Personal Branding as Rational Manifestation: How Aligning Inner Identity with Outer Expression Creates Desired Outcomes

Personal branding is manifestation stripped of mysticism—a systematic process where articulating identity, taking intentional action, and creating public accountability activates proven psychological mechanisms that drive goal achievement. The connection isn't metaphysical but mechanical: when you clarify who you are internally and express it consistently externally, you reprogram your attention system, activate identity-based motivation, trigger social accountability, engineer serendipity, and create compound reputation effects that generate disproportionate opportunities. Research shows public commitment with accountability increases goal achievement from 35% to 95%[1], while the combination of identity clarity, visible progress, and network effects creates exponential rather than linear returns. This isn't cosmic alignment—it's applied cognitive science combined with social psychology and network dynamics.

Personal branding matters because it forces the inner work of self-discovery while simultaneously creating outer structures—public visibility, accountability, and proof of work—that transform vague aspirations into identity-defining commitments. The result is a self-reinforcing system where clarity drives action, action builds reputation, reputation creates opportunities, and opportunities validate identity. This report synthesizes research from neuroscience, psychology, network theory, and behavioral economics to explain exactly how and why this process works.

The cognitive neuroscience behind "manifestation actually works"

The scientific basis for manifestation lies in how our brains filter reality and prepare for action. The Reticular Activating System, a network of nuclei in the brainstem, acts as an attention gatekeeper that filters sensory information based on current goals and beliefs[2],[3]. When you consciously set specific goals, you literally reprogram what your RAS allows into conscious awareness. This explains why setting clear intentions makes opportunities suddenly "appear"—they were always present, but your attention system now highlights goal-relevant information that was previously filtered as background noise.

Goal-setting theory, developed through 35 years of research by Locke and Latham involving over 40,000 participants across 100+ tasks, demonstrates that specific, difficult goals produce effect sizes of d = .52 to .82 compared to vague "do your best" instructions[4],[5]. The mechanisms are direct: goals direct attention toward goal-relevant activities, energize greater effort, increase persistence, and promote development of task strategies. Critically, self-set personal goals act as the "motivation hub"—the most immediate conscious determinants of action that mediate effects of external factors like assigned goals, incentives, and feedback[5].

Implementation intentions (Gollwitzer's "if-then" plans) amplify this effect dramatically. By specifying exactly when and how to act ("if situation X occurs, then I will do Y"), you delegate control to environmental cues, creating automatic stimulus-response links that bypass willpower[6],[7]. Research shows implementation intentions increase completion rates for difficult projects from roughly 25% to 60-65%—a 2.4x improvement[7],[8]. The mechanism works by enhancing accessibility of specified opportunities and automating goal-directed responses, reducing cognitive load.

Mental rehearsal and visualization activate the same neural circuits as actual execution. Motor imagery research using fMRI shows that imagining movement engages primary motor cortex, premotor areas, and supplementary motor regions—the brain literally "practices" intended actions[9],[10]. This mental chronometry demonstrates remarkable precision: the time to imagine a movement matches actual execution time. Critically, research by Taylor and Pham found that visualizing the process of achieving goals (not just outcomes) improved performance, confidence, and reduced stress[11]. The neural preparation created by conscious intention increases cortical excitability in target-specific motor circuits, essentially pre-activating relevant systems before action begins[12],[13].

Three cognitive biases make manifestation "appear magical" when it's actually predictable psychology. Confirmation bias causes people to selectively search for information confirming preconceptions while dismissing contradictory evidence—once you set an intention, you unconsciously seek confirming signs[14]. Availability heuristic means easily-recalled instances feel more frequent; after focusing on a goal, related examples become more memorable, creating subjective perception that opportunities are increasing when you're simply noticing more. Self-fulfilling prophecies complete the loop: beliefs influence physiology (dopamine release, motivation), physiology affects behavior, behavior shapes environmental responses, and environmental responses confirm original beliefs[15],[16]. The classic Pygmalion Effect demonstrated this when teachers told certain students were "bloomers" resulted in those students showing greater intellectual growth—expectations created differential treatment that confirmed the initial false belief.

The scientific model is clear: (1) specific goals reprogram attention filtering, (2) implementation plans automate opportunity-seizing, (3) mental rehearsal prepares neural systems, and (4) cognitive biases amplify perceived success. Combined effect sizes across thousands of studies show manifestation through focused intention plus strategic action produces measurable, replicable improvements of 42-82% in goal attainment. This isn't magic—it's neuroscience.

How personal branding forces the identity clarity that activates psychological mechanisms

Personal branding functions as a "trojan horse" for identity work because it demands specificity that transforms vague self-knowledge into actionable clarity. Self-concept clarity—"the extent to which self-beliefs are clearly and confidently defined, internally consistent, and temporally stable"—predicts better decision-making, more stable behavior, reduced anxiety, and stronger goal pursuit[17],[18]. Research shows high self-concept clarity correlates with higher self-esteem, lower neuroticism, reduced depression, and greater life satisfaction[18],[19]. The mechanism is cognitive: clarity reduces ambiguity, making experiences more coherent and comprehensible, which lowers cognitive load in decision-making.

Possible Selves theory explains why articulated identity drives behavior. Possible selves are "cognitive components of hopes, fears, goals, and threats" that provide direction to motivation—they represent what you might become, would like to become, or fear becoming[20],[21]. Crucially, research distinguishes self-regulatory possible selves (detailed, specific, include behavioral strategies) from self-enhancing possible selves (abstract, vague). Only self-regulatory possible selves directly influence behavior. The finding: "For possible selves to be effective motivators, they should be formulated as specifically as possible and their content should relate to strategies of achieving the hoped-for state"[21]. Personal branding forces this specification—you cannot build a brand around "I want to be successful"; you must define what success means, what specific expertise you offer, and how you'll demonstrate it.

Self-Determination Theory identifies three innate psychological needs: autonomy (feeling self-directed), competence (feeling effective), and relatedness (feeling connected)[22],[23]. When satisfied, these needs produce enhanced motivation, performance, and well-being. Research shows "comparisons between people whose motivation is authentic (literally, self-authored or endorsed) and those who are merely externally controlled typically reveal that the former have more interest, excitement, and confidence, which in turn manifest as enhanced performance, persistence, and creativity"[22],[24]. Personal branding satisfies all three needs simultaneously: it's self-authored expression (autonomy), demonstrates expertise publicly (competence), and builds genuine audience connections (relatedness).

Self-concordant goals—goals aligned with authentic interests and values—predict sustained effort and goal attainment[25],[26],[27]. Research demonstrates pursuing self-concordant goals leads to increased positive emotions and satisfaction, enhancing motivation to exert effort and facilitating smoother achievement. The Self-Concordance Model shows a virtuous cycle: self-concordant goals → sustained effort → goal attainment → need satisfaction → enhanced well-being → more self-concordant future goals[26],[27],[28]. Critically, "selecting self-concordant goals may comprise a 'difficult skill,' necessitating precise self-awareness"[29]. Clear identity enables recognition of which goals are truly authentic versus externally imposed.

The identity clarity cascade works like this: articulation forces conscious processing (vague self-knowledge becomes explicit), creates specificity (abstract traits become concrete behaviors), enables self-concordance detection (clear identity reveals authentic versus imposed goals), generates public commitment (private intentions become public declarations), and activates self-regulation (specific ideal self highlights discrepancies and provides behavioral roadmap). A longitudinal study confirmed "ego identity (a clear sense of who one is) positively predicts goal self-concordance over time"[27]. Without identity clarity, people pursue goals misaligned with their authentic selves, leading to poor persistence and reduced well-being. Personal branding forces the clarity that prevents this costly misalignment.

Public visibility converts private intentions into social contracts that dramatically increase follow-through

The Matthews study at Dominican University with 267 participants across multiple professions provides the clearest evidence for public commitment's power[30]. Results showed stark differences: unwritten goals achieved 4.28/10, written goals 6.08/10 (42% improvement), but written goals plus commitments shared with friends plus weekly progress reports achieved 7.6/10—a 77% improvement over unwritten goals. The American Society of Training and Development research found even more dramatic effects: having an idea yields 10% completion likelihood, writing it down increases to 25%, committing to someone else reaches 65%, but accountability appointments with progress reports achieve 95% completion rates[1].

Three mechanisms explain this power. Social pressure creates external motivation when internal motivation wanes, leveraging our fundamental desire to be seen as consistent and trustworthy while introducing reputational stakes. Responsibility to others transforms personal commitment into interpersonal obligation, activating different neural pathways than self-directed goals and pushing individuals to keep promises to maintain relationships. Regular check-ins prevent rationalization and goal abandonment while creating milestone awareness and opportunities for course correction. Data from StickK.com confirms: no supporters yields 45% success, multiple supporters 60%, and public referee versus private self-refereeing produces 62% versus 37% success rates[31].

Cialdini's commitment and consistency principle explains the psychology: "Once we have made a choice or taken a stand, we will encounter personal and interpersonal pressures to behave consistently with that commitment"[32],[33]. Being inconsistent is socially costly (perceived as wishy-washy, unreliable), while consistency is viewed as rational and trustworthy[33],[34]. Research shows commitments are most binding when they are active (spoken or written versus thought), public (made in front of others), and voluntary (freely chosen versus assigned)[34],[35],[36]. This trifecta creates maximum psychological binding.

The "foot-in-the-door" technique demonstrates how small initial commitments alter self-image, making larger consistent requests more likely[37]. Behavior tells us about ourselves—it's a primary source of belief information. The Korean War POW example illustrates this: Chinese captors created "collaborators" by starting with small innocuous commitments, building gradually to larger ones, and making commitments written and public[38]. When individuals publicly articulate a personal brand, they trigger a self-image mechanism where "I am a [professional identity]" becomes self-defining, and subsequent behavior must align or create cognitive dissonance.

Visibility itself creates performance pressure and motivation. The "watching eyes" study by Bateson, Nettle, and Roberts showed that mere images of eyes increased prosocial behavior—cues of being watched enhance cooperation even with non-real observers[39],[40]. Neuroscience research by Izuma and colleagues found that medial prefrontal cortex (involved in mentalizing and self-related processing) activates when processing one's reputation. Klein's research showed that perceived relative status of goal audience positively relates to goal commitment—making goals known to higher-status individuals increases commitment and downstream performance through "evaluation apprehension"[41],[42].

Personal branding creates perpetual visibility fundamentally different from temporary accountability. It establishes a persistent audience (permanent observer effect), distributed observation (multiple stakeholders across contexts), reputation stakes (brand equity directly tied to consistency), and digital permanence (online presence creates lasting record). This makes personal branding function as a soft pre-commitment device—voluntary adoption with social consequences for failure, creating persistent constraint tied to core self-concept rather than specific behaviors[36],[43]. The effectiveness scales with audience size and importance, creating self-imposed social costs for giving up that grow over time.

Network effects transform visibility into exponentially compounding opportunities

Mark Granovetter's "Strength of Weak Ties" (nearly 70,000 citations) fundamentally changed understanding of which relationships matter for opportunity creation. His research demonstrated that weak ties—casual acquaintances and loose connections—are more valuable than strong ties for accessing novel information and opportunities[44],[45],[46]. The mechanism: strong ties cluster in the same networks with redundant information; weak ties bridge to different social circles with non-redundant information. A five-year LinkedIn experiment with 20 million people confirmed the theory: moderately weak ties proved most effective for job mobility, particularly in digital industries[47]. Given that 85% of jobs are filled through networking[48], personal branding's ability to exponentially increase weak tie connections directly translates to opportunity access.

Preferential attachment explains why visibility compounds. The principle: nodes with higher degree have stronger ability to attract new links—success breeds success, creating "the rich get richer" dynamics[49],[50]. This generates power law distributions where a small number of "hubs" accumulate disproportionate connections[50],[51]. In practice: the more visible you are, the more likely you are to receive new connections. Each piece of content, speaking engagement, or publication increases the probability of future opportunities. LinkedIn research confirms professionals with established personal brands are 20x more likely to be noticed by recruiters, and 70% of employers screen candidates on social media[52]. Initial visibility investments compound over time through preferential attachment, creating cumulative advantage.

Serendipity is not luck—it's "an emergent property of social networks" that can be systematically engineered through frequency (consistent cadence of encounters and output), density (spaces conducive to relevant conversations), and catalysts (factors accelerating trust and connections)[53]. The Paris Jussieu study found that when labs were randomly reshuffled, researchers were 3-5x more likely to collaborate with new neighbors and produced higher-quality work. Harvard Business School research showed scientists with serendipitous encounters co-authored 1.2 more papers and cited each other's work significantly more[54],[55]. Consistent content creation increases the surface area for serendipitous connections—each piece of public work creates collision opportunities with unexpected valuable connections.

Social capital theory (Putnam, Lin) frames personal branding as systematic investment in social relations with expected returns[56]. It operates through three dimensions: structural (network ties and configuration), relational (trust, norms, obligations), and cognitive (shared language and narratives). Personal brands function as "reputational signals" that reduce uncertainty for potential connections, enabling both bonding capital (strong ties for emotional support) and bridging capital (weak ties for information access). The network effects are exponential: each new connection increases the value of the network for all participants, creating returns that are exponential rather than linear.

Research from APCO Worldwide (20+ years of data) confirms "reputation precedes and builds trust. Trust is an outcome of a strong reputation"[57]. The progression moves through calculative trust (based on reputation), cognitive trust (based on competence and reliability), to affective trust (based on emotional bonds)[58],[59],[60]. Critically, reputation has a positive effect on calculative trust, and only affective trust leads directly to greater relationship investment and confidential communication[60],[61]. This creates self-reinforcing cycles: good reputation → trust → opportunities → enhanced reputation. Studies found 65.5% of companies reported decreased profitability due to lack of trust, and 61% experienced customer attrition—demonstrating the tangible business impact of reputation capital[61].

The compound effects manifest through reciprocity norms. Social exchange theory and Gouldner's norm of reciprocity (1960) establish that "an offer of a benefit generates an obligation to reciprocate in kind"[62],[63]. Generalized reciprocity—contributing to a community with expectation that the community will provide value back—explains "karmic equity" from a rational, game-theoretic perspective[64]. Consistent public contribution (thought leadership, helpful content, facilitating connections) creates rational expectation of return not from any specific person but from the network as a whole. Research shows reciprocity strengthens relationships, increases job satisfaction, and drives participation in collaborative systems. Those seen as helpful receive disproportionate introductions and opportunities—short-term "giving" yields long-term returns through enhanced reputation and network effects.

The self-reinforcing feedback loop between inner work and outer work generates sustainable motivation

Personal branding creates conditions for flow—the state where "people are so involved in an activity that nothing else seems to matter; the experience itself is so enjoyable that they will do it even at great cost, for the sheer sake of doing it" (Csikszentmihalyi)[65],[66],[67]. Flow requires clear goals, immediate feedback, and balance between high challenges and high skills. Personal branding provides all three: defining identity creates clear goals, public sharing provides real-time audience responses, and progressive skill development matches increasingly challenging creative outputs. Research shows flow occurs more often during work than free time when activities have clear rules and require skill development—the structured nature of consistent content creation naturally facilitates flow states[68],[69].

Self-Determination Theory demonstrates that satisfying three innate psychological needs—autonomy, competence, and relatedness—yields enhanced self-motivation and mental health[22],[70]. Personal branding uniquely satisfies all three simultaneously: autonomy through self-authoring one's narrative and choosing what to share, competence through developing expertise and demonstrating mastery publicly, and relatedness through building genuine connections with an engaged audience[22],[24],[71]. Research shows autonomous motivation (versus controlled motivation) predicts greater engagement, better performance, lower dropout, higher quality learning, and enhanced well-being. The mechanism: when behavior is self-authored rather than externally imposed, individuals show more interest, excitement, and confidence, manifesting as enhanced performance, persistence, and creativity[22],[72].

Daniel Pink's research on intrinsic motivation identifies three elements that drive cognitive, creative work: autonomy (desire to direct one's own life), mastery (desire to get better at something that matters), and purpose (desire to serve something larger than oneself)[73],[74],[75]. Personal branding optimally supports all three: complete control over message, medium, and timing (autonomy); public practice creates pressure to continuously improve skills (mastery); and connecting expertise to serving others creates meaning (purpose). MIT studies confirmed higher pay improves performance only for mechanical tasks—for cognitive tasks, higher pay decreased performance[75]. McKinsey research found employees who find purpose in work are 3x more likely to stay and 2x more engaged[76]. Personal branding converts extrinsic career activities into intrinsically motivated journeys of authentic self-expression.

Self-concordant goals—goals aligned with intrinsic interests, values, and identity—drive autonomous motivation and superior outcomes[25],[26],[27],[77]. The Goal Self-Concordance Model shows: goals reflecting genuine interests → autonomous motivation → greater positive emotions → more sustained effort → better goal attainment → enhanced need satisfaction → increased well-being → more self-concordant future goal selection (upward spiral)[26],[27],[78]. Longitudinal studies confirm students with self-concordant motivation better attained semester goals, which predicted increased adjustment and greater self-concordance for subsequent periods[78],[79]. Personal branding is inherently a self-concordant goal: expressing authentic identity publicly, building reputation around genuine strengths, creating work reflecting personal values, and integrating professional goals with sense of self. This alignment creates sustained motivation and reduces burnout.

Meaningful work research shows employees who find work meaningful are 3x more likely to stay with their employer, 2x more engaged, and companies prioritizing meaningful work experience 21% higher profitability[76],[80]. Meaningful work is experienced as particularly significant and holding positive meaning, creating deep personal linkage between employee and work[80],[81]. The mechanisms: meaningful work satisfies needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness; triggers intrinsic motivation; creates psychological empowerment; and fosters sense of purpose. Personal branding creates meaningful work by connecting expertise to helping others (clear purpose), providing visible impact through audience response, enabling authentic expression aligned with values, and building something valuable beyond oneself.

The Progress Principle (Teresa Amabile) establishes that "of all the things that can boost emotions, motivation, and perceptions during a workday, the single most important is making progress in meaningful work"[82]. Visible progress triggers dopamine release, creating satisfaction and pleasure that reinforces continued effort[83],[84],[85]. Harvard studies found progress is the highest motivator among workplace factors—higher than recognition, incentives, support, or clear goals[82],[86]. Dan Ariely's Lego study demonstrated this dramatically: participants whose built Bionicles were immediately dismantled built only 7 versus 11 for those seeing accumulated work[87]. Personal branding creates exceptional proof of work: public portfolio shows visible accumulation of content, follower growth provides tangible metrics, engagement metrics offer real-time feedback, testimonials evidence value provided, and documented skill progression demonstrates improvement over time. This visibility serves intrinsic (personal satisfaction), social (external validation), practical (credentials for opportunities), and motivational (fuel for continued effort) functions simultaneously[88],[89],[90].

The integrated feedback loop operates through distinct phases. Foundation building: inner work involves self-discovery and identifying strengths; outer work begins sharing insights and documenting learning; result is initial identity clarity. Competence development: inner work pursues deliberate skill practice; outer work creates public content building body of work; audience feedback increases perceived competence, enhances self-efficacy, and generates greater intrinsic motivation[91]. Flow state optimization: inner work pursues mastery and optimal challenges; outer work produces higher quality output with consistent rhythm; regular flow states emerge where work becomes autotelic (inherently rewarding) and distinctions between work and play blur[89],[90]. Meaningful impact: inner work refines purpose and values alignment; outer work serves audience and creates value for others; seeing tangible impact generates deep sense of meaning that sustains motivation and commitment. Identity integration: inner work produces self-concordant goals and authentic expression; outer work builds reputation reflecting true self and recognized expertise; professional identity fully aligns with personal identity, creating integrated regulation, autonomous motivation, and optimal well-being.

Research limitations point toward future investigations

Several methodological considerations warrant noting. Much research is correlational rather than causal, requiring longitudinal studies to establish definitive causation. Heavy reliance on self-report measures may inflate correlations through common method variance, necessitating more objective performance measures. Most research occurs in Western contexts, and while Self-Determination Theory claims universality of psychological needs, their expression varies by culture—"autonomy" may manifest differently across individualistic versus collectivistic societies. Individual differences also matter: not all people equally value autonomy, mastery, or purpose; personality differences affect optimal motivation strategies; and some individuals are naturally more autotelic than others.

Potential risks include external pressure overwhelming intrinsic motivation when audience expectations become controlling, authentic expression becoming performative, perfectionism triggering performance anxiety that inhibits experimentation, constant comparison undermining autonomous motivation if focus shifts to external validation, and sustainability challenges where consistent public creation risks burnout without proper energy management. These considerations suggest the need for maintaining internal versus external benchmarks, protecting intrinsic motivation amid external metrics, balancing quality standards with experimentation, and establishing rhythms of creation and restoration.

Future research should examine longitudinal effects of public branding over 5-10+ years, how individuals successfully evolve brands without losing consistency benefits, whether different social media platforms create different commitment strengths, how collectivist versus individualist cultures respond differently, the optimal balance between consistency and authentic evolution, direct comparisons of personal branding versus other pre-commitment devices, which specific psychological mechanism is most powerful, why some public brands fail to create behavioral consistency, whether there is an optimal level of public visibility, and how individuals recover from public brand inconsistencies.

Conclusion: Personal branding as applied manifestation science

The convergence of evidence across neuroscience, psychology, network theory, and behavioral economics reveals personal branding as manifestation through a rational lens—a systematic process where clarity of intention meets public accountability to activate proven mechanisms that dramatically increase goal achievement. The effect sizes are substantial: goal-setting produces 42-82% improvements, public commitment with accountability increases success rates from 35% to 95%, network effects create exponential rather than linear opportunity growth, and the combination of identity clarity, visible progress, and intrinsic motivation enables sustainable high performance over entire careers.

What makes this powerful is the simultaneous activation of multiple reinforcing systems. Personal branding forces identity clarity that enables self-concordant goal selection. Public visibility creates social accountability and pre-commitment that increase follow-through. Consistent output engineers serendipity and activates preferential attachment. Authentic expression satisfies basic psychological needs that generate intrinsic motivation. Visible progress provides proof of work that fuels continued effort. Reputation building creates compound returns through reciprocity norms and network effects. The result is not additive but multiplicative—each mechanism amplifies the others.

The fundamental insight is that personal branding transforms goal pursuit from an individual willpower exercise into a socially-embedded identity maintenance system. Private goals rely on fleeting motivation; public identity creates permanent accountability. Private skill development lacks feedback and visibility; public practice accelerates competence through audience response. Private aspirations remain vague; public brands demand specificity. Private work generates linear returns; public visibility creates exponential network effects. The difference between internal intention and external expression is the difference between wishing and manifesting.

This isn't spiritual bypassing or magical thinking—it's leveraging how human psychology, neurobiology, and social networks actually function. When you articulate who you are, make it visible, act consistently with that identity, and provide value to others, you reprogram your attention system to notice relevant opportunities, activate identity-based motivation that sustains effort, trigger social accountability that prevents backsliding, build reputation capital that compounds over time, and create network effects that generate disproportionate returns. The mechanisms are measurable, the effects are replicable, and the outcomes are predictable.

Personal branding is manifestation because both are fundamentally about alignment—aligning inner identity with outer expression, intention with action, private values with public contribution, current self with future self. The difference is personal branding achieves this alignment through concrete psychological and social mechanisms rather than metaphysical claims. It forces the inner work of self-discovery while creating outer structures—visibility, accountability, proof of work—that transform vague aspirations into identity-defining commitments. This creates a self-reinforcing system where clarity drives action, action builds reputation, reputation creates opportunities, and opportunities validate identity. That's not magic. That's applied cognitive science combined with network dynamics and social psychology. And the evidence shows it works[92].

References

[1] American Society of Training and Development (ASTD). Goal-Setting and Accountability Statistics.

[2] Garcia-Rill, E. (2015). Waking and the Reticular Activating System in Health and Disease. Academic Press.

[3] Moruzzi, G., & Magoun, H. W. (1949). Brain stem reticular formation and activation of the EEG. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 1(4), 455-473.

[4] Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.

[5] Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265-268.

[6] Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493-503.

[7] Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119.

[8] Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention—behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 1-36.

[9] Jeannerod, M. (2001). Neural simulation of action: A unifying mechanism for motor cognition. NeuroImage, 14(1), S103-S109.

[10] Munzert, J., Lorey, B., & Zentgraf, K. (2009). Cognitive motor processes: The role of motor imagery in the study of motor representations. Brain Research Reviews, 60(2), 306-326.

[11] Taylor, S. E., & Pham, L. B. (1996). Mental simulation, motivation, and action. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action (pp. 219-235). Guilford Press.

[12] Fadiga, L., Buccino, G., Craighero, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., & Pavesi, G. (1999). Corticospinal excitability is specifically modulated by motor imagery. Neuropsychologia, 37(2), 147-158.

[13] Guillot, A., & Collet, C. (2005). Duration of mentally simulated movement: A review. Journal of Motor Behavior, 37(1), 10-20.

[14] Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220.

[15] Merton, R. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. The Antioch Review, 8(2), 193-210.

[16] Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils' intellectual development. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

[17] Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L. F., & Lehman, D. R. (1996). Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 141-156.

[18] Bigler, M., Neimeyer, G. J., & Brown, E. (2001). The divided self revisited: Effects of self-concept clarity and self-concept differentiation on psychological adjustment. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20(3), 396-415.

[19] Light, A. E., & Visser, P. S. (2013). The ins and outs of the self: Contrasting role exits and role entries as predictors of self-concept clarity. Self and Identity, 12(3), 291-306.

[20] Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954-969.

[21] Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., & Terry, K. (2006). Possible selves and academic outcomes: How and when possible selves impel action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 188-204.

[22] Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.

[23] Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

[24] Swann Jr, W. B. (2012). Self-verification theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 23-42). Sage.

[25] Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 482-497.

[26] Sheldon, K. M., & Houser-Marko, L. (2001). Self-concordance, goal attainment, and the pursuit of happiness: Can there be an upward spiral? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 152-165.

[27] Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 257-268.

[28] Koestner, R., Lekes, N., Powers, T. A., & Chicoine, E. (2002). Attaining personal goals: Self-concordance plus implementation intentions equals success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 231-244.

[29] Sheldon, K. M. (2014). Becoming oneself: The central role of self-concordant goal selection. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(4), 349-365.

[30] Matthews, G. (2015). Goal Research Summary. Dominican University of California.

[31] StickK.com. (2020). Commitment Contract Success Statistics.

[32] Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. Harper Business.

[33] Petrova, P. K., Cialdini, R. B., & Sills, S. J. (2007). Consistency-based compliance across cultures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(1), 104-111.

[34] Isenberg, N., & Brauer, M. (2022). Commitment and consistency. In D. Albarracín & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Handbook of attitudes and attitude change (pp. 185-201). Routledge.

[35] Pallak, M. S., Cook, D. A., & Sullivan, J. J. (1980). Commitment and energy conservation. Applied Social Psychology Annual, 1, 235-253.

[36] Ariely, D., & Wertenbroch, K. (2002). Procrastination, deadlines, and performance: Self-control by precommitment. Psychological Science, 13(3), 219-224.

[37] 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.

[38] Schein, E. H. (1956). The Chinese indoctrination program for prisoners of war: A study of attempted "brainwashing." Psychiatry, 19(2), 149-172.

[39] Bateson, M., Nettle, D., & Roberts, G. (2006). Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting. Biology Letters, 2(3), 412-414.

[40] Pfattheicher, S., & Keller, J. (2015). The watching eyes phenomenon: The role of a sense of being seen and public self-awareness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(5), 560-566.

[41] Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Wright, P. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2001). The assessment of goal commitment: A measurement model meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(1), 32-55.

[42] Layton, R. L. (2017). Public and private goal commitment: Self-control and choice. Doctoral dissertation, University at Albany.

[43] Bryan, G., Karlan, D., & Nelson, S. (2010). Commitment devices. Annual Review of Economics, 2(1), 671-698.

[44] Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.

[45] Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201-233.

[46] Gee, L. K., Jones, J., & Burke, M. (2017). Social networks and labor markets: How strong ties relate to job finding on Facebook's social network. Journal of Labor Economics, 35(2), 485-518.

[47] Rajkumar, K., Saint-Jacques, G., Bojinov, I., Brynjolfsson, E., & Aral, S. (2022). A causal test of the strength of weak ties. Science, 377(6612), 1304-1310.

[48] Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017). Job search methods and outcomes. U.S. Department of Labor.

[49] Barabási, A. L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286(5439), 509-512.

[50] Newman, M. E. (2005). Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf's law. Contemporary Physics, 46(5), 323-351.

[51] Price, D. J. D. S. (1976). A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27(5), 292-306.

[52] CareerBuilder. (2018). More Than Half of Employers Have Found Content on Social Media That Caused Them NOT to Hire a Candidate. Press Release.

[53] Eagle, N., Macy, M., & Claxton, R. (2010). Network diversity and economic development. Science, 328(5981), 1029-1031.

[54] Catalini, C. (2018). Microgeography and the direction of inventive activity. Management Science, 64(9), 4348-4364.

[55] Chai, S., & Freeman, R. B. (2019). Temporary colocation and collaborative discovery: Who confers at conferences. Strategic Management Journal, 40(13), 2138-2164.

[56] Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster.

[57] APCO Worldwide. (2019). Corporate reputation and its impact on business performance. APCO Insight Report.

[58] Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233-258.

[59] Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., & Sever, J. M. (2005). Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1033-1049.

[60] Huang, X., & Van de Vliert, E. (2003). Where intrinsic job satisfaction fails to work: National moderators of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(2), 159-179.

[61] Akrout, H., & La Rocca, A. (2019). Fundamental transformations of trust and its drivers: A multi-stage approach of business-to-business relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 66, 159-171.

[62] Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161-178.

[63] Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.

[64] Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.

[65] Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.

[66] Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. Basic Books.

[67] Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of flow. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 89-105). Oxford University Press.

[68] Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 815-822.

[69] Engeser, S., & Rheinberg, F. (2008). Flow, performance and moderators of challenge-skill balance. Motivation and Emotion, 32(3), 158-172.

[70] Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141-166.

[71] Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362.

[72] Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 246-260.

[73] Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Riverhead Books.

[74] Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Westview Press.

[75] Ariely, D., Gneezy, U., Loewenstein, G., & Mazar, N. (2009). Large stakes and big mistakes. The Review of Economic Studies, 76(2), 451-469.

[76] McKinsey & Company. (2020). Purpose: Shifting from why to how. McKinsey Global Survey.

[77] Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 554-571.

[78] Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (1998). Pursuing personal goals: Skills enable progress, but not all progress is beneficial. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(12), 1319-1331.

[79] Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing autonomous and controlled reasons for goals as predictors of effort and attainment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(5), 546-557.

[80] Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work: The work and meaning inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 322-337.

[81] van Wingerden, J., & van der Stoep, J. (2018). The motivational potential of meaningful work: Relationships with strengths use, work engagement, and performance. PloS One, 13(6), e0197599.

[82] Amabile, T. M., & Kramer, S. J. (2011). The progress principle: Using small wins to ignite joy, engagement, and creativity at work. Harvard Business Review Press.

[83] Schultz, W. (2015). Neuronal reward and decision signals: From theories to data. Physiological Reviews, 95(3), 853-951.

[84] Kringelbach, M. L., & Berridge, K. C. (2009). Towards a functional neuroanatomy of pleasure and happiness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(11), 479-487.

[85] Salamone, J. D., & Correa, M. (2012). The mysterious motivational functions of mesolimbic dopamine. Neuron, 76(3), 470-485.

[86] Amabile, T. M., & Kramer, S. J. (2007). Inner work life: Understanding the subtext of business performance. Harvard Business Review, 85(5), 72-83.

[87] Ariely, D., Kamenica, E., & Prelec, D. (2008). Man's search for meaning: The case of Legos. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 67(3-4), 671-677.

[88] Sailer, M., Hense, J. U., Mayr, S. K., & Mandl, H. (2017). How gamification motivates: An experimental study of the effects of specific game design elements on psychological need satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 371-380.

[89] Rheinberg, F., & Engeser, S. (2018). Intrinsic motivation and flow. In J. Heckhausen & H. Heckhausen (Eds.), Motivation and action (pp. 579-622). Springer.

[90] Schüler, J. (2007). Arousal of flow experience in a learning setting and its effects on exam performance and affect. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 21(3/4), 217-227.

[91] Badami, R., VaezMousavi, M., Wulf, G., & Namazizadeh, M. (2019). Feedback after good versus poor trials affects intrinsic motivation. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82(2), 360-364.

[92] Collins, J., & Hansen, M. T. (2011). Great by choice: Uncertainty, chaos, and luck—why some thrive despite them all. Harper Business.