Consider Dave, a carpenter who works 50 hours a week. Dave has never really stopped to think about how he feels toward standardized work weeks and labor regulations, or work ethic in general. One evening, at the bar, a friend mentions something intriguing: in France, they have a 35-hour work week. She even recounts an article she read about increased productivity gains at companies that introduced four-day work weeks. Dave has never heard such talk and doesn’t have any preexisting attitudes toward the concept. When someone asks what he thinks, he supposes that even 40 hours isn’t that much. After all, he tends to work 50.

In that moment, Dave forms an attitude by reflecting on his own behavior. Because he regularly works longer hours, he infers that he must value long work weeks or view them as reasonable. His belief doesn’t precede his behavior—it’s actually shaped by it. This is the essence of self-perception theory: when our feelings or opinions are ambiguous, we look to our actions for clues about what we believe.

Conventional wisdom suggests that the relationship between attitudes and behaviors is a one-way, linear process. That is, our attitudes shape our behaviors. For instance, if someone believes that healthy eating is important, that attitude might lead them to cook nutritious meals at home. So the idea that behavior could shape attitude, rather than the other way around, can feel counterintuitive. It seems backwards to suggest that consistently preparing healthy meals might lead someone to adopt a belief in healthy eating, rather than that belief motivating the behavior in the first place. Yet if we think about how we perceive others, it makes sense. If we see someone cooking healthy meals, we infer that they must value health and nutrition. 

Self-perception theory is an account of attitude formation that argues for a causal link between our behaviors and attitudes. When an individual lacks initial attitudes or their sentiments are unclear, they may start to observe their own behavior to determine their beliefs.  It’s similar to how we would infer another individual’s inner state by observing their behavior.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory: A state of discomfort following information that is inconsistent with one’s existing attitudes or beliefs. (See more on the concept here.)

Philosophy of Mind: A branch of philosophy that explores the nature of the mind, consciousness, and mental states, and how they relate to the body, particularly the brain.

Behaviorist: A psychologist who studies and explains behavior primarily through observable actions and external stimuli, rather than internal thoughts or emotions.

Covert behaviors: Internal or hidden actions that cannot be directly observed by others, such as thoughts, feelings, and mental processes. They contrast with overt behaviors, which are outward and observable.

Foot-in-the-door technique: A persuasion strategy whereby someone first asks for a small, easily agreed-to request, and then follows it with a larger, related request. Agreeing to the small request increases the likelihood that the person will also agree to a larger one.

Positive cueing: A behavioral intervention technique used primarily in environmental and social marketing contexts. It involves highlighting the pro-environmental impact of everyday behaviors that people already perform, such as turning off lights or recycling, to encourage further sustainable actions.

Self-perception theory was first proposed by Daryl Bem in 1967 as a way of addressing empirically certain questions in the “philosophy of mind.”¹ For example, if an individual says, “I am hungry,” how do they know this? Is it through observation, inference, or direct knowledge?⁷ Bem argued that psychologists had left these questions to philosophers for too long and that it was time scientists took them more seriously. 

However, one person had previously attempted to answer such profound questions: American psychologist and behaviorist B. F. Skinner. His “radical-behavioral” analysis of private events heavily inspired Bem’s self-perception theory (Bem even admitted to possessing a ‘Skinnerian bias’).⁷ Skinner argued that even internal experiences like thoughts and feelings could be understood through observable behavior and environmental context. According to his theory, behavior is shaped and maintained by its consequences—reinforcement and punishment—rather than by introspective insight. For Skinner, what we consider internal mental states are simply covert behaviors that follow the same principles as any other action. This view laid the groundwork for Bem’s idea that we come to understand ourselves in much the same way we understand others: by observing behavior and drawing conclusions from what we see.

Fast forward a couple of decades, and Bem drew a key parallel between self-perception theory and the inferences we make regarding others’ attitudes. He proposed that the assumptions we make about our own attitudes are similar to those an external observer would make based on our behavior. In other words, we often interpret our own actions from the outside in, just as we might judge someone else’s beliefs based on what they do and the context in which they do it. As Bem explained, “Just as a communicator is more persuasive to others if he is known to be receiving no payment for his communication, so too, it is found that he is more likely to believe himself under such circumstances.”¹ This statement highlights how the absence of external incentives—like money or pressure—leads both the audience and the speaker to infer that the speaker must truly believe what they're saying. In this way, self-perception is not just a private process but mirrors the social reasoning we apply to others.

Bem also presented self-perception theory as an alternative explanation to Leon Festinger’s 1957 cognitive dissonance theory. While cognitive dissonance theory suggests that people change their attitudes to reduce psychological discomfort caused by conflicting beliefs and behaviors, Bem had another idea. He believed that attitude change can occur simply through observing one’s own behavior in a rational, dispassionate way, without the need for internal tension or discomfort.

Bem developed his self-perception theory through a series of experiments. In one, known as the cartoon experiment, participants were asked to rate how funny they found a series of cartoons.¹³ However, there was a twist. While watching the cartoons, some participants held a pen between their teeth, which activates the muscles used in smiling. The other participants held a pen in a way that prevented them from smiling (e.g., between their lips). Those participants who were unknowingly smiling (with the pen between their teeth) rated the cartoons as funnier than those who weren’t smiling.

So what does this tell us? It’s a creative and quite entertaining way of demonstrating that when people aren’t sure how they feel, they observe their own behavior for clues. In this experiment, the participants who had pens between their teeth noticed subconsciously that they were smiling. From observing this behavior, they inferred that they must be amused by the cartoon. In other words, rather than thinking “this cartoon made me smile because I found it funny,” they think “I’m smiling, so I must find this cartoon funny.”

Since Bem introduced self-perception theory to the world of science, researchers have been confirming its existence and seeing how it affects us in a range of contexts. Tiffany Ito and her colleagues from the University of Colorado, for example, used the same pencil-in-the-mouth technique to see if facial changes could trigger shifts in racial bias among participants.⁸ Participants were asked to look at anonymous photographs of Black and White male individuals. All participants were induced to smile using a pencil, but one group of participants only did this for the White subjects and not the Black subjects. Those participants who were artificially smiling while looking at Black subjects showed less implicit prejudice towards Black men compared to participants who were not smiling. In other words, their behavior (smiling or not smiling) influenced their racial attitudes, even without them being consciously aware of it.

Daryl Bem

A social psychologist at Cornell University, Bem is known for first proposing self-perception theory in the 1960s. He also happens to be known as a proponent of parapsychology, where he published a paper offering statistical evidence for “precognition,” a phenomenon that has been deemed pseudoscience by a number of academics.

Burrhus Frederic Skinner

An American psychologist and behaviorist who is commonly referred to as the father of operant conditioning. B.F. Skinner introduced this theory in his 1938 book, The Behavior of Organisms, which was influential in reinforcing behaviorism as a mainstream school of thought in psychology.

Leon Festinger 

American social psychologist best known for developing the theory of cognitive dissonance, which explains how people strive for internal consistency and how they adjust beliefs or behaviors when faced with conflicting information. A pioneering figure in experimental social psychology, he also contributed to social comparison theory, exploring how individuals evaluate themselves by comparing themselves to others. 

Although self-perception theory was initially seen by some as a concept that challenged cognitive dissonance theory, further research building on Bem’s work has concluded that self-perception theory and cognitive dissonance theory do indeed have different applications. Researchers like Mark Zanna, Joel Cooper, and Russell Fazio conducted experiments that supported the idea that both theories are valid but operate under different psychological conditions.^14,15 In one experiment, Zanna and Cooper investigated whether cognitive dissonance creates psychological arousal by giving participants a placebo pill and manipulating what they were told about its effects.¹⁴ They found that participants who expected the pill would relax them showed more attitude change than those who believed their arousal was caused by the pill,  supporting the idea that awareness of arousal affects cognitive dissonance.

The two phenomena, therefore, are complements rather than substitutes.² The critical difference is that self-perception theory relates to situations where an individual’s attitude is ambiguous or weak. Consider the earlier example of Dave the carpenter. Had Dave had an existing strong belief in work ethic along with an aversion to idleness, his rejection of his friend’s comments around shortened work weeks could be labeled cognitive dissonance, as the information she was presenting was inconsistent with his existing beliefs. However, in the case where his attitude was unclear, he presumably relied on the observation of his own behavior to inform his attitude.

Self-perception theory is relevant across a range of diverse fields, from marketing and psychotherapy to influencing how people travel.

Marketing

Self-perception theory has had notable consequences in marketing and consumer research. The well-known foot-in-the-door technique involves getting a customer to agree to a small request to create a connection and increase the chances of a larger commitment down the road. According to some researchers, this tactic draws from the self-perception process. As the authors of a paper from The Association of Consumer Research wrote, “it is hypothesized that the foot-in-the-door is effective because people use their own behavior as a cue regarding their attitudinal dispositions. Since external pressure for the initial behavior is assumed to be minimal, people infer a positive attitude from their compliant behavior, which in turn guides subsequent action.”³ 

For example, say a salesman offers you a free sample of their product. When you accept, you may unconsciously view yourself as open, helpful, or interested, which makes you more likely to say yes when they later ask you to purchase the full product. This idea was first explored in a classic 1966 study by social psychologists Jonathan Freedman and Scott Fraser, where researchers asked homeowners to do a small favor, like signing a petition about safe driving.¹⁸ Weeks later, those same homeowners were far more likely to agree to placing a large, unsightly “Drive Safely” sign in their yard compared to those who weren’t asked for the initial favor. The small act of compliance had apparently shifted how they saw themselves, paving the way for a much larger commitment.

The foot-in-the-door technique remains a compelling example of how self-perception can be harnessed to guide consumer behavior, especially when initial requests are low-pressure and framed as voluntary.

Psychotherapy

Self perception theory has also been applied in psychotherapeutic settings, where it provides a framework for understanding how self-described attitudes and beliefs may emerge and evolve during counseling.⁴ In therapy, individuals often explore feelings that are unclear or only partially formed, relying on their own behavior and experiences to make sense of them. For instance, a person recovering from alcoholism might look back and notice they consistently drank before meeting a particular individual. Because of this behavioral pattern, they might infer that the person made them anxious, even if they didn't experience anxiety at the time. In this case, the individual used their past behavior as a clue to understand their emotional responses, illustrating how self-perception processes can unfold in introspective, therapeutic contexts.

Self-perception theory has also been applied in psychotherapy for addressing heterosocial (opposite-sex) anxiety, where individuals may come to believe they have poor social skills simply because they have had few or no dating experiences. In such cases, people interpret their lack of behavior (e.g., not dating) as evidence of an underlying deficiency, reinforcing social anxiety. A study by Robert Montgomery and Fred Haemmerlie demonstrated that therapeutic interventions which encourage individuals to engage in low-pressure social interactions—such as casual conversations—can help shift this self-perception.⁵ As individuals begin to observe themselves acting socially and competently, their confidence improves, and anxiety decreases, showing how changing behavior can reshape self-beliefs in a clinical setting.

Influencing routines and behaviors

Research suggests that self-perception theory can be leveraged to encourage people to choose more environmentally friendly modes of transport. In a study conducted by Johan Joubert and Gerhard Hitge, an agent-based simulation model was used to explore how a one-time cycling experience could influence long-term travel choices in Cape Town, South Africa.¹⁰ The researchers programmed virtual agents to try cycling for a single day and found that those who had a positive experience were more likely to adopt cycling as part of their daily routine. Although not tested with humans, these insights can be used to develop realistic, low-pressure interventions that encourage people to take up more sustainable travel habits. 

On the other hand, behavior change approaches based on self-perception theory may not always work. Positive cueing, for example, is a social marketing technique that involves reminding individuals of environmentally friendly behaviors they already perform—like turning off lights or reusing shopping bags—to encourage further pro-environmental actions. The assumption, based on self-perception theory, is that positive cueing causes people to infer a “green” identity from their past behaviors.

However, recent research by Kobe Millet and Bert Weijters suggests a different mechanism.¹⁶ Through a survey of participants in the UK, they found that positive cueing often does not change self-identity, but instead simply raises awareness of how many everyday actions are environmentally relevant. This increased awareness—not a shift in self-perception—can still lead to more eco-friendly choices, especially low-cost ones that don’t strongly signal identity. 

As mentioned earlier, the initial view that self-perception theory and cognitive dissonance were competitive theories sparked controversy. Since then, it has become accepted that both theories apply in different situations. However, this can still cause debate. It’s not always clear whether someone’s attitudes are vague or predefined, so in non-experimental settings, determining whether an individual’s response was cognitive dissonance or self-perception might be challenging under certain conditions.¹⁴

Foot-in-the-door technique

The notion that self-perception theory underlies the foot-in-the-door (FITD) technique has also been challenged. In a 1999 study, psychologist Jerry Burger at Santa Clara University concluded that the two phenomena are not necessarily linked. While self-perception may contribute to FITD—i.e., people might infer their willingness or helpfulness from agreeing to an initial small request—Burger argued that other psychological processes, such as norm conformity and commitment, play a more significant role. For example, once someone agrees to a small request, they may feel a social or internal pressure to appear consistent or cooperative, leading them to comply with a larger request. This is not necessarily because they’ve re-evaluated their self-concept, but because they want to honor a perceived obligation or avoid social discomfort. Burger’s findings suggest that compliance in FITD interventions is often driven more by social norms and commitment cues than by self-perceived attitude change alone.

Attitude formation

Another point of contention involves the assumed neutrality of self-perception. Critics, such as Elliot Aronson and Anthony Greenwald, argue that the theory may oversimplify how people form attitudes by assuming individuals are passive observers of their own behavior.^11,12 In reality, people may bring biases, prior beliefs, or emotional reactions into the process of interpreting their actions—especially in situations involving moral decisions, identity, or social pressure. In high-stakes or emotionally charged contexts, people may try to rationalize behavior rather than neutrally infer attitudes from it. For example, if someone cheats on a test, they may try to justify their behavior by arguing that everyone else was doing it, rather than concluding that they don’t value academic honesty or hard work. 

Self-perception theory and tourism

For many communities, tourism is a double-edged sword. While it often generates large amounts of income for the local economy, it can also have many unwanted effects, such as overcrowding, higher prices, and environmental degradation. The situation is complex, and attitudes toward inviting temporary visitors to an area are usually influenced by several factors. Previous studies have relied heavily on demographic information (such as income, age, and education) and proximity to tourist areas to explore this issue. 

However, researchers from several universities in the United States used self-perception theory to explore how people’s own travel behavior affects their views on tourism in their communities.⁹ They hypothesized that residents’ personal travel histories—how often and where they travel—would shape how they perceive tourism in their own communities. In other words, people who travel more might develop more supportive attitudes toward tourism because they’ve seen its benefits elsewhere. Those who haven’t traveled, however, would be less likely to support tourism. 

The study was carried out in Galveston County, Texas, a popular tourist destination due to its beaches, historic landmarks, and cruise port. The researchers surveyed 446 residents using the Tourism Impact Attitude Scale (TIAS) to measure their attitudes toward tourism. They also gathered data on each participant’s Travel Use History (TUH), including how many trips they took, where they went, and whether they had traveled internationally in the previous two years. 

The results of the survey confirmed the hypothesis that people’s attitudes towards tourism can be shaped by their own travel behaviors. Intermediate and frequent travelers were more supportive of tourism development than infrequent travelers, and those who had traveled internationally showed even greater support. Interestingly, frequent international travelers were sometimes less enthusiastic about tourism in their community. This is possibly because they had witnessed the negative impacts of tourism abroad and were more cautious about overdevelopment. 

How sustainable do you think you are?

With climate change posing a serious threat to our planet, we all like to think that we’re doing our bit to improve the situation. However, there’s often a disparity between how green we think we are and how much our behaviors are actually saving the planet. 

One study looked at how using green products—like eco-friendly headphones or pens—affects how Generation Z consumers see themselves and their willingness to pay for sustainable goods.¹⁷ Through four lab experiments and three replication studies in a college campus in the country of Georgia, the authors tested whether using green products could enhance self-image and, in turn, influence future purchasing decisions.

In each experiment, participants were randomly assigned to use either a green (eco-friendly) product or a conventional one, such as bamboo versus plastic pens or eco-friendly headphones. After using the product, they completed surveys measuring their self-perception, willingness to pay more, and likelihood of future purchase. The lab studies created controlled conditions, while the field studies replicated the setup in everyday environments.

The results of the study showed that consumers who were made aware they were using green products felt better about themselves and were more inclined to choose sustainable options again in the future. The effect even extended to social worth, with users of the eco-products believing that others viewed them more positively because of their green choices. Similar to the cycling study in South Africa, these findings can help marketers increase sales of sustainable items by leveraging self-perception theory. 

I Think, Therefore I Am

This article explores how our perception of our own abilities can directly influence how we perform. Drawing from organizational behavior research, Andrew Lewis looks at how performance isn’t just about skill or effort—it’s also shaped by how capable we believe ourselves to be. When people view themselves as competent or aligned with a certain role or identity, they tend to focus more, persist longer, and perform better. In short, how we see ourselves mentally can have a powerful impact on how we behave in practice.

Gender and Self-perception in Competition

Though not directly related to self-perception theory, this article looks at how self-perception may be guided by social stereotypes, particularly around gender. Andrew Lewis explores research showing that women may avoid competitive settings not due to lack of ability, but because of internalized norms about gender roles. He also underscores how cultural expectations can subtly influence how we see ourselves and the choices we make.

1. Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological review, 74(3), 183.
2. Fazio, R. H., Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. (1977). Dissonance and self-perception: An integrative view of each theory’s proper domain of application. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(5), 464-479.
3. Sternthal, B., Scott, C. A., & Dholakia, R. R. (1976). Self-Perception as a Means of Personal Influence: The Foot-in-the-Door Technique. ACR North American Advances.
4. Robak, R. W. (2001). Self-definition in psychotherapy: is it time to revisit self-perception theory?. North American Journal of Psychology, 3(3).
5. Montgomery, R. L., & Haemmerlie, F. M. (1986). Self-perception theory and the reduction of heterosocial anxiety. Journal of social and clinical psychology, 4(4), 503-512.
6. Burger, J. M. (1999). The foot-in-the-door compliance procedure: A multiple-process analysis and review. Personality and social psychology review, 3(4), 303-325.
7. Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-Perception Theory. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 2-57. 
8. Ito, T. A., Chiao, K. W., Devine, P. G., Lorig, T. S., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2006). The Influence of Facial Feedback on Race Bias. Psychological Science, 17(3), 256-261. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01694.x 
9. Woosnam, K. M. (2017). Applying self-perception theory to explain residents’ attitudes about tourism development through travel histories. Tourism Management, 64, 357-368. 
10.   Joubert, J. W., & Hitge, G. (2023). Testing self-perception theory with agent-based simulation, Procedia Computer Science, 220, 730-734. 
11. Greenwald, A. G. (1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history. American Psychologist, 35(7), 603–618.
12. Aronson, E. (1969). The theory of cognitive dissonance: A current perspective. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.
13. Bem, D. J. (1965). An experimental analysis of self-persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 199-218. 
14. Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. (1974). Dissonance and the pill: An attribution approach to studying the arousal properties of dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(5), 703–709. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036651
15. Fazio, R. H., Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. (1977). Dissonance and self-perception: An integrative view of each theory's proper domain of application. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(5), 464–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(77)90031-2
16. Millet, K., & Weijters, B. (2023). The behavioral intervention “positive cueing”: Altering self-perception, increasing green awareness, or undermining the signaling value of costly green behavior? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 87, 101979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2023.101979
17. Arian, M., Khoshtaria, T., Metin, M., & Asashvili, L. (2024). The effect of consumption experience on self-perception, willingness to pay, and purchase intention toward green products among Generation Z. International Journal of Green Economics, 18, 318-337. 10.1504/IJGE.2024.141406. 
18. Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(2), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023552