Journal ofExperimental

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39 (2003) 500–507

www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp

Social Psychology

Aspects of possible self that predict motivation to achieve or avoid itq

Christina C. Norman* and Arthur Aron

Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794-2500, USA

Received 8 March 2002; revised 22 October 2002

Abstract

The present research examined a model of the cognitive basis for the motivational impact of hoped for and feared possible selves.

In a sample of 116 participants, motivation to attain or avoid an important possible self was significantly predicted by its availability

(as measured by degree of detail in a paragraph description of the possible self), its accessibility (as measured by response time to

features of that possible self), and the extent to which its attainment or avoidance is perceived as under one�s control (as measured by

a self-report scale). Alternative explanations in terms of general individual differences are rendered unlikely because motivation for a

non-important possible self was not predicted by these measures.

� 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

Keywords: Possible selves; Motivation; Self-schemas; Accessibility; Availability; Perceived control

Introduction

A significant line of social cognition research has

focused on one�s conception of oneself in the future (e.g.,

Higgins, 1987; Markus & Nurius, 1986, 1987; Markus &

Ruvolo, 1989), with much of this work emphasizing the

link of such possible selves with motivation (e.g., Mar-

kus & Nurius, 1986, 1987). However, none of the ex-isting research has explicitly explored the specific

characteristics of a possible self that might be linked

with motivation to attain or avoid that possible self. The

present study begins to fill this gap.

Examining the specific aspects of possible selves is a

particularly important direction because it integrates

significant trends in social cognition (and in psychology

more generally): the focus on the self (e.g., Leary &Tangney, 2003) and motivation (e.g., Higgins & Kru-

glanski, 2000). Further, understanding the basis of mo-

tivation to attain or avoid possible future states is of

great practical importance. For example, work on pos-

sible selves has focused on areas including parenting

qThe authors would like to thank all of the research assistants who

were involved with this project for their much appreciated hard work.* Corresponding author. Present address: EPIC, 211 Lehman

Library, Columbia University, 420 West 118th Street, New York,

NY 10027, USA.

E-mail address: cn2005@columbia.edu (C.C. Norman).

0022-1031/$ - see front matter � 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights res

doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00029-5

(e.g., Strauss & Goldberg, 1999), delinquency (Oyser-

man & Saltz, 1993), academic performance in minorities

(Oyserman, Gant, & Ager, 1995), and health (e.g.,

Hooker & Kaus, 1994).

The self-concept has been described as a system of

affective-cognitive structures about the self that lend

structure and coherence to the individual�s self-relevantexperiences (e.g., Epstein, 1973; Markus & Sentis, 1982).These schemas or postulates, which are created from

past experiences, are hierarchically organized and play a

major role in how information about the self is pro-

cessed. Consequently, one�s self-concept is an important

influence in regulating behavior, functioning to organize

an individual�s interpretation of the world, determining

what stimuli are selected for attention, and what infer-

ences are drawn.In addition to knowledge about their past and present

selves, individuals seem to have self-knowledge about

their potential and about their future (e.g., Higgins, 1987;

Markus & Nurius, 1986). For example, when McGuire

and Padawe-Singer (1976) asked 12-year-olds to ‘‘tell us

about yourself’’ 12% mentioned hopes and desires and

18% spoke of career aspirations. However, only recently

has there been research specifically on how the future isrepresented in the self-concept. Higgins (1987) has sug-

gested that individuals have an ‘‘ideal’’ future self, an

‘‘ought’’ future self, an ‘‘actual’’ future self, and a ‘‘can’’

erved.

C.C. Norman, A. Aron / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39 (2003) 500–507 501

future self, and that discrepancies in these future selvesmay result in negative affect. Furthermore, Markus and

Nurius (1986) proposed that individuals have possible

selves that are mental representations of one�s self in the

future, and these representations enable the individual to

attain the possible selves. Possible selves include hoped

for selves, such as a movie star self; feared selves, such as

an unemployed or alcoholic self; and expected selves.

Each of these three may exist for any particular futuredomain (such as career or family), so that one can have

many possible selves. Possible selves are tailored to the

individual�s own hopes and fears, but they are also in-

fluenced by the social, socio-cultural, and historical

context surrounding the individual. Studies have shown

that individuals do create mental representations of

themselves in future states (Markus & Nurius, 1986) and

that adults of all ages are able to generate vivid andspecific hoped for and feared possible selves (Cross &

Markus, 1991). Research has also suggested that repre-

sentations of the self in a desired end state may create and

sustain motivation, thereby enhancing performance. For

example, imagining a possible self of being successful (vs.

imagining a possible self of being unsuccessful) led to

better performance on persistence and effort tasks

(Ruvolo & Markus, 1992). Further, imagining beingsuccessful led to greater accessibility (shorter latencies)

for ‘‘possible for me’’ responses to success-relevant words

(Ruvolo & Markus, 1992). Together, these studies

support the notion that individuals do have mental

representations of possible selves and these possible

selves may be implicated in motivation.

A proposed model

Our model focuses on the link between aspects of

possible selves and motivation. Specifically, we propose

that one�s motivation to attain a particular possible self

depends at least in part on that possible self�s: (a)

availability, (b) accessibility, and (c) perceived control

over the attainment/avoidance of that possible self.

Availability. Availability refers to the ease with whichan outcome can be pictured or constructed (Tversky &

Kahnemen, 1973). Much of the research on cognitive

availability relates to the effect of simulation (con-

structing scenarios) on expectancy change and behav-

ioral outcomes. Three related studies have demonstrated

that for cognitive availability to influence expectancies

an event must be imagined and it should be as specific as

possible to the behavior of interest, as in imaginingoneself performing that behavior (e.g., Anderson, 1983;

Anderson & Godfrey, 1987; Sherman, Cialdini, Sch-

wartzman, & Reynolds, 1985). Further, generating a

scenario that is easy to imagine makes an outcome seem

more likely, while trying to generate a scenario that is

difficult to imagine makes the outcome appear less likely

(Sherman et al., 1985).

Imagining an event can also affect behavioral out-comes. Sherman, Skov, Esther, and Stock (1981) found

that participants who imagined and explained success

rather than failure and stated an expectancy were more

successful, not only on an anagram task they imagined

and explained, but also on a related word task. In an-

other study (Gregory, Cialdini, & Carpenter, 1982),

participants who imagined subscribing to cable televi-

sion, compared to those who did not, were more likelyto actually subscribe 2–6 weeks later.

In terms of possible selves, the easier a possible self is

to imagine, and the more detailed and specific the pos-

sible self, the more available it will be. If a possible self is

available, then it will influence one�s actual behavior toattain or avoid that possible self.

Accessibility. Accessibility refers to how easily a

stored knowledge unit can be brought into one�sawareness, or it�s ‘‘activation potential’’ (Higgins, 1996,

p. 134). The greater the accessibility, the more likely

stimulus information related to that knowledge struc-

ture will receive attention (Bargh & Pratto, 1986; Ros-

kos-Ewoldsen & Fazio, 1992). Research has shown that

accessibility can also influence behavior. Increased ac-

cessibility of an attitude towards an attitude object in-

fluences behavior towards that object (Fazio, Chen,McDonel, & Sherman, 1982); and Lau (1989) found that

political orientation was related to candidate choice es-

pecially for individuals who possessed chronically ac-

cessible constructs matching a political orientation.

In terms of possible selves, given that a particular

possible self is available, the more accessible this possible

self is (themore easily the possible self can be brought into

awareness), the more attention will be paid to it, and themore influence it will have on the individual�s behavior.

Perceived control. Perceived control has been defined

as the ‘‘expectation of having the power to participate in

making decisions in order to obtain desirable conse-

quences and a sense of personal competence in a given

situation’’ (Rodin, 1990, p. 4). Control has its primary

effects on action regulation and on response initiation,

effort, and persistence (Bandura, 1986). Many studieshave found that higher levels of perceived control are

associated with higher levels of motivation (e.g., Chan,

Karbowski, Monty, & Perlmuter, 1986; Revesman &

Perlmuter, 1981).

In the context of possible selves, perceived control is

the degree to which individuals believe their behaviors

can influence the attainment or avoidance of a possible

self. If individuals believe they have control over at-taining or avoiding a possible self, they will be more

inclined to take the necessary steps to do so.

Hypotheses and the present research

Based on the proposed model, we examined three

hypotheses:

502 C.C. Norman, A. Aron / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39 (2003) 500–507

Hypothesis 1. Availability of a possible self predictsmotivation to attain or avoid it.

Hypothesis 2. Accessibility of a possible self predicts

motivation to attain or avoid it.

Hypothesis 3. Perceived control over the attainment

or avoidance of a possible self predicts motivation

to attain or avoid it.

To examine these hypotheses we conducted a study in

which participants indicated their most important hopedfor or feared possible selves and then completed mea-

sures of availability, accessibility, perceived control, and

motivation to achieve or avoid that possible self.

1 A full list of the features is available from the authors.2 An additional 52 participants who were over 21 were excluded

from all analyses for two reasons: first, the stimuli (target possible

selves and features of possible selves) used in the main study were

developed in the preliminary studies based on responses of primarily

first-year students who were 18–19 years of age. Second, the exper-

imental procedure for the main study asked participants to focus on a

possible self in 4 years. This was the time period when younger

students would be graduating and entering a new phase of their life

(e.g., first job, marriage, and children). Older participants would most

likely not be in the same life phase as those under 21 in that they may

have already attained some of the possible selves (e.g., spouse, parent,

or may have been a part of the work force for several years already).

Therefore, the stimuli may be inappropriate and irrelevant for older

students. Nevertheless, we did re-conduct all analyses reported in the

paper using the entire sample (i.e., including those over 21). Results

were nearly identical. Of the approximately 25 analyses reported in the

paper, in only one case was there a difference in whether or not a result

was significant (for the simultaneous regression predicting motivation

from all three independent variables, the unique effect for accessibility

dropped from significant to near significant).

Method

Preliminary studies

We conducted two preliminary studies to develop

stimuli for the main study.

Preliminary Study 1. Participants (N ¼ 246) from the

same population as the main study each listed up to 10

attributes they thought they might possess in four years

(the approximate end point of the participants� under-graduate educational period—the temporal period inwhich their plans and goals were currently embedded;

Nuttin, 1964), and whether each was hoped for, ex-

pected, or feared. A panel of three raters grouped re-

sponses for each type of possible self into a single

category if they were: (a) different grammatical forms of

the same word; (b) the same except for being modified

by adjectives such as very, extremely, or slightly; or (c)

judged as identical in meaning (for example, an‘‘unemployed’’ and a ‘‘not working’’ possible self were

put under the same category). The 20 most commonly

mentioned hoped for possible selves (successful, loving,

caring, intelligent, committed, social, a parent, athletic,

happy, reliable, honest, independent, outgoing, attrac-

tive, calm, hardworking, married, financially secure,

generous), and the 20 most commonly mentioned feared

possible selves (ordinary, inferior, a street person, drugor alcohol addict, arrogant, poor, a failure, alone,

unemployed, unattractive, stressed, rejected, incompe-

tent, unimportant, ignorant, lazy, angry, not in control

of life, unpopular) were used in this study.

Preliminary Study 2. Using the possible selves iden-

tified in Preliminary Study 1, participants listed as many

features of each possible self as came to mind (following

the approach for identifying prototype features used byFehr, 1988). A feature was any characteristic or de-

scriptor that the participant would attribute to this

possible self. For example, for ‘‘married,’’ possible

features included ‘‘committed,’’ ‘‘parent,’’ and ‘‘chil-

dren.’’ There were two separate testing sessions. In one

(N ¼ 268), due to time limitations, the full set of 40

hoped for and feared possible selves were divided into

three separate lists and each participant was presentedwith only one of the lists. In the other session (N ¼ 68),

participants were each presented with all 40. Overall,

150 participants listed features for each of the 40 pos-

sible selves. The same procedure used in Preliminary

Study 1 for grouping possible selves was used here for

grouping features. (For example, for the possible self of

‘‘successful,’’ money, prosperous, rich, well off, and

wealthy were all included as one feature, ‘‘rich.’’1)

Participants

Participants were 116 introductory psychology stu-

dents at the State University of New York at Stony

Brook (75 women and 41 men; age: M ¼ 19:42; SD ¼1:01) who received experimental credits for their par-

ticipation.2 Participants were randomly assigned to ei-ther a Feared Possible Self condition or a Hoped For

Possible Self condition.

Procedures

Participants were run individually. Each participant

was shown a computer screen with either a list of 20

hoped for or 20 feared possible selves (depending ontheir condition) and instructed to ‘‘Choose the future

self listed that you are MOST hopeful [fearful] of being

true of you by the year [4 years from study date].’’

Participants were also asked to choose the possible self

that was least hoped for or feared for them. The com-

puter program then customized the remaining questions

for the participant�s most hoped for/feared possible self,

using the participant�s least hoped for/feared possibleself as a comparison in some tasks.

Next, participants were presented with 20 features.

Ten were features central to their most important pos-

sible self and 10, as distracters, central to their least and

C.C. Norman, A. Aron / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39 (2003) 500–507 503

second least important possible self.3 Each feature waspresented four times, in a different random order. When

a feature was presented, the participant responded with

either ‘‘important to become by the year [4 years from

date]’’ by pressing the ‘‘A’’ key, or ‘‘not important to

become by the year [4 years from date]’’ by pressing the

‘‘L’’ key. (Wording was appropriately adjusted for the

Feared Possible Self condition). This response–time task

was adapted from Ruvolo and Markus (1992). Aftercompleting the computer part of the study, participants

wrote a detailed description of their most important and

least important hoped for/feared possible self. For both

their most and least, participants were instructed to

imagine this self on a typical day in the future, and to

write a passage answering the following questions

adapted from Ruvolo and Markus (1992): ‘‘What are

you imagining? What do you see yourself doing? Whatkind of environment are you in? What type of people are

around you? Describe how you feel in your imagined

scene. In this imagined scene, what do you do in a

typical day?’’ (p. 101).

Finally, participants completed a series of question-

naire items including measures of perceived control over

and motivation to achieve or avoid their most and least

important possible selves.

Predictor variables

Availability. Our measure of availability was based on

the paragraph descriptions. Previous research has used

written paragraphs to assess content and structural di-

mensions of participant�s mental representations of their

parents (Bornstein, Galley, & Leone, 1986, 1988; Levy,Blatt, & Shaver, 1998). Paragraphs were rated for

the degree of detail on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 ¼Not at All Detailed; 5 ¼ Very Detailed). In this study,

the inter-rater reliability of two coders for a subsample of

20 protocols was r ¼ :86.Accessibility. Our measure of accessibility was the

mean reaction time (in seconds) of participants� ‘‘yes’’responses to the features of their most important pos-sible self. Many studies have demonstrated that in a

reaction-time situation, traits that are highly self-de-

scriptive are recognized as self-descriptive more quickly

than are traits that are of neutral self-descriptiveness

(e.g., Markus, 1977).

Perceived control. Participants responded to six items,

which they rated on 7-point Likert-type scales: ‘‘How

much control do you believe you have over attaining

3 We had to use features from both least and second least

important possible selves to have enough features that did not overlap

with those for the most important possible self. Unfortunately, this

meant that we did not have a measure of accessibility specifically

linked with the least important possible self.

this particular hoped for future self?’’ (1 ¼ None; 7 ¼Very Much); ‘‘The actions I take can influence the at-

tainment of this hoped for future self.’’ (1 ¼ Strongly

Disagree; 7 ¼ Strongly Agree); ‘‘There is little I can do

to aid in the realization of this hoped for future self.

(1 ¼ Strongly Disagree; 7 ¼ Strongly Agree–reverse

scored); ‘‘I can attain this hoped for future self if I really

set my mind to it.’’ (1 ¼ Strongly Disagree; 7 ¼Strongly Agree); ‘‘How capable do you feel of achievingthis hoped for future self?’’ (1 ¼ Not at All Capable;

7 ¼ Very Capable); and ‘‘How likely do you think it is

that this hoped for future self will be achieved?’’ (1 ¼Not at All Likely; 7 ¼ Very Likely). (Wording was

adjusted appropriately for the Feared Possible Self

condition.) a was .87.

Dependent variable: Motivation

Participants responded on a 7-point Likert-type scale

to four items: ‘‘How important is it to you to achieve this

hoped for future self?’’ (1 ¼ Not Important at All; 7 ¼Very Important); ‘‘How often do you engage in behav-

iors thatwould aid in attaining this hoped for future self?’’

(1 ¼ Never; 7 ¼ Often); ‘‘How much motivation do you

have to attain this particular hoped for future self?’’(1 ¼ Very Little Motivation; 7 ¼ Very Much Motivation);

and ‘‘How hard are you willing to work at attaining this

particular hoped for future self?’’ (1 ¼ Not Hard at All;

7 ¼ Very Hard) (Wording was adjusted appropriately

for the Feared Possible Self condition.) a was .72.

Results

Our hypotheses were that availability, accessibility,

and perceived control in relation to a possible self each

predict motivation to attain or avoid that possible self.

The top row of Table 1 shows correlations of the three

predictor variables with motivation for attaining or

avoiding the most important hoped for or feared pos-

sible self.4 (Data for hoped for and feared are combinedhere because no differences in slopes even approached

significance as tested by regression interactions.) As can

be seen from the table, all three hypotheses were sup-

ported. Correlations were in the predicted direction and

significant for availability (the paragraph measure;

r ¼ :20), accessibility (the reaction time measure; r ¼�:21), and perceived control (r ¼ :39). When availabil-

ity, accessibility, and perceived control were entered si-

4 Prior to analysis, cases with Z scores more extreme than �3 on

any variable were eliminated from analyses using that variable, but not

from the data set as a whole (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). The

proportion of observations eliminated as outliers was 2% or less for all

variables.

Table 2

Means and standard deviations for predictor variables and motivation

divided by hoped for and feared possible selves and most and least

important possible selves

Future self condition

Hoped Feared

Motivation

Most important

M 6.16 5.87

SD 0.67 0.85

Least important

M 2.96 4.29

SD 1.42 1.73

Availability

Most important

M 3.34 3.15

SD 0.80 0.87

Least important

M 3.10 2.95

SD 0.92 0.96

Accessibility

Most important

M 0.98 1.31

SD 0.26 0.47

Least important

NA NA

Control

Most important

Table 1

Correlations of predictor variables with motivation for attaining or avoiding participants� possible self

Availability Accessibility Control

Predictions

Motivation for most important possible self with predictors of most important possible self .20� ).21� .39���

Comparisons

Motivation for least important possible self with predictors of most important possible self ).04 .16�� ).07Motivation for most important possible self with predictors of least important possible self .03 ).03* p < :05 (one-tailed).** p < :10 (one-tailed).*** p < :001 (one-tailed).

504 C.C. Norman, A. Aron / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39 (2003) 500–507

multaneously in a multiple regression analysis the model

yielded an overall R2 ¼ :28, F ð3; 102Þ ¼ 13:41, p < :01.Further, each of these three variables seems tomake an

independent contribution to predictingmotivation. First,

the three variables had low correlations with each other:

availability with accessibility, r ¼ :00; availability with

control, r ¼ :14; accessibility with control, r ¼ �:12; allns. Second, in the multiple regression analysis mentionedabove, all three variables made unique contributions to

predicting motivation: availability (b ¼ :17; t ¼ 2:018,p < :05), accessibility (b ¼ �:18; t ¼ �2:091, p < :05),and control (b ¼ :44; t ¼ 5:170, p < :001Þ.

As a further check, Table 1 also shows parallel cor-

relations of (a) predictor variables for the most impor-

tant possible self with motivation for the least

important possible self, and (b) predictor variables forthe least important possible self with motivation for the

most important possible self (there was no measure of

accessibility of least important possible self—see Foot-

note 3). As expected, in all cases, these correlations were

near zero (or in the opposite direction) and not signif-

icant.5

Further analyses explored whether different types of

possible selves differ in the motivation individuals have toachieve/avoid them, or in the availability, accessibility, or

degree of perceived control over attaining/avoiding them.

Specifically, we conducted a 2 (hoped-feared)� 2 (most-

least) mixed analysis of variance for each variable. (For

accessibility, for which, as noted inFootnote 3, we did not

have a measure of least important possible self, we con-

ducted a dependent means t test comparing hoped and

fearedmost important possible selves.) As shown inTable2, for bothmotivation and control, scoreswere highest for

most important hoped for selves and scores were lowest

for least important hoped for selves. This interaction was

significant for both motivation F ð1; 112Þ ¼ 25:95;p < :01 and for control, F ð1; 113Þ ¼ 8:97; p < :01. (Bothmain effects for motivation were significant, p < :01,however only themost-leastmain effectwas significant for

5 There were no significant gender differences in motivation for any

of the above correlations as tested by regression interactions.

control, p < :01.) Availability was greater for most im-

portant than least important selves, F ð1; 109Þ ¼ 6:23;p < :01 with hoped for/feared having little effect F ð1; 112Þ¼ :42, n.s.; and accessibility was greater (faster reaction

times) for hoped for than feared possible selves F ð1; 108Þ¼ 21:08; p < :01.

Returning to the main findings, the data provided

clear support for all three of our hypotheses. Avail-ability, accessibility, and perceived control over the at-

tainment/avoidance of a possible self appear to predict

motivation to attain/avoid it.

M 6.18 5.88

SD 0.69 0.96

Least important

M 5.07 5.56

SD 1.15 1.35

C.C. Norman, A. Aron / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39 (2003) 500–507 505

Discussion

This research supported a proposed model of the role

of possible selves in motivation. Participants reported

greater motivation to achieve or avoid a possible self

that is available, accessible, and under one�s perceived

control. The results for availability and accessibility are

particularly impressive considering that they were mea-

sured with non-obvious procedures—amount of detail ina description of the possible self and response time to

features of that possible self—so that these results are

not easily explained as due to common method variance

or to social desirability or demand characteristics. Fur-

ther, these findings could not be explained as due to a

general tendency for motivated individuals to put more

detail in their descriptions, to respond more quickly, or

to believe they had more control over outcomes. Thisalternative was made unlikely because there were no

significant correlations of any of the predictor variables

when the dependent variable was motivation for a dif-

ferent (and least important) possible self. (Similarly,

when we measured availability or control over the least

important possible self, this did not predict motivation

to achieve the most important possible self.)

Availability. Our data suggest that for a given possi-ble self, the more available it is, the greater the moti-

vation to attain/avoid that possible self. Several studies

have indicated that the availability of an event or sce-

nario is predictive of behavior associated with that event

(Gregory et al., 1982; Sherman et al., 1981). The present

study extends the previous literature by placing the

concept of availability in terms of possible selves.

Accessibility. Our data also suggest that for a givenpossible self, if this cognitive representation is easily and

quickly brought into conscious awareness, then moti-

vation for that possible self will be increased. Previous

research has shown that highly self-relevant self-schemas

are recognized faster than those that are not (Kuiper,

1981; Markus, 1977). The present findings extend this

notion by indicating that individuals appear to have self-

schemas of possible selves, and that the more easily theseself-representations are brought into conscious aware-

ness, the more they influence motivation to attain them.

Markus & Nurius (1987) propose that possible selves are

activated when they are brought into working memory

and made accessible to the individual�s conscious mind.

Once activated, the possible selves act as a motivating

element to actually attain these possible selves. The

present findings support this idea. The present findingsare also consistent with studies showing that the greater

the accessibility of a knowledge structure, the more at-

tention it will receive (Bargh & Pratto, 1986; Roskos-

Ewoldsen & Fazio, 1992), and the more it will influence

behavior (Fazio et al., 1982; Lau, 1989).

Perceived control. Our data also support the notion

that if an individual believes she or he has control over

attaining (or avoiding) a particular possible self, moti-vation relevant to this possible self will be greater. This

is consistent with, and substantially extends, previous

research showing that a high level of perceived control

is associated with a high level of motivation in contexts

such as work and school achievement (e.g., Chan et al.,

1986; Revesman & Perlmuter, 1981). It is interesting to

note that perceived control was consistently the stron-

gest predictor of motivation for one�s possible self. Thisis probably due to shared method variance (motivation

and perceived control, but not availability or accessi-

bility, were both measured with self-report instru-

ments). It is also possible that perceived control is

particularly important. It would be valuable to examine

this possibility in future research that measures either

perceived control or motivation with non-obvious

measures.Overall model. Previous research has linked possible

selves with motivation (Markus & Nurius, 1987), but

has not identified the underlying mechanisms. We have

proposed here that the amount of motivation one has

for a possible self will depend at least in part on the

availability, accessibility, and perceived control over

attaining the possible self. Elsewhere (Norman, 1998),

we have proposed that other factors may also play arole, such as the extent to which the possible self is in-

cluded in the present self. Nevertheless, it is already clear

from the present results that specific characteristics of

the possible self are linked to motivation, thus opening

up an entirely new direction for both motivation and self

researchers.

Limitations. In interpreting the present results, some

limitations should be considered. First, this was a cor-relational study (except for the comparisons of types of

possible selves), so that the direction of causality cannot

be definitively established between aspects of possible

selves and motivation. It seems reasonable that in-

creased availability, accessibility, and perceived control

would lead to increased motivation to attain a possible

self, but alternative or additional causal directions are

also possible and should be explored in future research.Another limitation, though one that was probably

conservative, was that participants selected their most

and least important possible selves from a predeter-

mined list. Had participants been allowed to choose

without restriction, they may have chosen ones that

were more specific to them (e.g., ‘‘a successful bank

executive’’ rather than the more general possible self of

‘‘successful’’), and therefore more available, accessible,(perceived) controllable, and motivating for partici-

pants.

Implications. This research has significant theoretical

and applied implications. As noted throughout, this

model advances understanding of Markus & Nurius�s(1986) concept of possible selves by identifying three

aspects that are related to one�s motivation for attaining

506 C.C. Norman, A. Aron / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39 (2003) 500–507

that possible self (availability, accessibility, and per-ceived control).

Understanding the basis of motivation to attain or

avoid possible selves is also of great practical impor-

tance to areas of psychology that are concerned with

goal achievement such as clinical, marriage and family,

health, educational, organizational, and sports psy-

chology. For example, helping an individual to con-

struct or strengthen a ‘‘healthy’’ possible self may haveimplications for increasing health behaviors, maintain-

ing medical regimens, or curbing risk behaviors. Spe-

cifically, the finding that the availability of a possible self

is associated with motivation suggests that instruction in

cognitive availability of self-relevant scenarios could

enhance motivation. For example, making the possible

self available through cognitive rehearsal could increase

motivation to attain/avoid that possible self. Likewise,the finding that accessibility of possible selves is asso-

ciated with motivation suggests that priming of possible

selves could also be a useful means to affect motivation.

Finally, the finding that perceived control is associated

with motivation strengthens the ideas that are already

present in the literature (e.g., Chan et al., 1986; Reves-

man & Perlmuter, 1981) that a lack of perceived control

over the attainment of a goal may inhibit any attempt toachieve it. It would seem feasible then, if an individual

was instructed as to the instrumental steps necessary to

achieve/avoid a possible self, an increase in motivation

would follow.

In sum, this research deepens our understanding of

the self and of motivation, topics that would seem to be

among the most basic for understanding human expe-

rience and behavior.

References

Anderson, C. A. (1983). Imagination and expectation: The effect of

imagining behavioral scripts on personal intentions. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 293–305.

Anderson, C. A., & Godfrey, S. S. (1987). Thoughts about actions: The

effects of specificity and availability of imagined behavioral scripts

on expectations about oneself and others. Social Cognition, 5, 238–

258.

Bandura, A. (1986). The social foundations of thought and action: A

social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bargh, J. A., & Pratto, F. (1986). Individual construct accessibility and

perceptual selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49,

1129–1146.

Bornstein, R. F., Galley, D. J., & Leone, D. R. (1986). Parental

representations and orality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52,

648–657.

Bornstein, R. F., Leone, D. R., & Galley, D. J. (1988). Rorschach

measures of oral dependence and the internalized self-representa-

tion in normal college students. Journal of Personality Assessment,

52, 648–657.

Chan, F., Karbowski, J., Monty, R. A., & Perlmuter, L. C. (1986).

Performance as a source of perceived control. Motivation and

Emotion, 10, 59–70.

Cross, S. E., & Markus, H. R. (1991). Possible selves across the life

span. Human Development, 34, 230–255.

Epstein, S. (1973). The self-concept revisited, or a theory of a theory.

American Psychologist, 28, 404–416.

Fazio, R. H., Chen, J., McDonel, E. C., & Sherman, S. J. (1982).

Attitude accessibility, attitude-behavior consistency, and the

strength of the object-evaluation association. Journal of Experi-

mental Social Psychology, 18, 339–357.

Fehr, B. (1988). Prototype analysis of the concepts of love and

commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(4),

557–579.

Gregory, W. L., Cialdini, R. B., & Carpenter, K. M. (1982). Self-

relevant scenarios as mediators of likelihood estimates and

compliance: Does imagining make it so? Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 43, 89–99.

Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicabil-

ity, and salience. In E. T. Higgins, & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.),

Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133–168). New

York: Guilford Press.

Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and

affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319–340.

Higgins, E. T., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2000). Motivational science:

Social and personality perspectives. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Hooker, K., & Kaus, C. R. (1994). Health-related possible selves in

young and middle adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 9(1), 126–

133.

Kuiper, N. A. (1981). Convergent evidence for the self as a prototype:

The ‘‘inverted-U RT effect’’ for self and other judgments. Person-

ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 438–443.

Lau, R. R. (1989). Construct accessibility and electoral choice.

Political Behavior, 11, 5–32.

Leary, M. R., & Tangney, J. P. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of self and

identity. New York: Guilford Press.

Levy, K. N., Blatt, S. J., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Attachment styles and

parental representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 74, 407–419.

Markus, H. R. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information

about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63–

78.

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychol-

ogist, 41, 954–969.

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1987). Possible selves: The interface

between motivation and the self-concept. In K. Yardley, & T.

Honess (Eds.), Self and identity: Psychosocial perspectives (pp. 157–

171). Chichester, NY: Wiley.

Markus, H. R., & Ruvolo, A. (1989). Possible selves: Personalized

representations of goals. In L. S. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in

personality and social psychology (pp. 211–241). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Markus, H. R., & Sentis, K. (1982). The self in social information

processing. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self

(pp. 41–70). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

McGuire, W. J., & Padawe-Singer, A. (1976). Trait salience in the

spontaneous self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 33, 743–754.

Norman, C., 1998. Dispositional tendencies and cognitive processes in

future oriented motivation: A proposed model. Unpublished

dissertation, State University of New York at Stony Brook.

Nuttin, J. (1964). The future time perspective in human motivation and

learning. Acta Psychologica, 23, 60–82.

Oyserman, D., Gant, L., & Ager, J. (1995). A socially contextualized

model of African American identity: Possible selves and school

persistence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1216–

1232.

Oyserman, D., & Saltz, E. (1993). Competence, delinquency, and

attempts to attain possible selves. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 65, 360–374.

C.C. Norman, A. Aron / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39 (2003) 500–507 507

Revesman, M. E., & Perlmuter, L. C. (1981). Environmental control

and the perception of control. Motivation and Emotion, 5, 311–321.

Rodin, J. (1990). Control by any other name: Definitions, concepts,

and processes. In J. Rodin, C. Schooler, & D. W. Schaie (Eds.),

Self-directedness: Cause and effects throughout the life course (pp. 1–

15). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., & Fazio, R. H. (1992). On the orienting

value of attitudes: Attitude accessibility as a determinant of an

object�s attraction of visual attention. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 63, 198–211.

Ruvolo, A. P., & Markus, H. R. (1992). Possible selves and

performance: The power of self-relevant imagery. Social Cognition,

10, 95–124.

Sherman, S. J., Cialdini, R. B., Schwartzman, D. F., & Reynolds, K.

D. (1985). Imagining can heighten or lower the perceived likelihood

of contracting a disease: The mediating effect of ease of imagery.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 118–127.

Sherman, S. J., Skov, R. B., Esther, F. H., & Stock, C. B. (1981). The

effects of explaining hypothetical future events: From possibility to

probability to actuality and beyond. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 17, 142–158.

Strauss, R., & Goldberg, W. A. (1999). Self and possible selves during

the transition to fatherhood. Journal of Family Psychology, 13,

244–259.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics.

New York: Harper & Row.

Tversky, A., & Kahnemen, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for

judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207–

232.

Further reading

Strauman, T. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1987). Automatic activation of self-

discrepancies and emotional syndromes: When cognitive structures

influence affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53,

1004–1014.