Possible Selves

Possible selves are specific imagined future identities — the people one hopes to become, expects to become, or fears becoming. The framework was introduced by Hazel Markus and Paula Nurius in their 1986 American Psychologist paper "Possible Selves" as a cognitive-motivational construct linking self-concept to behavior across time.

The framework operates at the level of specific imagined identities rather than general future orientation. A person does not have one "future self" but a repertoire of possible selves: the professional one might become, the parent, the patient, the recovered, the unemployed. Each possible self carries cognitive content (specific imagery, traits, situations) and motivational valence (positive, negative, mixed). Markus and Nurius proposed that this repertoire functions as a cognitive-motivational substrate: possible selves connect the abstract self-concept to concrete behavior by providing specific representations of where current action leads.

The framework distinguishes three principal categories: hoped-for selves (positive aspirational identities), expected selves (what one realistically anticipates), and feared selves (negative identities one wants to avoid). The categories can overlap or diverge in interesting ways; a hoped-for self that is far from an expected self produces a discrepancy that the literature has connected to anxiety and motivation in different proportions depending on context. The contemporary measurement and research literature (Oyserman et al., from the early 2000s onward) has elaborated on these categories and added balanced versus imbalanced repertoires as one way to study how future identities relate to action, alongside the strategies and opportunities available to the person.

In clinical and applied psychology, questions about future identities can open a conversation about what matters to someone and what they want to change. This framework alone does not establish an effective treatment or show that fear works better than hope. Findings from an academic intervention should not be used as treatment advice for addiction, eating disorders, or other health conditions.

In research on motivation and self-regulation, possible selves connect ideas about identity to everyday choices. The broader work on self-schemas is described in Markus & Wurf (1987). Daphna Oyserman and colleagues have studied when future identities connect to action. A useful question is not just which future you picture, but what steps and support could connect it to your life now.

In research on identity development, the framework has been applied across the lifespan from adolescence through older adulthood. Possible selves shift with age (younger adults have more hoped-for selves, older adults have more health-related feared selves) and with major life transitions. The framework has informed identity-based intervention design in education (school-to-college transition programs) and career development (career-pivot decisions, retirement planning). The conceptual link to future self continuity is that FSC measures the binding-strength of any possible self to present identity, while the possible-selves framework measures the content and distribution of specific imagined identities.

The construct was introduced by Hazel Markus (then at the University of Michigan, later at Stanford) and Paula Nurius in their 1986 American Psychologist paper. Markus's prior work on self-schemas (1977, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) had established that self-concept is organized as multiple structured representations rather than a single global identity. The 1986 paper extended this multiplicity to the temporal dimension: in addition to the multiple selves a person currently is, there are multiple selves a person could become, and these future-oriented representations are themselves a structured part of the self-concept.

Markus and Nurius drew on older traditions for the basic intuition. William James's distinction between "I" and "me" in The Principles of Psychology (1890) had identified the self as a structured object of cognition. Carl Rogers's work on the "ideal self" provided a single-aspirational-self framework that Markus and Nurius generalized to a repertoire. Hazel Markus and Ann Ruvolo's 1989 chapter "Possible Selves: Personalized Representations of Goals" (in Pervin, ed., Goal Concepts in Personality and Social Psychology, Erlbaum) extended the framework specifically to goal-directed behavior, providing the bridge to motivation research.

The empirical research program expanded through the late 1980s and 1990s. Daphna Oyserman's work on possible selves in adolescent academic motivation (multiple papers from 1990 onward) established the balanced-repertoire finding that became central to the contemporary literature. Susan Cross and Hazel Markus (1991, Human Development) extended the framework across the lifespan. Robins and Trzesniewski later situated possible selves within broader self-concept measurement work. By the 2000s, possible selves had become one of the standard frameworks for thinking about future-oriented motivation in personality and social psychology, with a substantial intervention literature in education and clinical contexts.

The possible-selves framework operates at the level of specific imagined identities organized by motivational valence. The canonical three-part structure distinguishes hoped-for, expected, and feared possible selves.

Hoped-for possible selves are positive imagined identities the person aspires to become: the successful professional, the loving parent, the accomplished artist. These selves provide direction for approach motivation. A hoped-for self contains specific content (traits, situations, achievements) rather than abstract values. The vividness and detail of the representation matters: a clear, specific hoped-for self generates more motivation than a vague aspiration. Episodic future thinking is the cognitive capacity that produces this specific imagery.

Expected possible selves are realistic anticipations — the person one expects to be regardless of preference. These can match or diverge from hoped-for selves. A large discrepancy between hoped-for and expected can produce either healthy motivation (if the gap feels closeable) or chronic dissatisfaction (if it does not). The discrepancy literature within possible-selves research connects to broader self-discrepancy theory (Higgins 1987).

Feared possible selves are future versions of ourselves we want to avoid, such as becoming isolated from friends or falling behind in school. They name a concern; they do not prove that the outcome will happen. Do not treat this framework as a reason to frighten yourself into action or assume that fear is more effective than hope.

A balanced repertoire includes both a hoped-for and a feared future self in the same area of life: for example, a student who wants to graduate and worries about leaving school. Researchers have studied such combinations alongside practical strategies. Having both images does not by itself establish that someone will act, succeed, or benefit more than someone with a different set of future selves.

Possible-selves measurement varies more than measurement of future self continuity or delay discounting. There is no single dominant validated questionnaire; the construct's specificity (it asks about which imagined identities, not how strongly an identity is felt) requires open-ended or content-coded approaches.

The original Markus and Nurius (1986) approach uses an open-ended generation task. Participants list specific possible selves under each category prompt (hoped-for, expected, feared). The lists are content-coded for domain (academic, relational, occupational, health, material) and for specific content within domain. This approach produces rich data but is labor-intensive to score.

Domain-specific measurement uses closed-ended Likert items targeting specific domains. For example, the academic possible selves scale used in much of Oyserman's work asks participants to rate the strength of hoped-for and feared academic selves on numeric scales. This approach is faster but loses the specificity of content. The trade-off between rich open-ended content and rapid quantitative measurement is unresolved in the field.

The LBL Future Self Continuity Index does not measure possible-selves content directly. The FSCI measures the felt continuity between present and future self regardless of which specific future self is being considered. Possible-selves measurement and FSCI measurement are complementary: a person can have rich and balanced possible-selves repertoires (clear content) but low FSC (those imagined selves feel like different people), or sparse possible-selves repertoires but high FSC (vague future identity but strongly felt as oneself). Researchers needing possible-selves content should use open-ended or domain-specific instruments; the FSCI is appropriate for the identity-binding question.

The framework is one of several future-oriented self-and-identity constructs. The distinctions matter for both theory and intervention design.

vs. future self continuity — possible selves are specific imagined future identities (content); future self continuity is the felt binding-strength of any future self to present identity (relation). The two are partially independent: a person can have rich possible selves with low FSC (vivid content that feels like different people) or sparse possible selves with high FSC (vague content felt strongly as oneself).

vs. episodic future thinking — EFT is the cognitive capacity to simulate specific future events at all. Possible selves are specific imagined future identities. The capacities are related — vivid EFT supports rich possible-selves representations — but distinct. A person with intact EFT may still have impoverished possible-selves repertoires if they have not engaged the framework, and vice versa.

vs. self-discrepancy theory — Higgins's (1987) self-discrepancy theory distinguishes actual, ideal, and ought selves, with discrepancies producing specific emotional consequences (sadness/dejection for actual-vs-ideal; agitation/anxiety for actual-vs-ought). Possible-selves theory is broader: the hoped-for self is roughly the Higgins ideal self, but the framework also includes feared selves (no direct Higgins analog) and expected selves (between ideal and ought). Self-discrepancy theory is more parsimonious; possible-selves is more comprehensive.

vs. identity-based motivation theory — Oyserman's (2007) identity-based motivation theory builds on possible selves to argue that identity-congruent behaviors feel easier and identity-incongruent behaviors feel harder. The theory uses possible-selves content as input and predicts behavior as output through the felt difficulty of action. Possible-selves is the underlying content framework; identity-based motivation is one specific theory of how that content affects behavior.

vs. growth mindset / mindset research — growth mindset (Dweck) is about beliefs about the malleability of traits and abilities. Possible selves are about specific future identity content. The two interact: a growth-mindset person may have more elaborated hoped-for selves because they believe change is possible.

A student's study decision

A college sophomore deciding whether to study for tomorrow's chemistry midterm or watch a streaming series. They imagine themselves in three years applying to medical school with a strong GPA; they also imagine themselves in three years applying with a weak GPA and being rejected. They study.

In this example, the student has both a hoped-for self and a feared self in the same area of life. To turn the reflection into a plan, they could choose a study time, identify a topic they need help with, and ask a teacher about it. This is an illustration, not evidence that picturing both outcomes will improve grades.

A career-pivot consideration

A 38-year-old considers whether to leave a stable job for a more demanding but potentially more meaningful role. They list specific possible selves in each direction: the version of themselves who stays and grows comfortable; the version who leaves and thrives; the version who leaves and fails; the version who stays and grows resentful. Two are hoped-for, two are feared. They decide based partly on which feared self felt more vividly avoidable.

In this example, possible selves help the person put their hopes and worries into words. A useful next step is to check those images against information about the actual role, workload, finances, and support available. The most vivid imagined outcome is not necessarily the most likely one, and the framework cannot decide which job they should choose.

The possible-selves framework has been influential for nearly four decades and has accumulated both replicated findings and methodological critiques.

Measurement heterogeneity. Unlike delay discounting or future self continuity, possible-selves research uses many different measurement approaches: open-ended content generation, closed-ended Likert items, domain-specific scales, qualitative interviews. Cross-study comparison is complicated because the constructs being measured are not standardized. The trade-off between rich open-ended data and quantitative tractability is unresolved.

Popular-framing inflation. Advice to visualize an ideal future can leave out the practical work and circumstances that shape what happens next. Replacing that advice with a claim that fear always works better would also overstate the evidence. A future-self exercise is a prompt for reflection, not a promise of behavior change.

Cultural variance. Like much of contemporary social and personality psychology, the possible-selves literature has been built predominantly on WEIRD samples. The framework's emphasis on individual future self-construction may not generalize directly to cultural contexts with stronger interdependent self-construals, where possible selves may be constructed more collectively (family futures, community futures) rather than individually. Some adaptation work has been done but cross-cultural validation remains incomplete.

Intervention effect-size variability. Possible-selves-based interventions in education have documented effects on academic outcomes. Oyserman, Bybee and Terry (2006, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) tested the School-to-Jobs intervention in a randomized study of n=141 experimental and n=123 control low-income 8th graders, with effects on academic initiative, GPA, and behavior sustained through two years of follow-up. Effect sizes vary substantially across samples and contexts. Meta-analytic synthesis is complicated by measurement heterogeneity. The honest reading is that balanced possible-selves repertoires predict outcomes correlationally and that interventions can shift repertoires, but the practical effect sizes are modest and require sustained implementation rather than brief manipulation.

Content versus process question. The framework specifies that possible-selves content matters but is less clear about how the content produces behavior. Multiple mediating processes have been proposed (identity-congruent feels-easy mechanism in identity-based motivation theory; approach-avoidance balance in balanced-repertoires work; felt-difficulty mechanism in Oyserman's later work). The proliferation of mechanism candidates reflects the framework's flexibility but also a relative under-specification of its predictions.

The LBL Future Self Continuity Index measures the felt continuity between present and future self — complementary to possible-selves measurement, which captures the content and distribution of specific imagined future identities. Possible selves and FSC are partially independent: a person can have rich, balanced possible-selves repertoires (clear content) but low FSC (those imagined selves feel like different people), or sparse repertoires but high FSC. Researchers needing possible-selves content data should use open-ended generation tasks or domain-specific scales; the FSCI is appropriate for the identity-binding question and connects directly to the inter-temporal-choice literature where FSC is the established mediator.

Possible selves are specific imagined future identities — the people one hopes to become, expects to become, or fears becoming. The framework was introduced by Hazel Markus and Paula Nurius in their 1986 American Psychologist paper as a cognitive-motivational construct linking self-concept to behavior. The framework distinguishes hoped-for, expected, and feared possible selves. Hazel Markus and Ann Ruvolo's 1989 chapter extended the framework specifically to goal-directed behavior. Daphna Oyserman and colleagues studied connections between future identities, practical strategies, and context. A balanced set of hopes and worries should not be read as a guarantee of better outcomes or a reason to treat fear as the best motivator. The framework is distinct from but complementary to future self continuity (which measures the felt binding-strength of future selves), episodic future thinking (which is the cognitive capacity to simulate future events), and self-discrepancy theory (which is more parsimonious but less comprehensive). Honest limitations include measurement heterogeneity (no dominant validated questionnaire), popular-framing inflation (hoped-for-only configurations are over-emphasized in self-help adaptations), WEIRD-sample dominance, and variable intervention effect sizes. Intertemporal choice contexts — retirement saving, career pivots, health-behavior decisions — engage possible-selves repertoires when the decisions matter enough to invite elaborated future-self construction.

This entry is intended as a citable scholarly reference. Choose the format that matches your context. The retrieval date should reflect when you accessed the page, which may differ from the entry's last-reviewed date shown above.

LifeByLogic. (2026). Possible Selves: Examples of Who You Could Become. https://lifebylogic.com/glossary/possible-selves/

LifeByLogic. "Possible Selves: Examples of Who You Could Become." LifeByLogic, May 18 2026, https://lifebylogic.com/glossary/possible-selves/.

LifeByLogic. 2026. "Possible Selves: Examples of Who You Could Become." May 18. https://lifebylogic.com/glossary/possible-selves/.

@misc{lblpossibleselves2026,
  author = {{LifeByLogic}},
  title = {Possible Selves: Examples of Who You Could Become},
  year = {2026},
  month = {may},
  publisher = {LifeByLogic},
  url = {https://lifebylogic.com/glossary/possible-selves/},
  note = {Accessed: 2026-05-18}
}