Developmental Psychology Copyright 1992 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1992, Vol. 28, No. 2,251-260 0012-1649/92/S3.00

Developmental Analysis of Conflict Caused by Opposing Attributes

in the Adolescent Self-Portrait
Susan Harter and Ann Monsour
University of Denver
and University of California, Santa Cruz

The differentiation of the self was examined in 7th, 9th, and 1 lth graders who generated self-de-
scriptors for the following 4 different roles: self in the classroom, with friends, with parents, and in
romantic relationships. Thefindingsrevealed that the self becomes increasingly differentiated into
role-related multiple selves with age. A central focus was on intrapsychic and affective conse-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

quences of opposing role-related self-attributes (e.g., outgoing vs. shy, cheerful vs. depressed). Con-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

tradictions and conflict were lowest in early adolescence, peaked in middle adolescence, and then
began to decline in later adolescence. From a neo-Piagetian perspective, though the young adoles-
cent can construct single abstractions about the self, he or she cannot yet simultaneously compare
these abstractions in order to experience opposing attributes. During midadolescence, one de-
velops the ability to compare but not resolve contradictory self-attributes. In later adolescence, the
capacity to coordinate, resolve, and normalize seemingly contradictory attributes emerges, reduc-
ing the experience of conflict within one's self-theory.

Within the developmental literature, there is considerable
evidence that the self becomes more differentiated with age
(Damon & Hart, 1982; Harter, 1983,1990b; Livesly & Bromley,
1973; Montemayor & Eisen, 1977; Mullener & Laird, 1971; Ro-
senberg, 1986; Secord & Peevers, 1974). Not only are more cate-
gories of self-description added to one's repertoire, but the
range of trait labels and abstractions becomes expanded with
development. The number of discriminable domains across
which one can evaluate the self also increases. In fact, the field
has undergone a general theoretical orientation in its current
emphasis on the multidimensional nature of the self-concept
(see Harter, 1985,1986b, 1990a; Marsh, 1986).
Additional support for the increasing differentiation of the
self-concept during adolescence can be found in recent studies
documenting how self-descriptions vary across different social
roles or contexts (Gecas, 1972; Griffin, Chassin, & \bung, 1981;
Harter, 1986a; Hart, 1988; Rosenberg, 1986; Smollar & Youniss,
1985). These studies reveal differences in self-attributes de-
pending on whether one is describing the self in one's role with
father, mother, close friends, romantic partners, or classmates,
as well as one's role as student, employee, and athlete. For exam-
ple, one's self with parents may be open, depressed, or sarcastic;
with friends, the self may be caring, cheerful, or rowdy; and
with a romantic partner, the self may be fun-loving, self-
conscious, or flirtatious.
Two broad classes of determinants have generally been in-
The research reported here was supported by Grant HD 09613 from
National Institute ofChild Health and Human Development, awarded
to Susan Harter. This study was based on the doctoral dissertation of
Ann Monsour. An earlier version of this article was presented at the
Society for Research in Child Development meetings in Detroit, Michi-
gan, in 1985.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Su-
san Harter, Department of Psychology, University of Denver, 2155
South Race Street, Denver, Colorado 80208.
251
voked to account for the developmental shift toward the prolif-
eration of role-related selves during adolescence. Cognitive-
structural advances permit the adolescent to make greater dif-
ferentiations among such role-related attributes (see Fischer,
1980; Fischer & Lamborn, 1989; Harter, 1983,1986a, 1990b;
Keating, 1990). Second, socialization pressures during adoles-
cence force the individual to differentiate the self vis-a-vis so-
cial roles, given the different expectations of the various signifi-
cant others within different social contexts. As Erikson (1959,
1968) cogently observed, the period of adolescence brings with
it the formidable task of establishing familial, ideological,
friendship, occupational, and romantic/sexual roles or identi-
ties and differentiating one's various selves accordingly. More
recent theorists have emphasized the adolescent's need to de-
velop autonomy as he or she seeks to redefine the self in con-
texts that are separate from his or her parents (see Grotevant &
Cooper, 1983,1986; Hill & Holmbeck, 1986; Steinberg, 1990).
Rosenberg's (1986) observations of the "barometric self dur-
ing adolescence highlight the fact that different people in dif-
ferent roles will have varying impressions of the self, resulting
in feedback that causes one to view the self as highly mutable.
Although the research to date has provided descriptive ac-
counts of the differentiation of various selves during adoles-
cence, less attention has been devoted to either developmental
differences within the period of adolescence or to the experien-
tial and affective consequences of this proliferation of selves.
Interestingly, William James (1892) alluded to the potential in-
compatibility of the various roles one must necessarily assume
in his reference to the "conflict of the different Me's" (p. 185).
However, existing studies have not explored the extent to which
opposing role-related attributes cause phenomenological con-
flict in the developing adolescent.
Thus, the present research addresses the following questions.
First, to what extent do role-specific self-descriptions (the self
with parents, friends, and romantic others and the self in the
classroom) become increasingly differentiated during adoles-
 252 SUSAN HARTER AND ANN MONSOUR
cence? Do role-related attributes merely differ across these con-
texts, or do some attributes represent opposites that are judged
incompatible? If opposing attributes do emerge, do they pro-
duce an experience of intrapsychic conflict? Moreover, is such
conflict accompanied by distress in the form of negative affec-
tive reactions or confusion?
The general expectation of conflict and distress can be de-
rived from the adult self literature that is replete with theories
emphasizing the need to integrate multiple attributes into a
theory of one's personality that is coherent and unified (All-
port, 1955,1961; Epstein, 1973; Horney, 1950; Jung, 1928; Kelly,
1955; Lecky, 1945; Maslow, 1961; Rogers, 1950). Epstein (1973)
has argued by analogy that the self-theory, like any comprehen-
sive scientific theory, must meet certain criteria including par-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
simony, usefulness, testability, and internal consistency. As is
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
the case with any formal theory, one's self-theory will be threat-
ened by postulates in the theory that appear contradictory.
Thus, given the developmental task of differentiating role-re-
lated self-attributes during adolescence, the integration of these
diverse self-representations may pose a particular challenge.
The purpose of this study was to examine these processes at
the following three developmental levels: early, middle, and late
adolescence (7th, 9th, and 1 lth grades, respectively). On the
basis of the cognitive-developmental and socialization per-
spectives described, two general developmental hypotheses are
advanced: (a) Attributes associated with four roles (self with
parents, self with friends, self as student, and self with romantic
other) should become increasingly differentiated over the
course of adolescence. That is, there should be less overlap in
role-related attributes with increasing grade level, (b) A differ-
ent developmental pattern is predicted for opposing as well as
conflicting attributes, namely that they should peak in middle
adolescence.
Fischer's (1980) cognitive-developmental theory provides a
framework for predicting developmental differences, because
he distinguishes several levels within formal operational
thought. At the first level of single abstractions, which emerge
in early adolescence, one can construct abstractions about the
self (e.g., outgoing, self-conscious, obnoxious, empathic, cheer-
ful, and depressed). However, one does not yet have the cogni-
tive ability to simultaneously compare these abstractions to one
another. As a result, young adolescents should tend not to de-
tect or be concerned over self-attributes that are potential oppo-
sites (e.g., cheerful and depressed).
The cognitive skills necessary to compare such abstractions,
what Fischer called "abstract mapping," do not emerge until
middle adolescence. With the advent of the ability to relate
attributes to each other, the individual can now evaluate the
postulates of one's self-theory from the standpoint of whether
they are internally consistent. However, at this stage, the adoles-
cent does not yet have the cognitive skills to resolve such contra-
dictions. As a result, opposing self-attributes (e.g., outgoing vs.
self-conscious, obnoxious vs. empathic, and cheerful vs. de-
pressed) become very salient as well as conflictual and dis-
tressing.
Conflict should begin to diminish, according to Fischer's
theory, in later adolescence with the emergence of "abstract
systems." This new cognitive level brings with it the ability to
integrate single abstractions into compatible higher order ab-
stractions about the self. For example, cheerful and depressive
attributes can be combined into the higher order abstraction of
"moody." The older adolescent can also resolve potentially con-
tradictory attributes across roles by asserting that he or she is
flexible or adaptive across roles or contexts, thereby subsuming
apparent inconsistencies under more generalized abstractions
about the self. Thus, more advanced cognitive skills allow the
older adolescent to cognitively coordinate and resolve seem-
ingly contradictory self-attributes.
A secondary goal of the present research was to examine the
structure of the adolescent self-portrait from the standpoint of
the valence of central and peripheral constructs. In discussing
the self-theory, Kelly (1955) and others have suggested the fruit-
fulness of determining which attributes are more important or
at the core of one's personality and which appear to be less
important or peripheral. We predicted that one's positive attrib-
utes would assume more importance, whereas one's negative
attributes would be relegated to the periphery of one's self-por-
trait. This prediction was based on previous theorizing and
findings within the attributional literature revealing that, as a
mechanism to protect and enhance the self, individuals are
more likely to emphasize and take credit for their successes
than their failures (see Greenwald, 1980; Harter, 1985,1986b).
We developed a new procedure to test these hypotheses. Sub-
jects were first asked to describe what they were like with par-
ents, with friends, in the classroom, and in romantic relation-
ships and to indicate whether each attribute was a positive or
negative feature of the self. Subjects then created a picture of
their personality by spatially arranging their self-descriptions
within a large circle that had a core circle for the most impor-
tant attributes, an adjacent concentric circle for less important
attributes, and an outer ring for the least important aspects of
the self.
Subjects then examined the entire array of self-descriptions
and identified any they considered to be opposites (e.g., smart
vs. dumb, friendly vs. mean, shy vs. outgoing, and cheerful vs.
depressed). To assess intrapsychic conflict between opposing
attributes, subjects next indicated whether any of the opposites
identified were clashing, fighting, struggling, "at war," or in
conflict with each other; subjects next provided a verbal de-
scription and responded to a checklist of potential emotional
reactions. In this manner, we could determine whether any of
the opposites were a cause of phenomenological conflict
within the self or whether they could comfortably coexist with-
out causing an experience of inner tension.
Method
Subjects
There were a total of 30 boys and 34 girls drawn from middle, junior
high, and senior high schools in the Denver, Colorado area. The 7th-
grade sample consisted of 10 boys and 14 girls (M age = 13 years, 2
months). The 9th-grade sample comprised 10 boys and 10 girls (A/age =
15 years, 1 month). The 1 lth-grade sample consisted of 10 boys and 10
girls (mean age =17 years, 2 months). Subjects were from middle' and
upper-middlc-class families. The racial composition was predomi-
nantly White with 2 Hispanic subjects at each grade level. All subjects
were individually seen in our University of Denver laboratory. The task
was divided into several subsections.
 CONFLICT IN THE ADOLESCENT SELF-PORTRAIT
Self-report ofrole-related attributes. Each subject was presented with
four sheets, one for each of four roles. At the top of each sheet was the
heading "What I am Like With (my Parents)" (or, alternatively, "my
Friends," "in the Classroom," and "in Romantic Relationships," for the
other three roles). Six sentence stems were presented on each page (e.g.,
I am with my parents), and the subject was asked to generate
six descriptors, if possible. They were told that these descriptors could
be similar or different across roles. Subjects were encouraged to in-
clude negative as well as positive attributes ("Nobody's perfect," and
"Everybody has something about themselves they may not like or may
want to change"). Next to each sentence was a plus and a minus, which
the subject used to indicate whether the attribute was positive or nega-
tive. Subjects were free to complete one set of descriptors before mov-
ing to another or to alternate between different roles, whichever they
preferred.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Self-portrait display. After completing the self-descriptors in each
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
role, the key word (or words) of each was transferred onto a gummed
label that the subject placed in one of three circles on the large self-por-
trait sheet. The subject was then asked to put the most important de-
scriptors in the smallest center circle (labeled most important), to put
less important descriptors in the next concentric circle (labeled less
important), and to put the least important descriptors in the outer
circle (labeled least important).
Inquiry about opposites. After all of the self-descriptors had been
positioned in the appropriate circles, the subject was asked to look at
all of the self-attributes and see if any of them seemed liked they were
the opposites of one another. For any pairs of opposites identified,
either the experimenter or the subject drew a line connecting the two
opposites.
Inquiry about clashes or conflict. For each pair of opposites identi-
fied, the subject was asked to think about whether the two attributes
were fighting, clashing, disagreeing, at war, or in conflict with each
other. All of these descriptions were included in order to best commu-
nicate what we meant by the experience of conflict. For those oppo-
sites experienced as conflicting, arrowheads were placed on each end
of the line connecting the two attributes. All subjects were systemati-
cally asked to explain why each of the conflicting attributes clashed. A
systematic inquiry to determine why certain nonclashing attributes
did not produce conflict was conducted with 75% of the subjects.
Affective responses to conflict. Finally, each subject was given an
emotion checklist and asked to indicate which emotions he or she felt
about clashing as well as nonclashing opposites. We focused only on
potential negative reactions. The emotions included the following:
guilty, embarrassed, mad at myself, ashamed, unhappy, pressured,
mad, sad, bothered, frustrated, worried or nervous, depressed, upset,
and no special feeling. More cognitive reactions (e.g., mixed-up or con-
fused) were also included.
Results
Overlap of Attributes Across Roles
It was predicted that there should be increasing differentia-
tion in role-related attributes (i£, less overlap across roles) with
age. As can be seen in Table 1, for three of the combinations (e.g.,
self with parents vs. self with friends, self with parents vs. self in
the classroom, and self with friends vs. self in the classroom)
there was a systematic tendency for overlap to decrease over the
period of adolescence. Separate, one-way analyses of variance
(ANOYAs) across the three developmental levels revealed that
each of these differences was significant: parents versus
friends, F(2,58) = 3.40, p < .05; parents versus classroom, F(2,
58) = 7.37, p < .001; and friends versus classroom F(2, 58) =
253
Table 1
Proportion of Attributes Overlapping Across Roles by Grade
7 () 11
Role M SD M SD M SD
Parents vs. friends 0.38 0.19 0.23 0.18 0.17 0.09
Parents vs. classroom 0.31 0.20 0.10 0.09 0.06 0.04
Friends vs. classroom 0.29 0.17 0.18 0.12 0.11 0.08
2.78, p < .05. For each comparison, using Dunn tests, there was
significantly more overlap for the 7th graders than either the 9th
or 1 lth graders (ps < .05). There were no significant decreases
in the overlap for romantic relationships and the other three
roles because, even in 7th grade, overlap was minimal (Ms =
.15-. 10).
Prototypical Example of Opposites That Do and Do Not
Conflict
Figure 1 represents a prototypical example of the major fea-
tures of a ninth-grade female adolescent self-portrait. In this
protocol several opposites were identified, most of which were
conflicting. Thus, clashes were reported between being smart
at school and being fun-loving with friends, being happy with
friends and being depressed with family, being caring with fam-
ily and being inconsiderate with friends, being talkative as well
as being nervous in romantic relationships, and being attentive
and being lazy in school.
For the conflict between the ninth-grade female adolescent
in school and her friends, she stated the following: "When you
are with your friends, you tend to do things that you want, you
mess around and have fun, at school, you have to be more
serious which lets you be smart." In the example of being happy
with friends versus being depressed with her family at home,
she noted that "I really think of myself as a happy person, and I
want to be that way with everyone because I think that's my true
self, but I get depressed with my family and it bugs me because
that's not what I want to be like." In the example of the conflict
between being talkative and being nervous within romantic
relationships, the subject described, with some exasperation,
that "I hate the fact that I get so nervous. I wish I wasn't so
inhibited! The real me is talkative; I just want to be natural."
Other subjects described the conflict in very dynamic terms
(e.g., "\bu don't want to act this way but then something uncar-
ing comes out in you, you try to stop it, you have tofightit all
the timer). Another subject described it as "I want to be polite,
I try to, but then the opposite feelings just overpower me."
Another 15-year-old girl exclaimed, "I realty think of myself as
friendly and open-armed to people, but the way the other girls
act, they force me to become an introvert, even though I know
I'm really not. It really bothers me and sometimes the only way
to handle it is to become immune to yourself." Another ninth-
grade girl exclaimed about her self-portrait: "It's not right, it
should all fit together into one piece."
Equally compelling were the examples for why opposites
were not clashing or in conflict. Many explanations involved
reference to the fact that people act differently in different situa-
 254 SUSAN HARTER AND ANN MONSOUR

Caring
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

(Fam)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Understanding
(Fam)

Figure 1. Prototypical self-portrait by a 9th-grade girl. (Fam = family;

Rom = romantic relationships; Fr = friends; Sch = school.)

tions. Specific examples included the following: "Well, you are
nice to your friends and then mean to people who don't treat
you nicely"; It's just that I am real open with my family, but I
tend to be shy with kids my age"; "Sometimes it's fun to be
rowdy but at other times you just want to be in a quiet mood,
you really need to do both with really good Mends"; "ft% just
that you are different with different people; you can't always be
the same person and you shouldn't be"; "Usually I am happy
with my friends, but sometimes I get angry, everyone has to get
angry sometimes, and that's how I am." One 13-year-old girl, on
being asked why her opposing attributes did not clash, ex-
claimed, "That's a really stupid question, I don't fight with my-
seJf.1" For the most part, subjects reporting that opposites did
not clash gave relatively brief descriptions, suggesting that they
felt no particular need to justify the lack of conflict. Opposing
traits could comfortably coexist within the self and did not
appear to command much of their attention.
In order to examine the hypothesis that the prevalence of
opposites, as well as of conflict, would peak during middle
adolescence, we examined the following four indexes: number
of opposites, number of conflicts, percentage of opposites in
conflict, and percentage of subjects reporting that at least one
opposite caused conflict. As can be seen in Figure 2, for each of
these four indexes, there is a dramatic increase from 7th to 9th
grade and then a smaller, but systematic, decrease between the
9th and 1 lth grades.
 CONFLICT IN THE ADOLESCENT SELF-PORTRAIT
4.5-1 1.75-
1.50-
4.0-
I ,»•
i
o 1.00-
5 -75-
.50
7 9 11
Grade Level
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
30-
7 9
Grade Level
Figure 2. Developmental differences in adolescents' perceptions of opposing and
conflicting self-attributes.
Separate Grade (3) X Gender (2) ANOYAs were performed
for each of the four indexes. For the index labeled number of
opposites perceived, the grade effect was significant, F(2,58) =
13.77, p < .05; multiple comparisons reveal that the primary
difference was between the 7th (M = 2.54, SD = 1.77) and 9th
(M = 3.95, SD = 2.41) graders (p < .06). A significant main
effect for gender, F(l, 58) = 18.07, p < .05, was due to the fact
that girls {M = 3.74, SD = 1.74) identified more opposite attrib-
utes than did boys (M = 2.77, SD = 1.01).
An examination of the protocols revealed that at the 7th-
grade level, there were more potential opposites that went un-
detected in comparison with the 9th- and 1 lth-grade levels.
Examples not identified as opposites in the 7th graders' self-
portraits included being talkative as well as shy in romantic
relationships, being uptight with family but carefree with
friends, being caring as well as insensitive with friends, being
quiet as well as talkative in school, being serious as well as goofy
in romantic relationships, being a good student as well as get-
ting in trouble at school, being understanding and unfair with
friends, feeling pressured but also safe in romantic relation-
ships, and being active as well as lazy in school. It was not
possible, however, to calculate a reliable or valid numerical in-
dex of potential opposites that went undetected, given that we
did not confront subjects with these possible contradictions.
For the index labeled number of opposites in conflict the main
255
7 9 11 7 9 11
Grade Level Grade Level
11 7 9 11
Grade Level
effect for grade was again significant, F(2,58) = 13.78, p < .05;
multiple comparisons revealed that the 7th graders (M= 0.62,
SD = 0.51) were significantly different (ps < .05) from both the
9th (M = 1.35, SD = 0.93) and 1 lth (M = 1.20, SD = 0.88)
graders. As with the number of opposites, gender differences
were also revealed, indicating that girls reported significantly
more conflicting opposites (M = 1.29, SD = 0.56) than did boys
(M= 0.73, SD= 0.41).
We next examined the index labeled percentage ofopposites
in conflict because the grade-related increase in the number of
clashes could partially be explained by the increase in the num-
ber of opposite attributes reported. The pattern (see Figure 2)
was similar, with 7th graders with the lowest percentage (M =
23.0%, SD = 21.3), 9th graders with the highest percentage
(M = 42.0%, SD = 31.4), and the 1 lth graders in between (M=
32.2%, SD = 21.5); the main effect for grade approached signifi-
cance, F(2, 58) = 13.28, p < .075, as did the effect for gender,
F(l, 58) = 12.64, p < .10, with girls (M = 39.1%, SD = 20.4)
reporting more conflict than boys (M = 25.0%, SD = 18.2).
The differences in the index labeled percentage of subjects
reporting at least one opposite in conflict were also found to be
significant, x2 (Ar= 2) = 7.72, p < .02, due to the fact that fully
62.5% of the 7th graders reported no conflict, whereas only
21 % of the 9th graders and 30% of the 1 lth graders reported no
conflict.
 256 SUSAN HARTER AND ANN MONSOUR
Subjects' Explanation of Conflict
A content analysis was performed on the reasons given by
adolescents for why opposing attributes were experienced as
conflictual. Two broad but conceptually similar types of expla-
nations emerged and could reliably be rated by two indepen-
dent judges (82.6% agreement). Attributes were perceived as
conflicting if there was a conflict between one's overt behavior
and one's intentions or if there was a conflict between incompat-
ible intentions. Moreover, 97% of all explanations for conflict
fell within these two broad categories. Examples included the
following: "You want to be thoughtful with your friends, but
something uncaring comes out in you. You try to stop it, you
fight it all the time"; "I know I should be attentive in school, I
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
should try harder, because I get pressure from my father, but I
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
act lazy, and do what I want instead of what I should do"; "I hate
being shy and so embarrassed on a date, I don't like it, I wish I
could be easygoing, natural, I wish I wasn't so inhibited"; "I
know I am being mean with my family, and I could help it, but I
don't feel like it cause part of me wants to be mean, and the
other part wants to be nice"; "I'm really close with my family
and then fun-loving with my friends, but it seems like my family
is working against my friends, and I'm afraid I'll get in trouble
with both."
Subjects' explanations for why opposites did not conflict. We
systematically queried 70% of the 7th graders, 80% of the 9th
graders, and 85% of the 1 lth graders about the reasons for every
pair of opposites that did not conflict and performed a content
analysis of the types of reasons given for nonconflict between
opposites. The vast majority (87%) of explanations could be
categorized into one of two broad categories that reflected ei-
ther (a) differentiation or separation of the two attributes or (b)
attempts at integrating, normalizing, and ascribing value to
such opposites. Examples of differentiation or separation over
time or situation included the following: "I'm outgoing with
people that are my friends and quiet with people that I don't
know"; "I can be lazy at school, but also energetic but since they
never happen at the same time, they never clash." Examples of
attempts at integration, normalization, and ascription of value
of opposites included the following: "\ea, I can be both de-
pressed and cheerful because I am a moody person"; "Some-
times you're happy and sometimes you're depressed, those are
just two separate sides of me that are normal, you have to take
the good with the bad"; "I can be talkative with friends and
quiet with friends, they complement each other, its good to be
able to be both ways." Examples of differentiation or separation
declined with grade level (7th graders = 86%, 9th graders = 50%,
and 1 lth graders = 23%), whereas examples of integration, nor-
malization, and value increased with grade level (7th graders =
0%, 9th graders =31%, and 1 lth graders = 65%) with differences
that were quite significant, x2 = 14.96, df= 2, p < .001.
Affective reactions to conflicting and nonconflicting opposing
attributes. Another index of the potential distress caused by
opposing attributes that were judged to be conflicting was the
degree of negative affect aroused. We compared the mean per-
centage of conflicting and nonconflicting opposites that pro-
duced at least one of the negative affects versus "no special
feeling." A Valence (negative affect vs. no special feeling) X Con-
flict (presence vs. absence) X Grade X Gender ANOVA (with
valence and conflict as repeated measures) revealed one signifi-
cant effect, a striking interaction between valence of the affect
and conflict, F(\, 21) = 24.97, p < .001. Subjects were much
more likely to report negative affects in response to conflicting
self-attributes (M = 89.1%, SD = 42.3) than to nonconflicting
opposites (M = 27.2%, SD = 22.7). Conversely, subjects were
much more likely to report no special feeling in response to
their nonconflicting (M= 72.1%, SD = 43.0) than to their con-
flicting opposites (M= 11.1%, SD = 0.14). These findings pro-
vide converging evidence for the validity of subjects' judgments
concerning the presence or absence of conflict, although the
affect ratings were not independent of the conflict judgments.
In analyzing the 15 specific indexes of distress, only the more
cognitive type of reaction, confused or mixed-up (see Figure 2),
resulted in developmental differences. A greater percentage of
9th graders (48%) reported these reactions in comparison with
the 7th graders (29%) or the 1 lth graders (40%). The difference
between the 7th and 9th graders was significant (p < .05).
Valence of Attributes Judged Most, Less, and Least
Important
It was predicted that subjects would be more likely to place
their positive attributes at the core of the self-portrait, whereas
negative attributes would be relegated to the periphery of least
important characteristics (see Figure 1). The findings for all
subjects strongly confirmed this pattern, as revealed in Figure
3. The vast majority of self-attributes judged to be most impor-
tant were positive (M = 76.2%, SD = 19.3) with only a few nega-
tive (Af = 10.0%, SD = 12.2) and mixed (M = 15.0%, SD = 12.3)
attributes (both positive and negative) at the core of the self. As
can be seen in Figure 3, there is a systematic decline in positive
attributes as one moves toward the periphery of the self,
whereas the number of negative attributes increases. A Valence
(positive, negative, or mixed) X Self-Diagram Position (center,
middle, or outer circle) X Grade X Gender ANOVA (with va-
lence and position as repeated measures) revealed one effect, a
highly significant interaction, F(4, 236) = 71.78, p < .001.
Discussion
The findings provide clear support for developmental
changes in role-related self-attributes over the course of adoles-
cence. One such shift involves the greater differentiation of
selves associated with the varying social roles that the adoles-
cent must come to adopt. Socialization pressures to develop
different selves in different social contexts (Grotevant &
Cooper, 1983, 1986; Erikson, 1959, 1968; Hill & Holmbeck,
1986; Rosenberg, 1986) as well as cognitive-developmental ad-
vances that allow for a more differentiated sense of self
(Fischer, 1980; Fischer & Lamborn, 1989; Harter, 1983,1986a,
1990b) should conspire to produce a proliferation of role-re-
lated selves.
Thefindingssupported this hypothesis in that for three role-
related comparisons—self with parent versus self with friends,
self with parents versus self in the classroom, and self with
friends versus self in the classroom—there was a systematic and
significant linear decrease in the proportion of overlapping at-
tributes across grade level. Thus, with regard to spontaneously
 CONFLICT IN THE ADOLESCENT SELF-PORTRAIT
g
'3D
21
o
o
i
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
a
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Center
Region of the self-diagram
Figure 3. Mean proportion of each self-portrait region occupied by positive,
negative, and mixed valence attributes.
generated attributes, adolescents' role-related selves become in-
creasingly differentiated as they move through this developmen-
tal period. Interestingly, the comparisons involving one's self in
romantic relationships seem to be the first to be differentiated,
because even in early adolescence (seventh grade) there was
already little overlap between one's attributes in this particular
role and those in the other three roles.
A major purpose was to examine the experiential conse-
quences of this age-related proliferation of selves, namely the
phenomenological conflict provoked by the identification of
contradictory role-related self attributes. The increasing differ-
entiation of selves between 7th and 9th grades may well contrib-
ute to the increase in opposing attributes and conflict reported
by the 9th graders. However, the suggested grade-related curvi-
linear relationship, revealing that opposing and conflicting at-
tributes peak in middle adolescence and then begin to decline
in late adolescence, cannot be a direct function of the degree of
differentiation (i.e., that more differentiation inevitably leads to
more opposition and conflict between attributes), because role-
related selves are the most differentiated in the 11th grade.
Thus, one needs an alternative explanation for why conflict
among highly differentiated role-related selves seems to decline
in later adolescence.
The hypothesis that opposing as well as conflicting attributes
should not appear with great frequency among young adoles-
cents, should peak for those in midadolescence, and should
finally begin to decline in later adolescence was supported. For
257
Middle Peripheral
five converging measures (number of opposing attributes, num-
ber of opposing attributes that were in conflict, percentage of
opposing attributes in conflict, percentage of subjects report-
ing that at least one opposite caused conflict, and the percent-
age of subjects reporting that opposing self-attributes made
them feel confused or mixed up), the lowest scores were ob-
tained for 7th graders, scores peaked for 9th graders, and scores
began to decline for 1 lth graders. This pattern has now been
replicated in a subsequent study (Harter & Carlson, 1988) that
included both 1 ith and 12th graders, in which an even greater
drop among older adolescents was found. Moreover, the mean-
ingfulness of the distinction between opposing attributes that
do and do not provoke conflict was bolstered by subjects' de-
scriptions as well as by the finding that opposing attributes in
conflict produced significantly more negative affective reac-
tions, whereas nonconflicting opposites were far more likely to
result in no special feeling. (Although our focus was on the
potential for negative emotions, interesting questions for future
research include whether positive emotional reactions ever ac-
company the report of opposing attributes and whether the
pattern reported here might have been different had we added
positive affects.)
Fischer's cognitive-developmental theory provided one
framework for predicting the suggested curvilinear relation-
ship, because it identifies several substages within adolescence.
Traditional Piagetian theory cannot provide an explanation for
thefindingsbecause it postulates only one major shift at adoles-
 258 SUSAN HARTER AND ANN MONSOUR
cence, the emergence of formal operations (Piaget, 1960).
Fischer's neo-Piagetian framework, in contrast, predicts that
certain features of the self-portrait will change as one moves
through substages of formal operational thought.
Our youngest adolescents can be characterized as being at
Fischer's first level of formal operational thought, "single ab-
stractions," allowing one to construct rudimentary, abstract
self-descriptors (e.g., cheerful, depressed, outgoing, or shy). How-
ever, they do not yet have the ability to simultaneously compare
these abstractions to one another, and therefore they tend not
to detect or to be concerned over self-attributes that are poten-
tial opposites (e.g., outgoing vs. shy). Those opposites that were
detected typically produced no conflict because they were sepa-
rated in time or by situation.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
During middle adolescence, the cognitive skills necessary to
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
compare abstractions, namely "abstract mappings," begin to
emerge. This particular substage, therefore, should usher in the
initial press to integrate one's multiple attributes into a theory
of one's personality that is coherent, unified, and internally
consistent. However, the emergence of such abstract mapping
abilities represents a double-edged sword: Although the adoles-
cent can now compare opposing self-attributes, he or she does
not yet have sufficient cognitive control over these budding
skills to integrate seemingly contradictory postulates within
the self-system. As a result, the adolescent should experience
opposing attributes as contradictions within the self-theory
that provoke conflict and distress. Thus, although socialization
pressures promote the continued differentiation of role-related
selves, the cognitive skills available during midadolescence do
not yet equip one to consolidate these selves into an integrated
self-theory.
Consolidation should be more possible in later adolescence
with the emergence of "abstract systems," according to
Fischer's theory. The findings revealed small but systematic
decreases between the 9th and 1 lth grades for all indexes, in-
cluding opposing attributes, conflict, and confusion. From a
cognitive-developmental perspective, abstract system should
allow one to integrate or resolve seeming contradictions within
the self-theory. The specific reasons most often given by older
subjects for why opposites did not conflict involved strategies
that integrated, normalized, or found value in the seeming in-
consistency, namely that it was understandable or desirable to
act differently in different social situations.
Therefore, the pattern suggests that one is particularly vulner-
able during middle adolescence, when conflict and distress are
at their peak with regard to contradictions within the self. At
this developmental juncture, there would appear to be compet-
ing forces, namely socialization pressure to differentiate the self
into multiple roles while the cognitive apparatus is pressing for
integration. The tension created can well be conceptualized as
one form of "storm and stress." Although there are those fog,
Offer, Ostrow, & Howard, 1981) who have taken the position
that the prevalence of adolescent storm and stress has been
vastly overemphasized, the issue needs to be addressed in
terms of the specific type of stress as well as the specific period
of adolescence. Those attempting to refute the storm and stress
hypothesis have focused primarily on the fact that the self-eva-
luations of most adolescents are not overwhelmingly negative
(Offer et al, 1981) nor do most engage in major conflict with
their parents on larger issues and values (Hill & Holmbeck,
1986; Steinberg, 1990). However, these studies have not in-
volved conflict within the self-system. That is, they do not ad-
dress the fact that the internal canvas on which the self-portrait
is painted must accommodate a crowd of proliferating persona
whose characteristics are not necessarily compatible.
The more recent literature reveals that during adolescence,
there are numerous potentially contradictory selves clamoring
for expression (see Harter, 1990a). There are various forms of
ideal selves that may conflict with one's real self (see Glick &
Zigler, 1985; Harter, 1986b; Higgins, 1987). These conflicts can
be distressing (Higgins, 1987), as well as motivating, as in the
case of discrepancies between one's positive or desired selves
and one's negative, feared, or possible selves (Markus & Nurius,
1986). The responses of the adolescents in this study attest to
the fact that they typically experience conflict between their
present behavioral selves and the desired selves that they wish
or are motivated to become. In addition, there were numerous
spontaneous references to confusion about which behaviors rep-
resent one's real or true self. It is understandable that the need
to create multiple selves would usher in concern over which is
the "real me," a preoccupation that we have recently docu-
mented (Harter & Lee, 1989), as have others (Broughton, 1981;
Rosenberg, 1979; Selman, 1980). The fact that the adolescent
necessarily encounters different people in various roles and
contexts that have different impressions of the self adds to the
perplexity over which is one's true self (Rosenberg, 1986). In his
metaphoric reference to the "barometric self-concept," Rosen-
berg focused primarily on how factors associated with sociali-
zation lead to the volatility of the self-concept, whereas in our
own reference to the "self as chameleon" (Harter, 1988) we have
addressed the adolescent's difficulty in cognitively coordinat-
ing disparate self-perceptions. Both perspectives contribute to
an understanding of why internal conflict is provoked by multi-
ple selves, particularly during midadolescence.
It should be noted that we are making reference here to multi-
ple selves as a normative-developmental phenomenon, not to
pathological manifestations that are captured by the clinical
diagnosis of multiple personality disorder (see Braun, 1988;
Kluft, 1987; Putnam, 1989). This relatively rare disorder is
characterized by the existence, within the person, of at least
two distinct personalities or personality fragments that alter-
nately take full control of the person's cognitions, emotions, and
behavior (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Dis-
orders, 3rd. ed., American Psychiatric Association, 1987). In
resorting to the defense mechanism of dissociation, there is
little or often no awareness or coconsciousness on the part of
some personalities for other personalities. Rather, there is frag-
mentation, as well as amnesia for certain personalities, and in
some cases fugue states (see also Fine, 1988; Fink, 1988; Frank-
lin, 1988). Often, when alternative personalities are acknowl-
edged, there is the strong sense that the other person is "not
me" (Fink, 1988).
In contrast, what we have referred to as multiple selves in the
adolescent repertoire are consciously experienced contradic-
tions between one's behaviors and one's conflicting ideals or
intentions. During the period of middle adolescence, in particu-
lar, our subjects revealed that, in contrast to fragmentation and
dissociation, they are very much aware of these contradictions
 CONFLICT IN THE ADOLESCENT SELF-PORTRAIT
and are highly motivated to resolve them. One such strategy
may be revealed in subjects' placement of attributes within
their self-portrait. Positive characteristics were afforded greater Braun, B. (1988). The BASK model of dissociation: Clinical applica-
centrality as the most important or core constructs in one's
personality, whereas less desirable attributes were relegated to
the periphery of the self as relatively unimportant. Such a posi-
tivity bias allows one to protect the self, while at the same time
to preserve all of one's attributes as part of a single personality. Epstein, S. (1973). The self-concept revisited or a theory of a theory.
Similar strategies (e.g., taking credit for one's successes while
downplaying responsibility for one's failures) have been identi-
fied in the attributional literature as mechanisms for self-pro-
tection and self-enhancement (Greenwald, 1980; Harter, 1985,
1986b). Of interest was the finding that those few subjects who
did not adopt such a strategy, but identified negative attributes
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
at the core of the self, reported lower global self-esteem.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Finally, although the focus of this study was on normative,
developmental changes during adolescence, the findings re-
vealed unpredicted gender differences. Although the develop-
mental trajectory was similar for male subjects and female sub-
jects, girls detected more contradictory self-attributes and re-
ported more conflict than did boys at every grade level.
Moreover, these gender differences have now been replicated in
two subsequent studies (Harter & Bresnick, 1990; Harter &
Carlson, 1988). Because these differences were not hypothe-
sized, we can only speculate on their interpretation, turning to
socialization rather than cognitive-developmental theory. We
have been drawn to Gilligan's (1982) analysis of gender differ-
ences as a possible framework within which to interpret this
pattern. Gilligan suggested that the socialization of the girl
involves far more embeddedness within the family, as well as
more involvement and concern with relationships. The boy, in
contrast, forges a path of independence and autonomy in which
the logic of his moral and social decisions takes precedence
over an affective, empathic response to others with whom one
has formed emotional bonds.
In extrapolating from these observations, it may well be that
in an effort to maintain the multiple relationships that girls are
developing during adolescence, and to create harmony among
these necessarily differentiated roles, opposing attributes
within the self become particularly salient as well as problem-
atic. Boys, on the other hand, can move more facilely among
their different roles and multiple selves if such roles are logi-
cally viewed as more independent of one another. Such an in-
terpretation also assumes that for girls, the self is more likely to York: Springer-Verlag.
be defined in terms of relationships, and thus the relational
network impinges more strongly on the self (see Jordan, 1991;
Miller, 1986). This speculative analysis deserves more system-
atic attention, as does the study of individual differences within
each gender, in order to determine the particular psychosocial
precursors responsible for the degree of contradiction and con-
flict experienced within the self.
References
Allport, G. W (1955). Becoming: Basic considerations for a psychology nance and enhancement of the self-concept in children. In J. Suls &
ofpersonality. New Haven, CT: "tele University Press.
Allport, G. W (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York:
Holt, Reinhart & Winston.
259
American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical
manual ofmental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
tions. Dissociation, 1,16-23.
Broughton, J. (1981). The divided self in adolescence. Human Develop-
ment, 24,13-32.
Damon, W, & Hart, D. (1982). The development of self-understanding
from infancy through adolescence. Child Development, 53,841 -864.
American Psychologist, 28, 405-416.
Erikson, E. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. Psychological Issues, 1,
18-164.
Erikson, E. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Fine, C. G. (1988). Thoughts on the cognitive perceptual substrates of
multiple personality disorder. Dissociation, 1, 5-10.
Fink, D. L. (1988). The core self: A developmental perspective on the
dissociative disorders. Dissociation, 1, 43-47.
Fischer, K. W (1980). A theory of cognitive development: The control
and construction of hierarchies of skills. Psychological Review, 87,
477-531.
Fischer, K. W, & Lamborn, S. (1989). Mechanisms ofvariation in devel-
opmental levels: Cognitive and emotional transitions during adoles-
cence. In A. de Ribaupierre (Ed.), Transition mechanisms in child
development: The longitudinal perspective (pp. 37-61). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Franklin, J. (1988). Diagnosis of covert and subtle forms of multiple
personality disorder through dissociative signs. Dissociation, 1,
27-33.
Gecas, Y(1972). Parental behavior and contextual variations in adoles-
cent self-esteem. Sociometry, 35, 332-345.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Glick, M., & Zigler, E. (1985). Self-image: A cognitive-developmental
approach. In R. Leahy (Ed.), The development ofthe self(pp. 1-59).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Greenwald, A. G. (1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision
of personal history. American Psychologist, 7, 603-618.
Griffin, N, Chassin, L., & Young, R. D. (1981). Measurement of global
self-concept versus multiple role-specific self-concepts in adoles-
cents. Adolescence, 16, 49-56.
Grotevant, H. D, & Cooper, C. R. (1983). Adolescent development in the
family: New Directions for Child Development. San Francisco: Jos-
sey-Bass.
Grotevant, H. D, & Cooper, C. R. (Eds.). (1986). Individuation in fam-
ily relationships. Human Development, 29, 83-100.
Hart, D. (1988). The adolescent self-concept in social context. In D. K.
Lapsley &F. C. Power, (Eds.), Self, ego, andidentity, (pp. 71-90). New
Harter, S. (1983). Developmental perspectives on the self-system. In
M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook ofchild psychology, 4: Socializa-
tion, personality, and social development (pp. 275-386). New \brk:
Wiley.
Harter, S. (1985). Competence as a dimension of self-evaluation: To-
ward a comprehensive model of self-worth. In R. Leahy (Ed.), The
development of the self, (pp. 55-122). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Harter, S. (1986a). Cognitive-developmental processes in the integra-
tion of concepts about emotion and the self. Social Cognition, 4,
119-151.
Harter, S. (1986b). Processes underlying the construction, mainte-
A. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self, 3 (pp.
137-181). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Harter, S. (1988). Developmental and dynamic changes in the nature of
 260 SUSAN HARTER AND ANN MONSOUR

the self-concept: Implications for child psychotherapy. In S. Shirk Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psycholo-
(Ed.), Cognitive development andchild psychotherapy (pp. 119-160). gist, 41, 954-969.
New York: Plenum Press. Marsh, H. W (1986). Global self-esteem: Its relation to specific facets
Harter, S. (1990a). Causes, correlates and the functional role of global of self-concept and their importance. Journal ofPersonality and So-
self-worth: A life-span perspective. In J. Kolligian and R. Sternberg cial Psychology, 51,1224-1236.
(Eds.), Perceptions of competence and incompetence across the life- Maslow, A. H. (1961). Peak-experiences as acute identity-experiences.
span (pp. 67-97). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 21, 254-260.
Harter, S. (1990b). Issues in the assessment of the self-concept of chil- Miller, J. B. (1986). Toward a new psychology ofwomen. Boston: Beacon
dren and adolescents. In A. La Greca (Ed.), Childhood assessment: Press.
Through the eyes of a child (pp. 292-325). Needham Heights, MA: Montemayor, R., & Eisen, M. (1977). The development of self-concep-
Allyn and Bacon. tions from childhood to adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 13,
Harter, S., & Bresnick, S. (1990). Developmental and gender differences 314-319.
in the conflict caused by opposing attributes within the adolescent self Mullener, N, & Laird, J. D. (1971). Some developmental changes in the
Unpublished manuscript, University of Colorado at Denver, Denver.
organization of self-evaluations. Developmental Psychology, 5, 233-
Harter, S., & Carlson, J. (1988). Developmental differences during adoles-
236.
cence in opposing self-attributes. Unpublished manuscript, Univer-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

sity of Denver, Colorado. Offer, D. M., Ostrow, E., & Howard, D. I. (1981). The adolescent: A
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Harter, S., & Lee, L. (1989, April). Manifestations of true and false selves psychological portrait. New York: Basic Books.
in early adolescence. Society for Research in Child Development pre- Piaget, J. (1960). The psychology of intelligence. Patterson, NJ: Little-
sentation, Kansas City, MO. field, Adams.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and af- Putnam, F. W (1989). Diagnosis and treatment of multiple personality
fect. Psychological Review, 94, 319-340. disorder. New York: Guilford Press.
Hill, J. P., & Holmbeck, G. N. (1986). Attachment and autonomy dur- Rogers, C. R. (1950). The significance of the self-regarding attitudes
ing adolescence. In G. J. Whitehurst (Ed.), Annals of child develop- and perceptions. In M. L. Reymert (Ed.), Feelings and emotions: The
ment (Vol. 3, pp. 145-189). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Mooseheart symposium (pp. 78-99). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth. New York: Norton. Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.
James, W (1892). Psychology: The briefer course. New York: Holt, Rine- Rosenberg, M. (1986). Self-concept from middle childhood through
hart & Winston. adolescence. In J. Suls and A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological
Jordan, J. (1991). The relational self: A new perspective for under- perspective on the self'(Vol. 3, pp. 182-205). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
standing women's development. In G. Goethals & J. Strauss (Eds.), Secord, P., & Peevers, B. (1974). The development of person concepts.
The self: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 136-149). New "fork: In T. Mischel (Ed.), Understanding other persons (pp. 117-142). Ox-
Springer-Verlag. ford, England: Blackwell.
Jung, C. G. (1928). Two essays on analytical psychology. New York: Selman, R. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding. San
Dodd, Mead. Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Keating, D. P. (1990). Cognitive processes in adolescence. In S. Feld- Smollar, J., & Ybuniss, J. (1985). Adolescent self-concept development.
man & G. Elliot (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent In R. L. Leahy (Ed.), The development of self'(pp. 247-266). San
(pp. 54-89). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family.
Norton. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliot (Eds.), At the threshold: The develop-
Kluft, R. P. (1987). First-rank symptoms as a diagnostic clue to multi- ing adolescent (pp. 255-276). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
ple personality disorder. American Journal ofPsychiatry, 144, 293- Press.
298.
Lecky, P. (1945). Self-consistency: A theory of personality. New York:
Island Press. Received October 1,1990
Livesley, W. X, & Bromley, D. B. (1973). Person perception in childhood Revision received August 30,1991
and adolescence. New York: Wiley. Accepted September 5,1991 •