Editing Vested interest (communication theory) (section)

===Ego involvement===
The way people view vested interest as distinct from [[Id, ego and super-ego|ego]] involvement, is a construct that has been the topic of social psychological research for many years.<ref>Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. Yale University Press</ref> In a study conducted by John Sivacek and William D. Crano,<ref name="S&C">Sivacek, J., & Crano, W. D. (1982). Vested interest as a moderator of attitude behavior consistency. 'Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 210-221</ref> they prove the aforementioned statement that ego involvement and vested interest are indeed separate. Sivacek and Crano state,<ref name="S&C"/> "It was possible to have circumstances that an individual would perceive as involving but that it would not arouse his or her vested interest." The main focus points of ego-involvement concern the individual's psychological attitudes that are experienced as being a part of “me”. The more emotionally connected people are to an idea, concept, or value, minor differences in beliefs can be viewed as significantly large and perhaps make harsh judgments or have stronger reactions. Conversely, a person with less emotional connectivity (low ego-involvement) will have more latitude in their reactions. It is important to note that while highly vested attitudes can be experienced as ego involving, the opposite is not always true. An individual can be ego involved in a certain attitude that has no hedonic consequence. For example, religious or political ideals with little or no hedonic value may still be ego-involved because individuals view those types of beliefs as part of who they are.

Ego-involvement, as it pertains to vested interest, is relative to [[Social judgment theory|Social Judgment Theory]] in that the concept of one's identity is the primary focus of efforts in continued involvement.<ref name="Sherif et al.">{{cite journal |last1=Sherif |first1=C. W. |last2=Kelly |first2=M. |last3=Rodgers Jr. |first3=H. L. |last4=Sarup |first4=G. |last5=Tittler |first5=B. L. |title=Personal Involvement, Social Judgment, and Action |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |date=1973 |volume=27 |issue=3 |pages=311–313 |doi=10.1037/h0034948}}</ref>  Essential to social judgment theory is the idea of ego thus actions or ideas with a varying degree of ego involvement carry a commensurate amount of vested interest to the individual as detailed by Sherif, Kelly, Rogers, Sarup, and Tittler.  Sherif, et al.<ref name="Sherif et al." /> conducted a series of studies to develop “indicators of ego involvement” (p.&nbsp;311).  One of the leading questions they sought to answer was how much ego involvement (vested interest) does an individual in a situation with no alternatives solutions have and does this ego involvement correlate to the number of options at hand.<ref name="Sherif et al." /> Sherif et al., suggest the question was answered by Beck and Nebergall<ref name="Beck & Neberall">{{cite journal |last1=Beck |first1=D. |last2=Nebergall |first2=R. E. |last3=Sherif |first3=C.W. |last4=Kelly |first4=M. |last5=Rodgers Jr. |first5=H.L. |last6=Sarup |first6=G. |last7=Tittler |first7=B.L. |title=Relationship Between Attitude Neutrality and Involvement; (in Personal Involvement, Social Judgment, and Action) |url=http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1974-05117-001 |website=PsycNET |publisher=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |access-date=21 June 2018 |doi=10.1037/h0034948 |volume=27 |year=1973 |pages=311–328|url-access=subscription }}</ref> in 1967 who stated that individuals with little to no options have corresponding vested interest indicating low ego involvement.<ref name="Sherif et al." />