conditions. U n d e r !!irate reporting conditions, .anticipator) changes in attitude
persist, suggesting some kind of self-persuasion process.
Personal Importance
Experimental tasks can be manipulated so that they are more o r less
personally relevant to a subject. F o r example, evaluating a Froposal that advocates
the adoption of senior comprehensive exams can be very "involving" if the exams
are being proposed for immediate adoption at the subject's o w n school. but less
involving if they are proposed f o r m o t h e r school o r for a later date. Brickner.
Harkins, m d O s t r o m (in press) used this manipulation to study effort expenditure
o n a group
- - task. Earlier research ( L a t a n i , MTJLams,B Harkins, 1 9 7 9 ) had shown
that subjects generally w o r k harder at group tasks when their kdividual efforts are
identifiable than when they are not. O n e interpretation cIi this "social loafmg"
effect is that the public self s ego task becomes engaged only \%.henone's output can
he identificd. By m.il;ing the task pcrsondly impel-t;jnt. Iio\~-c\-er. Brlckncr c-t '11.(in
press) were able to rliniin,~tethe s o c i i lo;tfins effcct (see 1l:ukins & Prtt!.
1 9 8 2 ) . T h e involvement manipulnt~onprcsumablv invokc2 thr private s c l i s r g o
tnsl;. cffecti\.cly makinp privntc s ~ a n d a ~ dmore s s;dic.~itth.,n wci;ll c)rlzs.
individual Differences in Ego-Task Orientation
Just as situations vary in their ability to evoke the various ego tasks, people vary in
their relative predispositions to engage in each of the four ego tasks. Although n o
measures have yet been developed to assrss individual differences in the four ego-
task orientations, various existing measures may be useful for this purpose, at least
in regard to the ego-task orientations o f the public and private facets o f :he self.
These existing, related measures are public and private self-consciousness, self-
monitoring, achievement motivation, and approval motivation.
Public and Private Self-Consciousness
Fenigstein. Scheier, and Buss ( 1 9 7 j ) developed scales that measure con-
sciousness of the public and private facets of the self. T h e y defme the public self as
consisting o f observable self-produced stimuli, such as physique, clothing,
grooming, facial rxpression, and speech. T h e private self consists of self-produced
stimuli that are not publicly observable, such as internal bodily sensations, f e e h g s ,
thoughts, and self-evaluations (see also Buss, 1 9 8 0 ) . Fenigstein et al. ( 1 9 7 j )
interpreted public and private self-consciousness as a difference in focus of attention,
which can be d~rected toward the public o r private self. In contrast, ego-task
analysis makes ewluatiue orientation toward outer versus inner audiences central to
the pubLc versus private distinction. Ne;ertheless. these t w o analyses overlap
substantially in their empirical implications, because people concerned about
evaluations-of others should be attintive t o the sign& thhy transmit to those
others. Likewise, people guided by internalized evaluative standards should be
relatively attentive to their private thoughts and feelings.
Opinion moderation in anticipation of a discussion (i.e., anticipatory change
in the direction of possible opposition) can be regarded as a self-presentational
strategy of the public selfs ego task. Consistent with this interpretation, Scheier
( 1 9 8 0 ) found that such anticipatory change was greater for sublects high in public
self-consciousness than f o r those low in public self-consciousness. Likewise,
expression of opinion change in front of an experimenter w h o has just administered
a counterattitudinal role-playing procedure can be i n t e ~ r e t e das an impression-
management strategy of maintaining consistency. I t follows that such opinion
change should be associated with high scores o n public self-consciousness, as was
found by Scheier and Carver ( 1 9 8 0 ) .
~ h ;private self should resis; the ~ ~ i n i o n - c h a n g effects
e o f a public
counterattitudinal role-playing induction. I n support o f this prediction, opinion
resistance to counterattitudinal role playing was associated with h g h scores o n
private self-consciousness (Scheier & Carver, 1 9 8 0 ) . Smilarly, subjects high in
private self-consciousness are more Wrely to resist group pressure than are those
low in private self-consciousness (Froming & Carver, 1 9 8 1).
Self-Moniroring
Snyder's ( 1 9 7 4 ) self-monitoring s c d e provides a mcnsure that relates t o the
motivational orientations of the public and private facets of the se!f. T h e person
high in self-monitoring is onc w h o is particularly sensitive to curs transmitted in
1J6 Part I. T h S$f
social interaction, and w h o uses these cues to p i d e self-presentations (Snyder,
1 9 7 9 ) . This description is suggestive of the outer-audience orientation of the
pablic self. In contrast. Snyder and Campbell ( 1 9 8 2 ) describe the low self-monitor
as a self." T h e self-presentations of low self-monitors are "controlled
from within by their affective states and attitudes.. . rather than molded and
tailored to fit the situation" (Snyder, 1 9 7 4 , p. 8 9 ) . This suggests that the low self-
monitor's concern is primarily with the private facet of the self.
Achievement Motivation
T h e concept of achievement motivation was developed b y McClelland et al.
(1 95 3) t o describe individual variations in motivation to succeed in intellectual and
social endeavors. Success in such endeavors was defined as the surpassing of
in~ernal standards of excellence. T h e concept of achievement motivation is
therefbre similar to the individual-achievement ego task of the private self.
(Indeed, the ego task of the private self was given the "achievement" label in
consideration of McClelland er al.'s d e f i i t i o n of achievement motivation.) If
achievement motivation is indicative of a general orientation toward an inner
audience, then subjects high in achievement motivation should, Lke those high in
~ r i v a t eself-consciousness, be resistant to group pressure. McClelland er al. ( 1 95 3)
reanalyzed the data from a subset of subjects in Asch's ( 1 9 5 6 ) conformity
experiment. O f the subjects classdied as high in achievement motivation, 87% were
"independents." In contrast, 87% of the subjects low in aclevement motivation
were "yielders." McClelland er al. concluded that subjects who are high in
achievement motivation "show courageous independence when under social
pressure to conform" (p. 287).
Approval Motivation
T h e Social Desirability Scale was developed by Crowne and Marlowe
( 1 9 6 4 ) as a measure of approval motivation, which was d e f i e d as concern about
gvaluaiion by others. hi; ;uggests that the Social Desirability Scale might serve as
a measure of the ego-task orientation of the public self. Consistent with this
interpretation, Strickland and Crowne (1 9 6 2 ) reported that subjects scoring h g h
on the Social Desirability Scale (that is, those classified as high in approval
motivation) were most responsive to a social influence attempt.
FACETS O F THE SELF A N D SELF-PRESENTATIONS
Identifying the public selfs ego task with such concepts as approval motivation
and social accreditation suggests that it is this facet of the self that is involved in
self-presentation (Goffman, 1 9 J 9 ) or impression-management (Schlenker, 1 9 8 0 )
processes. Several theoretical treatments confirm that an outer audience is
conceived as the target for self-presentations or managed impressions. For
exz:aple, Goffman ( 1 9 3 9 ) noted that "when an individual appears in the presence
of othcrs, there will uziially be some reason for hini t o mobilize his activity so that
it will convey an impression t o others which it is in his interests to convey" (p. 4).
Similarly, Jones and Pittman ( I 9 5 2 ) defined strategic self-presentation as ":hose
features of behavior. . . designed t o elicit or shape others' attributions of the
actor's dispositions" (p. 2 3 3). Baumeister ( 1 9 8 2) considered self-presenratiorc t o
be "aimed at establishing . . . an image of the individual in the minds of others" (p.
3), and Arkin ( 1 9 8 0 ) stated that "people often behave in ways that wtll create a
certain impression on others; social psychologists refer t o this phenomenon as self-
>
presentation" (p. 1 8).
To Whom I s the Self Presented?
As the foregoing quotations indicate, the prevalent answer to this question has
been that self-presentations are targeted at an audience of other persons. Ego-task
analysis offers the alternative view, however, that the self can be presented t o
multiple audiences. These audiences include, in addition t o the outer audience, an
inner audience (oneself) and a reference group audience. Thus, one can "play to the
audience within" jkst as one can "play t o the audience without" (Snyder, Higgins,
& Stucky, 1 9 8 3 ; see also S c k n k e r , 19'80; Weary & Arkin, 1 9 8 1).
Are Favorable Self-presentations Genuinely Believed?
Terms such as "self-presentation" and "impression managementv- carry I\-ith them
at least an implicit assumption that people typically harbor, inwardly, a less worthy
being that they hope t o prevent others from discovering. T h e self-presenter is an
actor whose part is to create the most favorable impression possible. In his
dramaturgical approach, Goffman ( 1 9 5 9 ) states that the presenter "must offer a
show of intellectual and emotiond involvement in the'activity he is presenting, - but
must keep himself from actually being carried away by his o w n show" (p. 2 16). I t
would seem, then, that the self-presenter is really a mispresenter.
Even though the self may often be presented in ways that appear too good t o
be true, several lines of research evidence indicate that these favorable self-
presentations are genuinely believed b y their presenters. First, people ordinariIy
perceive themselves as being successful in achieving personal goals, including those
of ego tasks (Greenwald, 1 9 8 0 ; Greenwald & Breckler, 1985). Second, self-
enhancement occurs under private reporting conditions in which subjects should
have little reason t o mispresent themselves (Arkin, Appleman, & Burger, 1 9 8 0 ;
Frey, 1 9 7 8 ; Greenberg, Pyszczynski, & Solomon, 1 9 8 2 ; Schlenker, Hallam, &
McCown, 1 9 8 3 ; Weary, Harvey, Schwieger, Olson, Perloff, & Pritchard,
1982). Third, subjects make self-enhancing judgments even when they are
convinced that dishonest judgments can be detected (Riess, Rosenfeld, M e l b q , &
Tedeschi, 1 9 8 1 ; Stults, Mess;, & Kerr, 1984). F i n d y , favorable self-judgments
are often made more quickly than unfavorable ones (Breckler & Greenwald,
1981), suggesting that favorable self-relevant judgments are faithful reports from
self-knowledge (cf. Markus, 1 9 7 7 ; Rogers, Kuiper, & Kirker, 1 9 8 1 ) .
1/8 Part I. The Self
SELF-ESTEEM: VARIATIONS IN EXPECTED SUCCESS
AT EGO TASKS
A person may strongly wish to impress others but may neverrheless expect to make
a poor impression. This person can be described as being oriented toward the
social-accreditation ego task of the public self but as having a l o w expectation o f
success. Likewise, a person may expect to fall short in achieving reference g r o u p
and expectations. Variations in expected success at the ego tasks of the
public, private, and collective selves constitute important individual differences in
the level of, and basis for, a sense of self-worth, o r self-esteem.
Public Self-Esteem Versus Private Self-Esteem
Ego-task analysis indicates the desirability of having separate measures for public
self-esteem (expected success at social accreditation) and private self-esteem
(expected success at individual achievement). A recent analysis o f socially desirable
responding supports the utility of distinguishing between these t w o v a r i t i e s of
self-esteem. Paulhus ( 1 9 8 4 ) has identified t w o components associated with
favorable self-descriptions. O n e component reflects favorable self-evaluations that
are genuinely believed (a "self-deception" factor), a n d the other component cor-
responds t o favorable self-evaluations intended to impress ochers (an "impression-
management" factor). I t is interesting t h a t scores o n the self-deception factor
(private self-esteem) d o n o t vary under public a n d private reporting conditions,
whereas ?cores on the impression-management factor (public self-esteem) d o
(Paulhus, 1 9 8 4 ) . These results are consistent with the expectations of ego-task
mall-sis (see a l ~ oTesser &- Paulhus, 1 9 8 3 ) .
Ambiguity of Self-Esteem Measures
There are many measures o f self-esteem (see Wylie, 1 9 7 4 ) . E-xamination of the
items in most self-esteem scales, however, suggests that they measure a global self-
esteem that mixes expected success at the ego tasks of both the public self and the
private self. A m o n g these global measures is the Janis-Field scale ( H o v l a n d &
Janis, 1 9 5 9 ) , which includes several items that refer t o expected evaluation by
outer audiences (e.g., " H o w often are you tl-vubled with shyness?' and " D o you
find it hard t o make tall, when you meet new people?") as well as items that refer
t o evaluation by the inner audience (e.g., " D o you ever feel so discouraged with
);ourself that you wonder whether anything is worthwhile?"). A m o n g existing
measures, Rosenbergls ( 1 9 6 5 ) scale is one that appears t o include almost
exclusively items that measure private self-esteem (e.g., "I feel I have a number of
g o o d quaLties"), a n d Fenigstein CL nl.'s ( I 9 7 5) measure of social anxiety appears t o
focus well o n public self-esteem (c.g., "I don't find it hard to t d k to strangers").
N o existing measures of which we are ai\,are focus o n expectrd success in achiel.ing
reference group goals; that is, there are n o measures of u-hat might be called
collective self-esteem.
CONCLUSION: REMAINING TASKS
T h e results ~.rvitweci in this chapter provide substantid suppclrt for th:
classific~tiono f e g o t ~ k in
s T a b l r 6.1. H o w r ~ , e r i,t is difficult to e:.d~cl:r the
extent to which our review has focused selectively o n supporti\.e c ~ i d e n c e .
Accordingly, the claim that ego-task andysis provides a successful frame!\-ork for
analyzing person-situation interactions must depend o n its success in s t i n d a t i n g
a n d explnining further research, which w e c'm foresee in the folloiving prob-
lems.
Motivating Subjects in Psychology Experiments
I n her research o n memory for f~nishedand unfinished tasks, Zeigarnik ( 1 9 38)
provided a clear, if controversial, illustration of h o w ego-task analysis principles
can be used to motivate subjects in psychology experiments:
Three "types" of subjects could be distinguished. The f i s t xvere those who sought
to perform as instructed because they wished to please the experimenter. Another.
the ambitious q p e , strove to excel as if in competition with others. The third type
was interested in the task for its own sake and sought to solve each problsm in the
way the problem itself demanded. In keeping with thcse differences the
experimenter did not preserve a fixed mien and method with 311 subjects. Those of
the first type wcre allowed to see the experimenter's pleasure i\.hcn a rask - , v i ~xveU
done. CVork done by the second group was inspected with the air of an examiner,
while the third group was d o w e d - t o work unmolested, the experimenter in this
case remaining passive. (p. 303)
Contemporary students of experimental social psychology are : a ~ g h t , of
course, t o avoid the techniques used by Zeigarnik to motivate her subjecrs.
Nevertheless, it is generally desirable to get subjects "involved" in experimental
tasks. Carlsmith, Ellsworth, a n d Aronson ( 1 9 7 6 ) refer to this as e.rferimerr~al
realism. Similarly, W e b e r and C o o k ( 1 9 7 2 ) suggest that treatments "should have
enough impact that subjects become absorbed in them" (p. 2 9 2 ) . If the goal of
experimental reaLsrn is t o motivate as many subjects as possible, then procedures
that evoke multiple ego tasks should be used. D o i n g so will n o t ordinarily pose a
threat to vaLdiry s o long as the evoked ego task is n o t one that is postulated as
mediating the effcct (Weber & C o o k , 1 9 7 2 ) .
Applications to Research o n Persuasion and Social Influence
T h r e e facets of the self were related (in Table 6 . 2 ) to the social-influence processes
of compliance, internaLzation, and identiScacion (Kelman, 1 9 6 1). O n e implication
of that analysis was its suggestion of individual differences in susceptibi1ir)- t o the
three types of influence. Thus, socid pressure (compliance) techniques may be most
effective for people w h o have a relatively strong predisposition t o rngage in the
social-accrtditation ego task of the public self; rationally based (internaliza:ion)
160 Part I. The Self
appeals n a y w o r k best for those w h o are oriented toward the individual-
achievement ego task; and modeling by an admired other or appeals based o n
reference g r o u p values (identification) may be optimal f o r collectively oriented
persons. Likewise, as Kelman has h e a d y observed, situations should vary in
supporting the three processes of social influence. F o r example, compliance will be
e f f e c t i ~e clnly so long as socially powerful others are present. Influence that must
persist dcring the absence of others, however, would better be achieved through
i n t e r n h t i o n o r identification.
Research o n Collective-Achievement Ego Tasks
There is no doubt t h a t collective efforts are important in political, industrial,
s c i e n t ~ f iand
~ , even recreational endea\,ors. I t is therefore disheartening t o observe
that little recent effort has been directed to the study of collective performance.
Social psychologists have largely failed to follow the lead of early reference group
theorists (c.g., M e r t o n , 1 9 J 7 ; Newcomb, 1 9 4 3 ; Sherif & Sherif, 1 9 6 4 ; Sumner,
1 9 0 6 ; Jj'hyte, 1 9 8 1 ) o r of Sherif and Cantril ( 1 9 4 7 ) , w h o defined ego-
involvement as concern with the goals of reference groups. O n e explanation for
this recen: lack of effort may be that few persons attach importance t o collective
endea\-on (cf. Latani el al., 1 9 7 9 ) . I t may also be, as suggested by Sampson
( 1 9 7 7 ) , &at concerns of the psychological establishment reflect a n i n d i v i d d s t i c
orientation of our contemporary culture.
Ne\.ertheless, past research indicates the important role of the collective self in
deterrninhg behavior. For example, the attitudes of the women at Bennington
College ( S e w c o m b , 1 9 4 3 ) were influenced in n o small w a y by reference groups,
and that influence appears t o have had a lasting impact (Newcomb, Koenig,
Flacks, Br llTanc.ick, 1 9 6 7 ) . A n d the Robbers' Cave experiment (Sherif, Harvey,
White. H o o d , & Sherif, 1961) demonstrated h o w superordinate, collective goals
can be used in overcoming intergroup hostility.
Self-Esteem Theory and Measurement
There is gtnerally a lack of standardization among self-esteem measures-or what
w e have called expected success at e g o tasks. T h e r e are many measures of self-
esteem (\A1ylie, 1 9 7 4 ) , but it is apparent that these measures assess mixtures of
expected favorable evaluation from outer and inner audiences, a n d none measures
expected cxcess at meeting reference group goals. Self-esteem has been identified
as a possible mediator in a variety of psychological processes, including persuasion
( H o ~ , l a n d & Janis, 19.59), task persistence (McFarLn 8: Blascovich, 1 9 8 2 ;
Shrau~ger8: Sorman, 1 9 7 7 ) , and (Allport, 19.54; Wills, 198 1). Because
different facets of the self can be invoked, by both situational and p e r s o n d q
variables. h processes Lke persuasion, persistence, and prejudice, it s h o d d prove
usefd ru h a m separate measures of individual differences in the level a n d
impc,xanc: of public, private, and collective esteem in studying these phe-
nomena.
o t h e r Audiences, Other Objects of Evaluation
The presrnt ego-task analysis identifies three e\-aluativr audirnces (public, privace.
and collsccive), all of whish take chr single person as G e evduated objrct. .A
poss;blr rstension of chis ,mdysis would be co include ocher classes of evaluative
audiences. For example. thc g o d of being evduated favorably by a sexual partnsr
may be sufficiently diffrrent from the other goals in Table 6 . 1 to be worthy o f
separate treatment. Another extension would be to g o beyond the single person to
a collective entity as the evaluated object. Such an extension might help explain
intentional acts of risk taking o r self-sacrifice. I t may also be useful t o distinguish
among the various groups o f others toward w h o m social accreditation efforts are
directed, or among different reference groups. These additional distinctions could
be valuable to the extent that the favorable regards of different categories of others
require different strategic approaches.
Acknowledgments
This chapter was wricten, in part, while the f i s t author was an NIMH
postdoctoral trainee in the' Department of Psychology at Northwestern Uni-
versity. The authors thank Anthony R. Pratkanis for comments on an earlicr
draft.
References
U p o n . G . i V . ( 1 9 4 3 ) . Thc ego in contemporary psychology. Prychologii.al Review, la.41,l-178
M p o n . G. LV. ( 1 91,J). The ssiure ofprejudice. Reading, hM: Addison-Wcslcy.
Arkin. R. bl. (1980). Self-prcscntation. In D. M. Wcgncr & R. R. Vallachcr (Eds.). The s t y i n socul
p y h o i , ~ g(pp. 1 1,s- 182). Ncw York: Oxford Univcrsiry Press.
Arkin. R. 31.. Appclman. A. I.,& Burger. J. M. (1980). Social anxicry, sclt-prcscntatmn, and thc sclf-
serving bias in causal attribution. Journal of Personalip and Social Pychology, 38, 2 3 - 3 1 .
A x h , S . E . (191,l). Effects of group prcssurc on thc modification and distortion of judgments. In H .
Guctzliow (Ed.). Groups, leadership, and mcn (pp. 177- 190). Pittsburgh: Carncgic Prcss.
Asch. S . E. (1 91,6). Studies of indcpcndcncc and conformity: I. A minoriry of onc against a unanimous
majoriry. Pychological Xionographs, 9 (Wholc No. 4 16).
Baumcistcr, R. F. ( 1 982). A selF-prescntational view of social ~hcnomcna.Pryihological Bullefin,91, 3-
26.
Brccklcr, S. J.. & Grccnwald. A. G . (1981, May). Favorable sty-rr/rrcnt judgments are made/nsier ihan
non/horabk ones. Papcr at thc 1 3 d mcctings of thc hIidwcstcrn Psychological
Association, Detroit.
Brickncr, hI. A,, Harkins. S. G., & Osrrom, T. hi. (in press). Thc cffccts of personal involvcmcnt:
Thought provoking implications for social loafmg. Journa! ufPersonalip and Sorid Pychologr.
BUS, A. H . (1980). Sey-con~oumessand' social a n r i r p . San Francisco: Frccman.
Carlsmith, J. M., Ellsworth, P. C., Sr Aronson, E. (1976). Mefhods ofresearch in social ~ ~ c h o l o g y .
Reading. MA: Addison-LVcslcy.
Carvcr, C , S. (1977). Self-awareness, pcrccption of threat. and thc expression of rcactancc through
attitude ch,mgc. Journal ofPersonali9, 4 ) . 1 0 1-1 12.
.
Cialdini. R. B Baumann. D. J , & Kcnrick, D. T . ( 1 9 8 1). Insights from sadness: A thrcc-step modcl of
thc dcrclopmcnt of altruism as hcdonism. Developmend Review, 1, 207-223.
Cialdini. R. 8.. Herman. C . P.,Levy, A,, Kozlowski. L. T., & Pcny, R. E . (1976). Elastic shifts of
16.2 Patt I. The Self
opinion: Determinants of direction and durability. Journal o/Personalitj o r ~ dSorial Pgrholog), 3 4 .
hlcFnrlmd. C.. RIIYS.. \ I . &' Cunwd)., hi. ( 1 9 9 4 ) . S e ~ - p c r s u s i o nand ,elf-prc5cntdtion as mediarr~rs
663-672.
of anticip~toryattitude chase. Journal o/Prrsonali~and Soibzl Pi)shulog, 4 4 . 1 2 9 - 1 4 0 .
Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D . ( 1 9 6 4 ) . Thr appoual rnofiut. N e w York: \\Ye\'.
h l c F a r h , D . 8.. & B l a m ~ v i c h[. . ( 1 982. August). A f f ~ r ~ i behar:ioral,
w, a n d i u ~ n ! r i ~ronwqumcfr
t ofrc!{
Diener. E . ( 1 9 7 7 ) . Deindividuarion: C a u e s and conscquences. Sorial 6~11ari&and Pmonaliq, /, 1 4 3 -
eweem. Paper presented at the symposium Functioning and hlcasuremcn: of Self-Esteem. 9 0 t h
11j.
annual meetings of the American Psychological Assr~ciation.Washington. DC.
Dicncr, E . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . Deindividuation: T h e absence of self-awareness and self-regulation in group
I\lcrr~on.R. K.( 1 9 5 7). S u r d / h r y dud sorial ~:rurture(rev. cd.). Glencoe. I L: Free Preri.
members. In P. Paulus (Ed.). TIIPp.?~holug, o/group itj/7rmces (pp. 2 0 9 - 2 4 2 ) . Htllsdale, NJ:
Ncwcomh. T . h l . ( I 943). Periu.riii!y and ro~ial~ b a n ~New e . York: Holr. Rinehart and \ \ ' h : o n .
Erlbaum.
Ncwcomb, T . A[.. K o e n ~ g .K . E . , Flacks. R.. Q: Warwick, D. P. (1 9 6 7 ) . Ptrrii:enir a d ibm3c. N e w
Dipboye. R . L. (1 9 7 7 ) . Alternative approaches to deindividuation. Pyhoiogid-a1 Bullelin, 6 4 , 1 0 17-
York: i.\'iley.
1075.
P a d h w D . (1984). Two-compmenr models of socidly desir~blcrrcponding. Joonul o f P e r s o n ~ 1 ond 1~
Duval. S. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . Conformity o n a visual task as a function of personal novelty o n artirudinal
Soci.11 Pyholog)., 46. 798-609.
dimensions and being reminded of the object starus of self Journal o/ Erprrim~ntai So'ial
Piaget, J . ( 1 9 6 1 ) . T h moral jruiyrn~rrt of file rhilrl. N e w York: Free Presc. ( 0 r ; g i n d work pubLihcd
P9rholoB. 12. 8 7 - 9 8 .
1932)
Duval. S.. 8: Wickland, R. A . ( 1 9 7 2 ) . A theoT of objrliue s ~ l f - o ~ ~ a m iKew ~ i s . York: Acadcmic
Piaget. J. ( 1 967). Sir pyhologird stud& N e w York: Vintage. (Original work 1964)
Prrss.
Riess, hi.. Rosenfeld. P.. hlelburg. B., 8: Tedrschi. J. T . ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Self-rcning anributions: Biased
Fenigstcin, A , Scheier, h i . F.. Q: Buss. A . H . (1 9 7 1). Public and private cell-concciousness: Assessment
private pcrceptions and distorted public descriprions. Journal of Personalip ~ r *Soriol l P9ihology,
and theory. Journal of Consulting and Cliniral P.3rl~~logy,4 3 . 1 2 2 - 127.
41. 224-23 1 .
Fre!-, D . (1,978). Reactions to success and failure in p b l i c and private condirions. Journal of
Rogers. T . B.. Kuiper. N . A . . Br Kirker, W. S. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . Self-rcfcrence and the encoding of personal
Exprirnm/al Sorial PvrholoD, 14, 1 7 2-179.
infor mation. Journal of Per~unaiipa d SorMl P y h o l o g , 3 / , 6 7 7 - 6 8 8 .
FrominS, M'. 1.. Allen. L.. & Jensen. R . (in press). Altruism. role-taking and self-awareness: The
Rosenberg, h l . ( 1 9 6 1 ) . Soiiep and the adolesrent self-image. Princeton. NJ: Princeton University
acquisition of norms governing altruistic behavior. Child Dewlopntnt.
Press.
Froming, W.J., & Carver, C. S. ( 1 9 8 1). Diwrgcnt influences of private m d p b l i c self-consciousness
Rosenberg, l\i. J. (1969). T h e conditions and conscquenccs of evaluation apprehension. In R.
in a compliance ~ o u n z a lof R~scarrhin Personalip, I / , 1 1 9 - 1 7 I .
Rosenthal ti R. L. Rosnow (Eds.), Artifnrt in behauioral researrh (pp. 2 7 9 - 3 4 9 ) Ne,.+ York:
Goffman, E . (191C'). Thc prpsen/ation o f w l f i n tueryday life. N e w York: Doubleday.
Acadcmic Press.
Greenberg, G . , Pyszczynski. T . , & Solomon. S . ( 1 982). The self-sm:ing attributional bias: Beyond
Sampwn. E . E. ( I 9 7 7 ) . Psychology and the American idca,l. Journal ofPersonalir, and j c r i ~ lPnrhoiou,
se!f-Fresentation. Joun~alof Evpuirnn:tal Sorwl P.yholog), 18. 16-67.
31. 7 6 7 - 7 8 2 .
Grtcnu.aid. A . G . (1 9 8 0 ) . Tllc totdtarian ego: Fabrication and rrvkion of prrwnal hictory. Arrrrrican
Scheicr. h l . F . (1980). T h e cffccrs of public and private self-consciousness on r i . e public euprcssiun of
P?rl.ologii~, 3 / , 6 0 3 - 6 1 8 .
pcrsond belicfs Jorirnal of Personalip and Sorial Pyhology, 39. 11 4-12 1
Grttnwald. A . G . (1552a). E g o task analysi5: An integration of research on ego-involvement and sell-
Scheier. M . F., 9r Carver. C . S. (1980). Private and public self-attention, rr.iq:nc: to change. and
awareness. In A . H. Hasrorf & A . h l . lsen (Eds.), Cogni~irf~ rorial p < h u ! o g (pp.
~ 1 0 9 - I A?). New
dissonance reducrion. Jozrn-i of Personalip and So~iaiPryrholog, 39. 390-401.
York: Elsevier North-Holland.
Scheier, &I. F.. 8: Carver, C . S. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . T w o sides of the ,elf: O n c for vou a d one for me. In J. Suls &
Grrcni,ald. A. G . ( 1 9 8 2 h ) . Is anyone in c h u g e : P e r s ~ n a l ~ sversus ic the principle of personal unity. In
A . G . Greenwald (Eds.). Pnrhologi~alperspertives on the vlf(Vol. 2, pp. I 2 5- 1 1 7). HiUsi&, K J :
J . S d s (Ed.). Pgrbologirai pcrsprr~ims on /he se!f(Vol. 1 , pp. 1 1 1 - 1 8 1). Hillsdale. N j : Erlbaum.
Erlbaum.
G:ten-*.ad, A . G.. & Breckler. S. J. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . T o whom is rhe relfpresented? In B. R. Schlenker ( E d . ) .
Schlenker, B. R. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . lrnpression management. hlontercy. C A : Brooks/Cole.
The v l f a v d ror~allife (pp. 126-141). New York: McGraw-HLU.
Schlenker, 8. R., Hallam, J. R.. & AlcCown. N . E. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . hlotives and rocid eevalu:ion: Actor-
Grcenwald, A . G., & Pratkanis. A . R . ( 1 9 8 4 ) . T h e sell. In R . S. W y e r Q: T . K . Srull (Ed$.). Handbook
observer differences in the d e h e a t i o n of motives for a beneficial act. Journal of Erp~rIrntntalSorid
ofsoc~alrognilion (pp. 1 2 9 - 1 78). Hdsdale, N J : Erlbaum.
Plyrhology, 19, 2 14-27 3.
Harkins. S. G.. & Petty. R.. E . ( 1 9 8 2 ) . Effects of task difficult and task uniqueness o n social loafmg.
Sherif. M. (1916). A n orrtiinr of sorial pqrhology (rev. ed.). New York: Harper.
Jultrnal of Pcrsonalip and Sorial P.9rholo,q,', 43, 12 1 4 - 1 2 2 9 .
Sherif, hi., & Cantril, H. ( 1 947). The pyholog). of ego-in~~oluements. New York: Lf'iky.
Hovland, C. 1.. & Janis. I. (Eds.). (1919). Ptr.cunali9 a n d p ~ r s ~ d . i i t l i iNew p . Haven: Yale Universiq
Sherif, M . , Harvey, 0. J.. \l?lite, B. J., Hood. W. R., 8~ Sherif. C . 11'. ( 1 9 6 1). lnrergroup rooperation
Prcss.
and rompe/ition: The Rohbers' Cave rxperiment. Norman. O K : University Book Exchange.
James, I*;.(1 8 9 0 ) . T ~prit~cipl~s P ofpi)rholog, (1'01. I ). New York: Holr.
Sherif, PI., & Sherif, C. W. ( 1 9 6 4 ) Referenregroups. New York: Harpcr 8: R o w .
Jonts. E. E.. 8: Pittman, T. S. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . Toward ageneral theory of strategic seli-presentation. In J. Suls
Sherd, hl., Sherif, C . W., Sr Nebergall, R. (1 9 6 1 ) . Attitude and ; ~ t t i r d uiehorij~: t T h social;udgment-
(Ed.). P ~ ~ h u i o g i r a i p r r s p r r ~011 ~ r wif(Vo1. I . pp. 2 5 1-262). Hillsdale, N J : Erlbaum.
i r ~the
inuoloemcnt approarb. Philadelphia: Saundcrs.
Kehnan. H . C . ( 1 9 6 1 ) . Proccsres of opinicln change. Publir Opinion Quartcrl,, 21, 17-78.
Shrauger. J. S.. 8: Sorrnan, P . B. (1 9 7 7). Self-cvaluations. initial succes* and fadure, a d improvmenc as
Latant. B.. \k7liLams. I<.. ti Harkins. S. (,1979). Many hands make light rhr work: The causes and
determinants of persirtance. Joumal of Consulting and Cliniral P9rhology, f / . 7 5 4-791.
consequrnces of social loafiig. Jouniul ~ P e r s o n o i iond ~ Sorial P y / x ~ i o y ,3, 7 . 8 2 2 - 8 3 2 .
Snyder. C . R.. Higgins, R. L., Br Stucky, R. J. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Etwrts: Masqueradtr in iearrh ufyrrre. N e w
Loevingcr. 1 . (1 9 7 6 ) . @a d e r ~ i o p r ~ ~ eSLY ~ r l .Frnncisco: Josscy-Bass.
York: Wiley.
h l i p u s w n , 9, Q: Endlcr, N . S . (Ed>.).( 1 9 7 7 ) . P c r w ~ i l l i pm /he m u w u a ! ~ C
: I I ~ i ~, wIr I;n i ~ ; / c r ~ ~ ~ m ~ : ~ i
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Joumol ofPersonrr110 2nd Sorial P9rhuiog,
p ? i h o i i ~ , . Hillsd~le.NJ: Erlbaum.
30, 1 2 6 - 1 3 7 .
Al;irku\. H . (1 977). Self-cchcmara :tnJ p:oce\\in~ inCo:m:i~ion ahoilr thc <elf Jorrr~riliot'Prr~cr;.~i:i, m:J
Snyder. M. ( 1 979). Self-monitoring processes. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). A J m ! ; < r ?r: r.vprirnt~i:.d(firid
. 63-78.
J ~ i i i l lP g , . b u l c ~j~1.
pyholog). (Vol. 1 2 , pp. 8 1 - 128). Ncw York: Acadcmic Press.
AlcCItUand. D . C.. Atkimon. J. I\'.. Clark. R. A . Br Li,wcll. E . L. ( 1 9 1 3 ) . Tbt opprur,di r ~ o / i r t Kc;,. .
Snyder. M.,& Campbell, B. H. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . Self-monitoring: T h e self in action. In J . Suli (Eds.).
Ti.)rL:A p p \ ~ t o n - C r n ~ ~ r ~ - C r U f L ~ .
Pgrhologicol perspertiues on /he ieif(Vo1. 1. pp. 181-207). Hilldale. NJ: Erlbsum.
Strickland. 6 . R.. Br Crov..ne. D. P. (1962). Conformicy under conditions of sirnulatrd groc: ?rrs<wr
az a function of rhr need for social approval. Jounial of So~ialPq(holog)., 1 8 , 17 1 - 16 1
. >I.. Arr5F, L.A , . 6i Krrr. N . I.. (1984). Brlirf di5crepant behavior and thr b o p +?rlinr:
S I U I I L3.
I r n ~ r c v i c ~rnanagrrnrnt
n or arousal attribution. Journal of E~perrmrnralSo(i.ll P.y(holoQ ' ( 1 . 47-
5.1.
Sumncr, 11' C;. ( 1 9 0 6 ) Folba,.r. Boston: Ginn.
Tc\\cr. A . f< P;uli~us. D I.. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . T h r drfinition of srli: Privarr and p h l i c srli<raluation
rzanagrrlrnt strategies. Journal of Perronali~and Social P.yholog~,4 4 , 672-682.
.
Weary. G & Arkin. R. M. (1 9 8 1).Atnibutiond self-presentation. In J. H. H a n e y , W. Ickcs, & R. F.
Kidd (Eds.). Net, dirr(tionr in artriburion re~earch (Vol. 3, pp. 22 3-246). H L d a l c . NJ.
Erlbaum
.
M'eary, G Harvey. J. H., Schwicger, P., Okon, C. T., Pcrlofi, R., B: Pritchard, S. (1982) Self-
~resrnta:ions and the moderation of self-xrving artriburional biasss So(ia1 Cognrrion. 1, 140-
159.
Webe:. S. J.. Br Cook. T . D. (!972). Subjcct cffccts in laboratory research: An cxarnination of subject
ro!es. demand characteristics, and valid infcrcncc. P.yhologia1 Bullelin, 77, 27 3-295.
Whyte, Mr.F. (1981). Street (orner ro(iety (3d cd.). Chicago: Univcrsity of C h c a g o Pxss.
M'lUs, T. A ( 1 9 8 1). Downward comparison principles in social psychology. P.y~hologi~al Bi!!e:in, 90,
245-271.
M7;.lie. R. C. ( 1 9 7 4 ) . Thc ~ ! f - ( o n c ~(Vol.
p r 1). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Zeisarnik. B. (1938). O n finishcd and unfiiished tasks. In 11'. D. Ellis (Ed.). A .rour(e bock. ofge~ralr
pyholog, (pp. 300-314). Ncw York: Humanities Press.