588 vI. SELF‑ AND S OCIAL P ROCESSES
& Bosson, 2008). An interactionist flavor 
that characterizes identity negotiation may 
also be found in formulations of personal -
ity and social psychologists such as Endler 
and Magnusson (1976), Erikson (1959), 
John, Hampson, and Goldberg (1991), Mc -
Adams (1999), Michel and Shoda (1999), 
Snyder and Ickes (1985), Sullivan (1953), 
and Swann (1987). Within sociology, inter -
actionism is evident in the work of Thomas, 
who argued that people both shape and are 
shaped by their experiences (Thomas & 
Thomas, 1928), and McCall and Simmons 
(1966), who emphasized the tendency for 
people to maximize interpersonal harmony 
by gravitating toward social settings that 
support their identities.
The identity negotiation formulation fol -
lows in the interactionist tradition of Cooley 
(1902) and Mead (1934) by assuming that 
behavior grows out of the interplay of in -
teraction partners, who can be arbitrarily 
designated “target” and “perceiver.” Two 
prominent theories within this tradition 
are expectancy theory (Rosenthal & Jacob -
son, 1968; Snyder & Klein, 2005) and self- 
verification theory (Lecky, 1945; Swann, 
1983, 2012). Expectancy theory  emphasizes 
the ways in which the expectancies of “per -
ceivers” shape the reactions of “targets.” In 
contrast, self- verification theory  emphasizes 
the tendency for targets’ stable identities to 
guide their choices of social partners and 
situations, as well as their reactions to the 
overtures of perceivers. In the tradition of all 
of these formulations, we assume that the re -
actions of others to the self exert a powerful 
influence on people’s identities, both in the 
short term and more permanently.
In addition to targets’ identities and per -
ceivers’ expectancies, targets’ personality 
traits represent a third, somewhat indepen -
dent influence on the identities that they 
negotiate (see Robins, Chapter 26, this vol -
ume). Personality traits, which are charac -
teristics of people that theoretically regu -
late behavior, emotion, and thought, can 
be distinguished from identities,  which are 
beliefs about what the self is like. Notably, 
personality traits emerge and become evi -
dent quite early in life, before people develop 
the self-  awareness needed for constructing 
identities. Thus, personality traits, to some degree, constrain the identities that people 
formulate, as well as the expectancies that 
perceivers’ develop of targets. An individual 
who is extremely shy, for example, will be 
hard pressed to develop and maintain an 
identity of herself as an extrovert, because 
it will be challenging for her to behave in an 
extroverted manner. In the absence of such 
behavior, she will be unable to convince her -
self and others that she is extroverted. How -
ever, the identity negotiation formulation 
also posits that identities and expectancies 
may, at times, produce changes in person -
ality. For instance, a moderately introverted 
person who views himself as outgoing may 
accordingly choose to enact extroverted 
roles and behaviors. Over time, with nour -
ishment from interaction partners, his extro -
verted identity may override his introverted 
temperament and cause a change in person -
ality.
Some personality traits may also allow 
more flexibility in identity negotiation than 
their opposites. Whereas temperamental ex -
troverts may find it relatively easy to nego -
tiate an introverted identity, temperamental 
introverts may find it extraordinarily chal -
lenging to act the part of an extrovert. The 
interplay of temperaments and identities 
may also have implications for the temporal 
stability of behavior; that is, identities that 
are supported by compatible temperaments 
should foster behaviors that consistently 
support the identities, whereas identities 
that are not supported by compatible tem -
peraments will likely foster behaviors that 
offer only sporadic support for the identities.
This discussion of three influences on the 
identity negotiation process (i.e., self-views, 
expectancies, and personality) raises in -
triguing questions regarding the accuracy of 
the identities that people negotiate. For ex -
ample, of these three inputs to the identity 
negotiation process, which most represents 
the true or authentic self? Although this 
question defies a simple answer, recent in -
vestigations of authenticity and the true self 
provide insights into the factors that lead to 
the perception  of authenticity (e.g., New -
man, Knobe, & Bloom, 2014; Strohminger, 
Knobe, & Newman, 2017; Strohminger & 
Nichols, 2015) as well as actual  authenticity 
(Carlson, 2013).