IER Flambeau Vol. 13 No.

2 June 2006 17

The Phenomenological Perspective on the Study of the Self:

A Critical Review

Seleshi Zeleke 

Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to give an evaluative judgment

on the theoretical and methodological contributions of the
phenomenological approach to the study of the self. Because many
scholars from different disciplines have adopted the
phenomenological approach, and it is difficult to evaluate the
contributions of all these as one and the same approach, the writer
has chosen Rogers‟ personality theory (sometimes called a self-
theory) for examination. For Rogers, unlike empiricists, the self is of
paramount importance and deserves to be the center of psychological
research. In his theoretical orientation, Rogers, differs from both
psychoanalysts and behaviorists. Whereas psychoanalysts
emphasize the role of unconscious motives, Rogers places the
importance on conscious experience. While behaviorists discard the
self as something that could not be objectively studied, Rogers
believed that it could be studied using methods other than those
adopted by empiricists. Methodologically, Rogers chose to study lived
experience and he thought that this is more valuable than laboratory
experiments, the results of which have little relevance to real life.
Rogerian theory is not without shortcoming, however. Relying solely
on self-reports and focusing only on conscious experience are among
the limitations of this perspective. This paper concludes that though
Rogers has challenged his predecessors and offered an alternative
approach to studying the self, the theory is not comprehensive
enough to answer all questions.


Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Addis Ababa University
18 Seleshi Zeleke

The Phenomenological Approach: An Overview

Phenomenology, an approach to knowledge construction initiated by

Edmund Husserl, represents one of the influential figures of thought in
the twentieth century. This approach views the task of social science
as the reconstruction of the way people in daily life interpret their own
world. The phenomenologist seeks to understand social reality in
terms of the meaning that the individual‟s act has for himself or herself
(Vander Zanden, 1977). This perspective is concerned with describing
the structures of experience as they present themselves to
consciousness, without recourse to theory, deduction, or assumptions
from other disciplines such as the natural sciences. In other words,
phenomenologists subscribe to Husserl‟s slogan „to the things
themselves‟ although they differ among themselves on several points.
Phenomenologists emphasize the individual‟s frame of reference, the
person‟s subjective view of reality, not the objective perspective of the
observer analyzing that person. This view is also one of the „here and
now,‟ the present as perceived by the person. Past influences are
important only to the extent that they have brought the person to the
present situation (Zimbardo, 1985).

One important point on which the phenomenological approach differs

from empiricism is in relation to facts and values. That is, Empiricists
see facts and values as different things that should be separated.
According to positivists, researchers must avoid their values so that
the results of their studies become free of their biases or values.
Unlike this contention of empiricists, phenomenologists emphasize
the idea that social scientific research is something quite different
from a study in natural science. In social scientific study, which is
conducted in an open and complex system, the fact that the objects of
analyses are often people makes the subject a part of the object. For
this reason, whether we like it or not, the values and biases of the
researcher influence the study or the analysis of social objects.
 IER Flambeau Vol. 13 No. 2 June 2006 19

The second point concerns the subject-object relationship. The

empiricists‟ assumption regarding the subject-object relation
emanates from the idea that social scientific study should proceed like
natural science research. This means that researchers can study
social objects (e.g., people) the same way they investigate physical
objects (e.g., rocks) regardless of the difficulties in studying people as
compared to studying natural objects. The two basic assumptions of
this model are noteworthy: the first is that the researcher and the
object of analysis are definitely separate things while the other is that
both the object and the subject are simple entities, with no internal
complexity. Acknowledging the difference between studying people in
complex open systems and studying natural things,
phenomenologists reject the empiricists‟ idea of detached social
science. For phenomenologists, scientific detachment results in
imposition. That is, scientists impose their conception of social
processes and their operation upon their objects of analysis (Smith,
1998). Instead, they argue for an attempt, on the part of social
scientists, to bridge the gap between social scientific knowledge and
everyday lived experience.

The objective of this paper is to examine the contributions of the

phenomenological approach in offering an effective framework for
studying the self. Nonetheless, because this approach is a critical
response to empiricism, references are made to the latter approach
as well.

How do Phenomenologists Define/Describe the Self?

We have explored the general assumptions of the phenomenological

approach; let us return to the main theme of the paper: the self. We
begin this discussion by focusing, first, on how the approach defines
or describes the self. In examining the views and concerns of the
phenomenological approach in relation to the self, Carl Rogers‟ theory
of personality has been chosen for two reasons. First and foremost,
20 Seleshi Zeleke

Rogers has adopted the phenomenological approach and he has

remained a phenomenologist throughout his life. Secondly, he is
among those prominent psychologists who have extensively studied
the self. The self is a key structural concept in Rogerian client-
centered theory. For this reason, the theory itself is sometimes
referred to as a self-theory (Bischof, 1970; Pervin and John, 1997;
Shertzer and Stone, 1980).

Rogers‟ theory of personality is an outgrowth of his theory of therapy.

His phenomenological approach emphasizes perceptions, feelings,
subjective self-report, self-actualization, and the process of change.
According to Rogers, the individual perceives external objects, and
experiences and attaches meanings to them. The total system of
perceptions and meanings make up the individual‟s phenomenal field.
Those parts of the phenomenal field seen by the individual as „me‟ or
„I‟ make up the self. The self, thus, represents an organized and
consistent pattern of perceptions. Rogers stresses the idea that the
self, though it changes, always retains this integrated, organized
quality (Pervin & John, 1997).

Some points are noteworthy in relation to Rogers‟ concept of the self.

First, unlike Freud‟s ego that is supposed to control the „irrational id,‟
the individual in Rogerian theory does not have a self that controls
behavior. Rather, the self represents an organized set of perceptions.
In other words, Rogers considers the self as a perceived object in a
phenomenal field (Shertzer and Stone, 1980). Second, the pattern of
experiences and perceptions known as the self, in general, is
available to awareness; it can be made conscious. Although
individuals do have conscious and unconscious experiences, the self
is primarily conscious. This again represents a major departure from
Freud‟s psychoanalytic theory in that the latter emphasizes
unconscious drives. Rogers believes that such a definition of the self
is accurate and a necessary one for research. Thirdly, as a main
device through which a counselor can study an individual‟s
 IER Flambeau Vol. 13 No. 2 June 2006 21

adjustment, Rogers has suggested an index which in essence is the

discrepancy between self and experience (Pervin & John, 1997).
Briefly, while in healthy individuals there is congruence between self
and experience as well as openness to the latter, the neurotic
individual‟s self-concept has become structured in ways that do not fit
experience. That is, incongruence of self and experience
characterizes the neurotic or pathological individual.

It is also important to note what phenomenologists say regarding the

following questions.

 Do we have multiple selves or a unified self?

For psychologists who adopt the phenomenological approach, the
psychologically adjusted individual has a coherent and integrated
self (Osborne, 1991). For example, Carl Rogers (cited in Pervin
and John, 1997) theorized that variability in the self can be
detrimental for the individual‟s mental health because it is
indicative of fragmentation and lack of integrated core self.
According to Rogers, the higher the variability in one‟s self, the
less healthy and less adjusted the individual would be. In other
words, a lack of integrated core self, according to Rogers, is
pathological. Thus, in Rogerian theory, one of the greatest
strivings of the personality is for self-consistency.

 Is the self embedded in one’s own subjective world or in

society and culture?
Rogers neither clearly acknowledges nor rejects the influence of
the society on the self. His theory, nevertheless, places the
primary importance upon the uniqueness of a single human being
and regards the individual as determinant to the self.
Phenomenologists see the person as embedded in his or her own
personal and subjective world. Thus, for them, it is difficult to
maintain direct contact with the objective world (Gurney, 1988).
According to this approach, all perceptions are likely to be
22 Seleshi Zeleke

distorted by personal meanings to a degree: the perceptions that

are admitted are likely to be consonant with the self-concept rather
than discrepant from it. Phenomenologists argue that our behavior
is also an attempt to confirm this picture of the self, maintaining its
integrity.

 Is the self a legitimate subject for study?

Positivists do not regard the self as a legitimate subject for study
since it is not observable and cannot be objectively measured. In
contrast, phenomenologists do not make such restrictions on their
object of study. They give a special place to the study of the self in
particular. In addition, they reject the idea of positivists that social
objects can be studied using methods of the natural sciences.
They, instead, aim at studying lived experience.

How Did Rogers Study the Self?

Because of its emphasis on observation and measurement,

empiricism tends to ignore the inner world of the person. Thoughts
and feelings are difficult to measure and therefore are not favorite
topics for research as they are more readily available observable
behaviors. In the same way, behaviorists unconditionally reject the
self and associated constructs. Phenomenologists are anti-positivist in
their general outlook regarding what social scientists should study as
well as how they should proceed in studying social objects.

Phenomenology pays special attention to individuals‟ reports of how

they experience their world even though these subjective reports
would be judged unreliable according to the standards of empiricism.
For phenomenologists, descriptive methods are useful for
understanding a person‟s daily, lived experience. Rather than testing
ideas we may already hold about why people behave in certain ways,
the proponents argue, we can gather descriptions of human
experience from the individuals who are having the experiences or
 IER Flambeau Vol. 13 No. 2 June 2006 23

from observers and then try to understand how individuals are

experiencing their world. As Stevens (1996:151) states,
“Phenomenological accounts are often in the first person- the writer
reports on his or her own experiences; but they can be third person as
well, as in novels and clinical reports.”

Like other phenomenologists, Rogers used self-reports as data

sources. More specifically, in the early years of his career, his work
focused on analyzing interviews recorded during therapy sessions by
categorizing all words that referred to the self. Evidence indicates,
however, that Rogers later began to use other methods as well in
studying the self. These include Q-sort, adjective checklist, semantic
differential, and autobiography (Pervin and John, 1997). While some
of these (e.g., autobiography and perhaps adjective checklist as well)
basically require qualitative analysis, the data gathered through some
of the methods (e.g., Q-sort and semantic differential) need statistical
analysis. Rogers was criticized by other qualitative researchers for
using Q-sorts inappropriately or in a way different from what it was
initially meant for by Stephenson, the one who devised it (e.g.,
Stainton Rogers, 1995). Indicating that a Q-methodology has its origin
in the qualitative tradition, Stainton Rogers attacked Carl Rogers for
misusing it as a test, which essentially ends up in quantitative data.
Semantic differential is also a structured technique for gathering data
suitable for statistical analysis.

As can be observed from the above paragraph, Rogers appeared to

employ both qualitative and quantitative methods in studying the self.
Nonetheless, in the later part of his life, Rogers tended to confide
exclusively in personal, phenomenological types of studies (Pervin
and John, 1997). Contrasting the two methodologies, Rogers had the
following to say:
24 Seleshi Zeleke

To my way of thinking, this personal, phenomenological

type of study - especially when one reads the
responses - is far more valuable than the traditional
„hard headed‟ empirical approach. This kind of study,
often scorned by psychologists as being „merely self-
reports,‟ actually gives the deepest insight into what
the experience has meant. (Rogers, 1970, p. 133,
cited in Pervin and John, 1997, p. 208).

In sum, though Rogers employed different research methods, some of

which were deemed inappropriate for studying the self via people‟s
lived experiences, he remained essentially a phenomenologist all his
life. Later in his career, however, he admittedly preferred the
qualitative research tradition for providing valuable information on
lived experiences.

Evaluative Judgments on the Contributions of the

Phenomenological Approach

In this section, both theoretical and methodological contributions and

limitations associated with the perspective will be assessed. In
evaluating the theoretical contributions, attention will be drawn to
whether the theory of self developed by the proponents of the
approach, promotes the knowledge about self in a way that is different
from or „better‟ than other theoretical orientations. In examining the
limitations, emphasis will be given to two points. First, the approach
will be evaluated for comprehensiveness. Second, a theoretical
perspective may challenge approaches to knowledge construction
that preceded it. But the important point is providing a better
alternative. Whether this approach offers such an alternative will be
assessed.

Then, contributions and limitations of the methodology employed by

phenomenologists will be appraised. On the one hand, the relative
 IER Flambeau Vol. 13 No. 2 June 2006 25

methodological advances in the study of the self, if any, that have

been made because of phenomenology will be assessed. On the
other hand, an attempt will be made to review critically the
shortcomings of the research methods. Of particular interest in this
regard is the examination of the harmony of theory and method.

Theoretical Contributions and Limitations

The concept of the self has a long history in psychology though not a
smooth one. During some periods, it has received major attention
while it has virtually disappeared from the literature during other
periods. Even though William James, giving special attention to the
self, provided a relatively comprehensive coverage in his book more
than a century ago, the self was out of focus and neglected during the
days of behaviorism for it could not be measured or observed. The
major contribution of Rogers is his success in renewing psychological
interest in the concept of the self and in bringing the self to a focal
point in research as well as in theory. For Rogers and his followers, in
particular, the self was a central point in theory, research, and clinical
work.

In his psychotherapy, Rogers has also shown a major departure from

the medical model in his attitude toward the client. Rather than
focusing on an illness model of abnormal behavior and a medical
model of a doctor treating a patient, Rogers emphasized the
individual‟s potential to be a healthy and self-actualized person
(Pervin and John, 1997). Another contribution made by Rogers
concerns the way he understood psychopathology. Unlike other
approaches in psychology, pathology was understood as a
discrepancy or incongruence between self and experience.

This means, according to Rogers, that psychopathology occurs when

the relation between self-concept and actual experience is disturbed.
At the time, psychopathology was seen either as something caused
26 Seleshi Zeleke

by some unconscious conflicts, thoughts, and drives (according to

Freudian theory) or some environmental variables (in the case of
behaviorists). While lay men and others did not easily understand
these cause-effect relationships, Rogers‟, particularly, attempt to
explain psychopathology phenomenologically was appealing to many.
It has also encouraged further work at understanding the self in other
circles. For instance, the coining of phrases such as ideal self, actual
self, actual self-ideal self discrepancy, and self-experience
discrepancy stimulated others to explore various forms of selves such
as feared self and ought self (Pervin and John, 1997).

Nevertheless, Rogerian theory has its own limitations. One

shortcoming of this phenomenological theory is the idea that the
individual has a free will, choice, and autonomy. Actually, individuals
may be viewed as independent and autonomous to a limited degree.
Because of social influences coming from one‟s family, friends, and
the society at large, it is not possible to be completely autonomous.
Influences in the form of societal norms, rules, and regulations are
inevitable when living in a society. To a greater extent, therefore, our
independence and autonomy are simply artificial.

Rogerian theory emphasizes the individual as determinant to the self.

Understandably, some portion of our personality may be limited to
ourselves and hence may not be passed on to others. Nonetheless,
as indicated above, it is inevitable that our personality including the
self is influenced by social interactions. In other words, our relations
with others continuously shape us. To be exact, there is no direct
evidence to indicate Rogers‟ rejection of the influence of the society.
That is, Rogers was not explicit in acknowledging this influence.

Another problem of Rogerian theory concerns the status of the

concept of self over time and across situations. Rogerian theory sees
the concept of self as constant in both over time and across
situations. This implies that the self is neither emergent nor in process
 IER Flambeau Vol. 13 No. 2 June 2006 27

of changing and developing. Some psychologists maintain that the

self is continuously changing depending upon our interactions and
relations with others. Which one of the above views is then correct:
Rogers‟ or the latter? If perhaps both are correct, isn‟t there any
contradiction in viewing the self as constant and changing at the same
time? Research evidences are divided into the two views. That is,
while some research supports the idea that the self is fairly stable
overtime and across situations (Coopersmith, 1967), other studies
(Markus & Nurius, 1986; Gergen, 1991) uphold the opposite view.

Indicating that a multifaceted view of the self does not necessarily

contradict Rogers‟ view of the unified self, Pervin and John
(1997:218) write, “Rogers‟ conception emphasized coherence, not
simplicity; having a self with the multiple components that are
integrated with one another is consistent with Rogers‟ view of the
self.” Although this seems to resolve the problem, others Gergen
(1991), and Wetherell and Maybin (1996), still suggest that the
multiple selves could sometimes be contradictory. And this calls into
question the possibility of integrating the variable selves for it is
difficult, if not impossible, to integrate contradictory selves. One can,
therefore, see that the two views are not consistent. If so, how could
we explain this inconsistency in research outcomes as well as in
views?

One possibility is that the view of the self varies across cultures as
suggested by Morris (1994). For example, the way the self is
understood in Eastern countries and Western culture, according to
some writers (Moghaddam, 1998; Morris, 1994), is different. Whereas
the self, in the former culture, is viewed as interdependent, it is
regarded as independent in the latter. Even within the same country
like the US, minority groups‟ representation of the self tends to differ
significantly from that of the white majority. Minority groups tend to
have a view of the person that emphasizes interdependence rather
28 Seleshi Zeleke

than independence. This shows that cultural differences should be

taken into account in studying the self.

A second possibility is the idea that what constitutes a self may be

determined by the specific historical period. In other words, an
individual‟s view of the constituents of herself or himself, for instance,
fifty years ago may differ from her or his current perception for several
reasons including, among others, changes in the social order,
interactions, and social progress. All told, if these suppositions are
true, we can say that the self is culturally and historically located as
some psychologists have suggested.

Methodological Advances and Limitations

Methodologically, phenomenology may be thought of as a form of real

world research. It seeks to study lived experience and it belongs to
the qualitative research tradition. In addition, phenomenologists are
dedicated to studying the individual in preference to the group.
Consequently, in their study of the self, they employ idiographic
approaches rather than homothetic ones. Phenomenologists are anti-
positivist in that they oppose studying variables rather than people.
They also attack laboratory experiments on several grounds. Because
the setting under which the experiment is conducted is artificial and
also because of the researchers‟ various manipulations, they argue
that the outcomes of these experiments do have little relevance to
real life.

For Rogers, on the other hand, the best vantage point for
understanding the self is from the internal frame of reference of the
individual himself or herself. Thus, self-reports are primarily used in
data collection. That is, the individual herself or himself is asked to
describe her or his experience first hand. Studying the subjective
experience of the person characterizes Rogers‟ method and it
represents a major departure from positivist methods. While
 IER Flambeau Vol. 13 No. 2 June 2006 29

positivists consider self-reports as lacking objectivity, Rogers think

that first-person descriptions are more valuable than the information
we get from other observers of the person. Viewed from this
perspective, Rogers‟ justification for using self-reports was a
challenge for behaviorists and this may be regarded as strength of his
methodology. But several questions still remain.

For instance, is it possible to secure the individual‟s experience

through self-reports and even through other methods that Rogers
employed? Do persons report their entire experience even if
disclosing some part of that experience is harmful to the self? Rogers
himself stated that psychopathology is a result of the disturbance of
incongruence between self and experience. In addition, the individual
is defensive to experiences inconsistent with the self. If so, it is
unlikely that the person will include such experience in his or her
description. In short, self-reports may be one means of gaining
valuable information from participants but could not be the only one if
a researcher seeks to gather comprehensive data in the study of the
self.

Another problem with Rogers‟ methodology is that some of the

methods do not go hand-in-hand with the theory. While the theory
primarily acknowledges the importance of subjective experience,
some of the methods he employed did not require participants to
describe their experience but to choose, for example, among
preconceived alternative ideas. This imposition of his own
preconceived ideas on participants appears to be incompatible with
his phenomenological theory.

Rogers, however, is known for combining clinical flexibility with

scientific rigor. The subjective experience of the person recorded in
therapy sessions will undergo analysis using quantitative methods.
Thus, Rogers has tried to combine subjectivity with objectivity in his
work. While subjectivity and flexibility characterize his data collection
procedure, he employed both quantitative and qualitative data analysis,
30 Seleshi Zeleke

though, as indicated above, he preferred qualitative methods to

quantitative ones in his later works.
A final comment on Rogers‟ methodology concerns his focus on
conscious experiences and his disregard for unconscious ones.
Generally speaking, this may be regarded as a shortcoming and as
strength of the methodology at the same time. Psychoanalysts consider
this view a serious shortcoming because for them the fundamental basis
for human behavior is the unconscious part of personality. While this
idea is controversial, one can easily see that both theoretical
perspectives, by neglecting one aspect or the other, lack
comprehensiveness in representing the self. But viewed from another
angle, focusing on conscious experiences should be regarded as
strength of Rogers‟ approach for it not only marked a serious departure
from his predecessors, especially, psychoanalysts but also challenged
their position. If studying conscious experiences could not be legitimate,
how could unconscious ones be? Accordingly, his approach was a
feasible alternative to studying the self at the time and even now.

Conclusion

This paper sought to give evaluative judgments on both the theoretical

and methodological impact the phenomenological approach has had on
the study of the self. The phenomenological approach to knowledge
construction presents strong challenges to the positions of positivists and
differs from the latter in both theory and method. In their theoretical
orientation, the proponents of phenomenology reject the behaviorists‟
idea that the self could not be objectively studied. They maintain that the
self as well as other social objects could be studied in other ways even if
these methods are considered inappropriate by positivist standards.
Methodologically, the approach once again departs from traditional
perspectives in that their focus is lived reality or experience, not
measurement or objectivity. Here also, they put forward alternative
methodologies in studying the self.
 IER Flambeau Vol. 13 No. 2 June 2006 31

In conclusion, a more comprehensive view of the self may be gained

not only by studying the individual through his or her self-report, but
also by focusing on his or her social interactions. This essentially
means studying both social interactions and the individual‟s subjective
experience at the same time. To put it differently, the „private self‟ may
be studied by centering attention on the individual (and by examining
her or his subjective experience) rather than her or his social
interactions. The „public self,‟ on the other hand, may be investigated
by carefully examining the individual‟s social interactions. The self
could, thus, be considered as a product of social interactions as well
as the unique experience of the person. Such a position views the
individual and the social environment in their proper perspectives.
While this will provide a reasonably comprehensive approach to the
study of the self, any theoretical position that focuses either only on
the individual or only on his/her social interactions will not be free from
criticism in one way or another.

Implications

In general, the article argues for all-round information as a basic

vehicle to understanding people or their behaviors. The article has,
hence, some practical implications for counseling and research. One
implication for counseling is that it is important to gather data on the
client from different angles. As a matter of fact, a good insight could
be gained by interviewing the client. But there is no guarantee
especially in some circumstances that the counselee provides all the
data the counselor needs. In other words, there is some fear if this
source provides insufficient data. The review suggests that the
counselor should complement the insight he/she gets from the client
by studying his/her relations or interactions with important people
such as family members and peers.

The same is true for research. In studying an individual or his

behavior, the individual could be an important source of data.
32 Seleshi Zeleke

However, obtaining a comprehensive view of the individual requires

more than an interview with the person. It is, therefore, important to
obtain additional data from as many important people in the
individual‟s life as possible.

The review generally suggests that a deepest insight into a problem

(either as a researcher or as a counselor) could not be gained by
subscribing to one theory or another. Subscribing to a theory may
rather limit one‟s views, one‟s understanding and effectiveness in
many respects. This piece of work indicates that an eclectic position
could benefit counselors most. The implication for research, on the
other hand, is that a researcher may deal with problems in a better
way if he/she can employ both qualitative and quantitative methods of
data collection and analysis.

References

Bischof, L. J. (1970). Interpreting Personality Theories (2nd ed.).

New York: Harper & Row.

Coopersmith, S. (1967). The Antecedents of Self-esteem. San

Francisco: Freeman.

Gergen, K. J. (1991). The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in

Contemporary Life. New York: Basic Books.

Gurney, P. W. (1988). Self-esteem in Children with Special

Educational Needs. New York: Routledge.

Markus, H. and Nurius, P. (1986). Possible Selves. American

Psychologist, 41, 954–969.

Moghaddam, F. M. (1998). Social psychology: Exploring

Universals across Cultures. New York: W. H. Freeman.
 IER Flambeau Vol. 13 No. 2 June 2006 33

Morris, B. (1994). Anthropology of the Self: The Individual in

Cultural Perspective. London: Pluto Press.

Osborne, J. W. (1991). Humanistic Learning and Teaching. In R. H.

Short, L. L. Stewin, & S. J. H. McCann (Eds.), Educational
Psychology: Canadian Perspectives. Toronto: Copp Clark

Pervin, L. A. & John, O. P. (1997). Personality: Theory and

Research (7th ed.). New York: John Wiley.

Shertzer, B. & Stone, S. C. (1980). Fundamentals of Counseling

(3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Smith, M. J. (1998). Social Science in Question. London: Sage.

Stainton Rogers, R. (1995). Q Methodology. In J. A. Smith, R. Harre,

and L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking Methods in
Psychology (pp.178-92). London: Sage.

Stevens, R. (1996). The Reflexive Self: An Experiential Perspective.

In R. Stevens (Ed.), Understanding the Self (pp. 147-218).
London: Sage.

Vander Zanden, J. W. (1977). Social Psychology. New York:

Random House.

Wetherell, M. & Maybin, J. (1996). The Distributed Self: A Social

Constructionist Perspective. In R. Stevens (Ed.), Understanding
the Self (pp. 219-280). London: Sage.

Zimbardo, P. G. (1985). Psychology and Life (11th ed.). Glenview,

Illinois: Scott Foresman.