image ratings, particularly on scales pertaining to physical appearance. The total ..... consistent with traditional stereotypes (see also Jackson et al., 1988).
JOURNAL
OF RESEARCH
IN PERSONALITY
24,
291-302 (1998)
Body Image: Differences between High and Low Self-Monitoring Males and Females LINDA A. SULLIVAN Michigan
AND RICHARD J. HARNISH State University
This study investigated the relationship between self-monitoring, sex, and body image. One hundred seventy-seven undergraduate subjects completed the 18item Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986) and the Body Self Relations Questionnaire (BSRQ) (Winstead & Cash, 1984). The Self-Monitoring scale was scored for both the total score and the two factor scores (Other Directedness, Public Performance) identified by Briggs and Cheek (1988). Results showed that sex was a better predictor, overall, of body image ratings than was self-monitoring. Nevertheless, self-monitoring was a significant predictor of body image ratings, particularly on scales pertaining to physical appearance. The total self-monitoring score was a more extensive predictor of ratings than the factor scores, whereas the factor scores were more specific predictors than the total score. Results are discussed in terms of social desirability norms for high selfmonitors.
0 1990 Academic
Press. Inc.
Body image, or the “physical self-concept” (Noles, Cash, & Winstead, 1985), is considered by most researchers to be a multidimensional construct which includes evaluative and cognitive dimensions of physical appearance, as well as physical fitness, health, and sexuality (Tucker, 1985; Winstead & Cash, 1984). Individuals differ in the degree to which they evaluate their body image and the importance they place on their body image (e.g., Noles et al., 1985). Research conducted on self-evaluation has led to the conclusion that a discrepancy between one’s actual self and one’s ideal self leads to negative affect (see Higgins, Strauman, & Klein, 1986). An inability to change one’s attributes to reach one’s ideal state may lead to feelings of hopelessness (Adler, 1929/1964, cited in Higgins et al., 1986). Body We are very grateful to Linda A. Jackson, Charles G. Stangor, Robert A. Emmons, and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article. Portions of this article were presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, New York City, August 1987. Correspondence and reprint requests should be addressed to Linda A. Sullivan or Richard J. Hamish, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1117. 291 0092-6X16/90 $3.00 Copyright 8 I!390 by Academic F’ress. Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
292
SULLIVAN
AND HARNISH
type or physical appearance is an attribute of significance as individuals may not be able to change their physical appearance to reach their ideals. Thus, any perceived discrepancy between actual and ideal body type or physical appearance is a discrepancy with which one may be constantly confronted. One would assume that those individuals for whom body image is important would be most likely to notice a discrepancy between their actual and ideal body image. Clearly then, it is critical, as a first step in research on actual-ideal body image discrepancy, to identify variables that predict the importance individuals place on their body image. One such variable is sex. Research has shown that females, compared with males, place more importance on their physical appearance (Jackson, Sullivan, & Rostker, 1988); perceive a greater actual-ideal body concept discrepancy (Striegel-Moore, Silberstein, & Rodin, 1986); and are much more likely to suffer from eating disorders, which are considered by some to be affective disorders (Striegel-Moore et al., 1986). Another variable that may predict the importance that individuals place on their body image is self-monitoring. Self-monitoring can be defined as being attuned to one’s self-presentation in social situations and as regulating one’s behavior to create a desired impression (Snyder, 1974). High self-monitors, being highly sensitive to social and interpersonal cues of situationally appropriate behavior, regulate their expressive selfpresentation for the sake of desired public appearance. In contrast, the expressive self-presentation of the low self-monitor reflects his or her own attitudes, feelings, and beliefs. Thus, high self-monitors place more emphasis on their public appearance and low self-monitors are more interested in their private realities (Snyder, 1987). That individuals who differ in self-monitoring may evaluate themselves differently along dimensions of body image is suggested by a number of different perspectives. First, Fisher (1986, p. 17) suggested that selfmonitoring may be important to the study of body image because the construct concerns increased self-awareness (i.e., high self-monitors are aware of their behavior in social situations in order to regulate or control their expressive selves). Second, research suggests that personality traits concerned with various aspects of the self are related to body image. For example, Miller. Murphy, & Buss (1981) have demonstrated that public self-consciousness (awareness of the self as a focal object) is strongly and positively related with public body-consciousness (awareness of observable aspects of one’s body). A positive body image has been associated with a positive self-concept and with high self-esteem (Boldrick, 1983; Cash, Winstead. & Janda, 1986; Jackson et al., 1988; Lerner, Karabenick, & Stuart, 1973;
BODY
IMAGE
293
Rosen & Ross, 1968; Winstead & Cash, 1984). Thus, self-monitoring, as a construct concerned with the self, may also be related to body image. As a principal component of body image, physical appearance has been shown to be related to self-monitoring (Tucker, 1985; Winstead & Cash, 1984). When males reviewed personal information about a potential dating partner, high self-monitors spent more time examining the photograph in this profile than did low self-monitors (Snyder, Berscheid, & Glick, 1985). In contrast, low self-monitors spent more time examining the personality profile than did high self-monitors. When asked to select a date from these profiles, high self-monitors tended to choose partners who were, on average, more attractive than those chosen by low selfmonitors. In a related study, high self-monitors were reported to place and respond to personal advertisements that emphasize the physical appearance of a potential dating partner more than low self-monitors (Omoto, DeBono, & Snyder, 1985). While these findings show that high self-monitors placed greater importance on the physical appearance of others than did low self-monitors, we believe that this emphasis may extend to the self. For example, it has been demonstrated that high self-monitors are particularly concerned about giving skilled social performances in order to appear to be the right person in the right place at the right time (see Snyder, 1987, for a review). One method that high self-monitors might use to accomplish their impression-management goal is to enhance their physical appearance. Indeed, a recent study (Davis & Lennon, 1985) reported that high self-monitoring females used clothing to attain social approval and attention. Taken together, the above findings suggest that self-monitoring is related to self-perceptions of body image in terms of the attention to, and awareness of, physical appearance. Another interpretation for Snyder et al.‘s (1985) results is that selfperceptions of physical attractiveness by these individuals may be critical in their behavioral choices. Although Snyder et al. concluded that “there is no reason to suspect that our findings . . . are in any way accounted for by inherent differences between individuals in their own physical appearance” (1985, p. 1433), they measured physical attractiveness as judged by independent raters but did not examine self-ratings. As Berscheid, Dion, Walster, and Walster (1971) have noted elsewhere, “One’s social desirability (which includes one’s assessment of his [sic] own physical attractiveness) should influence one’s perception of the probability of attaining any particular object. When making realistic choices, then, one should choose romantic partners of approximately his [sic] own level of physical attractiveness” (p. 174). High self-monitors may perceive themselves to be more physically attractive than low self-mon-
294
SULLIVAN
AND HARNISH
itors and thus choose more physically attractive partners, congruent with the notion of the “matching phenomena” in which individuals choose others who are a “good match” to themselves in attractiveness and other traits (Berscheid et al., 1971; Huston, 1973). These explanations suggest that self-monitoring is positively associated with the evaluation and importance of physical appearance. Assuming that self-monitoring is associated with the importance placed on physical appearance, one would also expect self-monitoring to be associated with appearance-related behaviors. In summary, we expected high scores on self-monitoring to be predictive of high scores on these dimensions of physical appearance, as measured by the Body Self Relations Questionnaire (BSRQ). We also expected self-monitoring to be associated with the evaluation of one’s sexuality. Research (Snyder, Simpson, & Gangestad, 1986) investigating the relationship between sexual behavior and self-monitoring demonstrated that high self-monitors reported that they were more likely to engage in sex with others to whom they were not psychologically close than were low self-monitors. High self-monitors, as compared with low self-monitors, also indicated that they had a larger number of different sexual partners in the last year and anticipated having sex with a larger number of different sexual partners. One possible explanation for this finding is that it is unlikely that high self-monitors would pursue intimate encounters if they did not believe that they could perform well. From this perspective, the findings suggest that self-monitoring is positively related to the evaluation of one’s sexuality. To test these predictions, subjects completed the BSRQ (Winstead & Cash, 1984) and the 18-item Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986). In an earlier investigation of body image with the BSRQ, Jackson et al. (1988) reported that females, compared to males, considered their physical appearance to be more important and engaged in more behaviors directed at their appearance and their health. Males, on the other hand, evaluated their physical fitness more positively and considered fitness to be more important than did females. Because sex is clearly associated with perceptions of body image, another purpose of the present study was to examine if there were predictive differences between sex and self-monitoring on ratings of body image. Finally, recent research has argued that the self-monitoring scale does not measure a unidimensional construct (Briggs & Cheek, 1988). To address this issue, the two factor scales (Public Performance, Other Directedness) identified by Briggs and Cheek (1988) were computed. This permitted us to compare the predictive power of the factor scores with the total self-monitoring score on ratings on body image.
295
BODY IMAGE
METHOD Subjects One hundred seventy-seven undergraduates (109 females, 68 males) at Michigan State University participated in a questionnaire survey on “Perceptions of Self’ for Introductory Psychology course credit.
Measures and Procedure Subjects participated in one of two mixed-sex groups of approximately 85 persons supervised by a male and a female experimenter. Participants completed the 18-item version of the Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986) and the BSRQ, Revision III (Winstead & Cash, 1984), in counterbalanced order. The 18-item self-monitoring scale was presented in a true-false format. Revision III of the BSRQ consists of 140 items which subjects respond to on a S-point Likert scale ranging from definitely disagree to definitely agree. The BSRQ measures self-perceptions along three somatic domains (physical appearance, physical fitness, and physical health) fully crossed with three psychological dimensions (evaluation, importance/attention, and behavior). The 10th and final subscale measures self-evaluation of one’s sexuality (see Appendix). The BSRQ subscales show test-retest reliabilities ranging from .65 to .91 (Winstead & Cash, 1984). The measure has also been shown to possess adequate validity (see Cash, 1988; Cash & Green, 1986; Cash et al., 1986; Noles et al., 1985).
RESULTS A composite score was computed for each of the 10 subscales of the BSRQ. All subscales were internally consistent (all coefficient (Y’S > .67). See Table 1 for Cronbach’s (Y’S and descriptive statistics on these subTABLE MEANS
AND
STANDARD
DEVIATIONS
1
FOR THE TEN
SUB~CALES
OF THE
Males (n = 68)
Physical appearance Evaluation (.91) Importance C.89) Behavior (.85) Physical fitness Evaluation (.89) Importance (.82) Behavior (.85) Physical health Evaluation (.85) Importance (.68) Behavior (.76) Sexuality (.74)
BSQR Females (n = 109)
M
SD
M
SD
3.56 3.90 3.25
.57 .49 .59
3.20 4.05 3.65
.62 .48 .58
3.77 3.83 3.54
.52 .58 .74
3.31 3.39 3.02
.58 .66 .85
3.80 3.24 3.19 4.01
.58 .ss .59 .60
3.39 3.19 3.1s 3.83
.56 .56 .58 .ss
Note. Values in parentheses are standardized coefficient a’s,
296
SULLIVAN
AND
HARNISH
scale scores for males and females. Correlations among the subscales within each somatic domain ranged from .OO to .76, with the highest correlations occurring between ratings of importance and behaviors within the same domain. We scored the self-monitoring scale in two ways. First, we computed a score for the total self-monitoring scale (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986). Second, we computed scores for the Public Performance and Other Directedness factor scales (Briggs & Cheek, 1988). We conducted correlations between the Public Performance and the Other Directedness factors, and the total self-monitoring score. Correlations were conducted separately for sex. Public Performance correlated most highly with the total self-monitoring score (r = .78, females; Y = .80, males, p’s < .05). Other Directedness was not as strongly correlated with the total score (r = .70, females; r = .75, males, p’s < .05). The factor scales show a moderate relationship with each other (r = .34, females; Y = .35, males, p’s < .05). Finally, before conducting the regression analyses we tested the relationship between sex and self-monitoring. The analyses revealed a significant but weak correlation between the two variables, 4176) = .14, p < .05, indicating that males scored higher on the total self-monitoring scale than did females. Two sets of regression analyses were conducted. The first stepwise multiple regression set was performed with the different BSRQ subscales as the criteria and sex and self-monitoring (total score) as predictors. The interactive term was also entered as a predictor (Sex x Self-monitoring). The second set of regressions used the two Selfmonitoring factor scales (Other Directedness, 5 items; Public Performance, 8 items), sex, and the interactive terms as predictors. The results of the regressions are shown in Table 2. As predicted, self-monitoring was positively related to attention to one’s physical appearance and appearance-directed behaviors, but not with the evaluation of one’s physical appearance. These results suggest that self-monitoring is indeed a predictor of ratings on the physical appearance dimension of body image but, as Table 2 demonstrates, sex is the better predictor overall. Being female was associated with higher ratings on the importance of physical appearance and self-reported appearance-directed behaviors. Being male was associated with higher evaluations of appearance. We had expected self-monitoring to be positively related to the evaluation of one’s sexuality. Results revealed that self-monitoring interacted with sex to predict sexuality evaluation. Breaking down the regressions by sex showed that self-monitoring was not a significant predictor of females’ sexuality ratings but was marginally significant for males F(1, 66) = 2.92, p < .lO. We had no specific predictions for self-monitoring on the fitness and
297
BODY IMAGE TABLE Criterion
Predictor
2 P
F value
A
RZ
Regression analyses to predict the BSRQ subscales from sex and total self-monitoring .28 14.43*** .28 .08 AEVAL Sex AA-I-T Self-monitoring .20 6.%** .20 .04 -.18 6.60** .27 .07 Sex ABEH Sex - .32 19.35*** .32 .lO .17 12.70*** .36 .13 Self-monitoring FEVAL Sex .30 29.61*** .38 .I5 .34 23.64*** .34 .i2 FAT-T Sex x Self-monitoring FBEH Sex .30 17.33*** .30 .09 .34 22.52*** .34 .ll HEVAL Sex HAT-I No significant predictors HBEH No significant predictors CSEX Sex X Self-monitoring .21 8.23** .21 .04 Regression analyses to predict the BSRQ subscales from sex and self-monitoring factor scales AEVAL Sex .28 14.43*** .28 .08 AAT-T Other .16 4.78* .16 .03 Sex -.I7 5.02** .23 .05 ABEH Sex - .32 19.35*** .32 .lO .15 12.23*** .35 .I2 Other FEVAL Sex .38 29.61*** .38 .I5 FATT Sex .33 21.36*** .33 .I1 Public .15 13.06*** .36 .13 .30 17.13*** .30 .09 FBEH Sex HEVAL Sex .34 22.52*** .34 .I1 HAT-f No significant predictors No significant predictors HBEH .23 10.03** .23 .05 CSEX Sex x Public Note. AEVAL, evaluation of appearance; AA’lT, importance/attention of appearance: ABEH, behaviors directed at appearance; FEVAL, evaluation of fitness. FATT = importance/attention of fitness. FBEH = behaviors directed at fitness; HEVAL evaluation of health; HATT, importance/attention of health; HBEH, behaviors directed at health; CSEX, evaluation of sexuality. A positive (negative) p indicates results in the direction of male (female) ratings. * p < .05. ** p < .Ol. *** p < .ool.
health dimensions of the BSRQ, but we did expect males to rate themselves higher than females on the fitness dimension. Results showed that sex was a much stronger predictor of health and fitness ratings. As expected, males rated themselves higher than did females. By interacting with sex, self-monitoring had an impact on ratings of the importance of fitness. Again, breaking down the regressions by sex revealed that self-
298 monitoring
SULLIVAN
was a significant
AND
predictor
HARNISH
only for males, F(1, 66) = 3.86,
p = .05.
Regressions Performance, ilar to that of factor scores
conducted on the factor scores of self-monitoring (Public Other-Directedness) showed a pattern of results very simthe total score, with the principal exception being that the did not predict appearance behavior. DISCUSSION
As predicted, those higher in self-monitoring rated their physical appearance as being more important to them and reported engaging in more behaviors directed toward their physical appearance than did those lower in self-monitoring. These findings extend the results of previous research (Snyder et al., 1985; Omoto et al., 1985) which demonstrated that high self-monitors placed more emphasis on the physical appearance of others than did low self-monitors. Thus, the importance of physical appearance to high self-monitors is not simply a concern with the physical appearance of others but is also a concern with the physical appearance of one’s self. Although sex was the better predictor of appearance-directed behaviors than was self-monitoring, the significance of self-monitoring as a predictor is consistent with the results from the importance ratings. Because high self-monitors are more concerned with their physical appearance one would expect that they would act upon this concern. This result, however, is at odds with Cash and Wunderle’s (1988) research that found no relationship between self-monitoring and physical appearance-related behaviors for females (i.e., the use of cosmetics). The more encompassing nature of the items on the BSRQ may explain this discrepancy. Self-monitoring did not predict physical appearance evaluation. As such, we cannot argue with Snyder et al. (1985) that differences in the self-perceptions of physical attractiveness between high- and low selfmonitors account for the findings of their dating study. Neither our research nor the research of Snyder et al. (1985) found evaluation differences to be dependent on self-monitoring. This null finding is surprising and merits more attention because physical appearance is important to high self-monitors. We speculate that a discrepancy between actual and ideal body image would be noticed to a greater extent by high selfmonitors because their appearance is a salient issue for them. This discrepancy could in turn lead to negative affect (Higgins et al., 1986) if the discrepancy is not being acted upon or if the discrepancy cannot be reduced. Future research should compare high and low self-monitors on perceived body image, ideal body image, and discrepancies between the two in order to test these predictions. Both sex and self-monitoring predicted the importance dimension of
BODY
IMAGE
299
physical appearance. That is, being female or being high in self-monitoring was associated with more importance having been placed on physical appearance. Self-monitoring may be related to physical appearance because of self-imposed standards to appear to be socially desirable. In the language of self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1983), high self-monitors may use the “ideal” self as a guide to self-perception. That is, they may be stressing a standard of physical appearance that they themselves desire or wish to possess. Females may focus on their physical appearance because of culturally imposed standards of attractiveness (cf., Silverstein, Perdue, Peterson, & Kelly, 1986). They may use the “ought” self (Higgins, 1983) as a guide to perception, stressing a standard of physical appearance that they feel obligated or responsible to maintain. The question is begging: What of the high self-monitoring female? Is she focused on appearance because of culturally imposed standards of attractiveness (the “ought” self) or self-imposed standards of attractiveness (the “ideal” self) or are these processes additive? The main findings to emerge from the physical fitness analyses were that males were more focused on physical fitness than were females, consistent with traditional stereotypes (see also Jackson et al., 1988). Self-monitoring exerted an effect only on the physical fitness importance dimension such that males higher in self-monitoring reported more concern with physical fitness. Traditionally, a socially desirable male is one who is active and athletic (Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1975). We suggest that high self-monitoring males reported being concerned with physical fitness behaviors because of concerns with goals of social desirability. Supporting this conclusion are the null findings on the health measures indicating that for high self-monitoring males the importance of fitness did not seem to be a salubrious concern. The interaction between sex and self-monitoring on the sexuality dimension showed that males higher in self-monitoring evaluated their sexuality more positively than did females and those lower in self-monitoring. One possible expianation for this finding is that high self-monitoring males may come to believe that, because of their greater number of different sexual partners (Snyder et al., 1986), they perform well sexually. Further research is needed to examine the cause and effect relationship between these variables. Recently, there has been much controversy surrounding the self-monitoring construct regarding its measurement (e.g., Briggs & Cheek, 1988; Briggs, Cheek, & Buss, 1980). On the basis of our data we conclude that at least on measures related to somatic domains the total score on the self-monitoring scale appears to be a more encompassing predictor than the factor scores. Nevertheless, the factor scales were more specific predictors of ratings of body image. That is, Other Directedness predicted
300
SULLIVAN
AND
HARNISH
appearance ratings, whereas Public Performance predicted fitness and sexuality ratings. Although the factor scales predicted fewer ratings than did the total score, it appears that in certain domains, such as somatic domains, the factor scores may provide more insight into attitudes and self-reported behaviors than may the total score. Other researchers using the self-monitoring scale should examine both the total score and the factor scores for differential effects because a meta-analysis conducted on an accumulation of such studies could further our knowledge about the self-monitoring construct. In summary, the regression analyses performed on sex, the total selfmonitoring score, and the two underlying factor scales as identified by Briggs and Cheek (1988) indicated that, overall, sex is the better predictor of body image. However, this does not undermine the importance of self-monitoring (whether one considers the total score or the factor scales) as a significant predictor of body image ratings, particularly those pertaining to physical appearance. Thus, self-monitoring as a personality construct accounts for variance in body image ratings unaccounted for by sex. In fact, it is an important finding that self-monitoring is a better predictor of attention to appearance than is sex because previous research has shown tht females pay more attention to their appearance than do males. Females are also at greater risk of developing eating disorders than are males. If attention to appearance is related to eating disorders, then high self-monitors may be a group at risk of developing such disorders. APPENDIX Examples Physical
of the BSRQ Items
Appearance
(18) Evaluation-Members of the other sex think I am attractive. (20) Importance-I would do what ever it takes to look better. (16) Behavior -1 spend at least an hour a day dressing and grooming. Physical
Fitness
(19) Evaluation-I (10) Importance-It (8)
Behavior
Physical
readily learn physical skills. is important that my body be in perfect working order. -1 am involved in a regular program of exercise.
Health
(14) Evaluation-I (10) Importance-I
am a physically healthy person. believe that good health is the most important in my life.
thing
BODY IMAGE
(14) Behavior
-1 deliberately have developed tribute to my body’s health.
Sexuality (7) I feel good about how my body functions
301
a lifestyle that will con-
sexually.
Note. Values in parentheses indicate the number of items in each scale. Four items are not included in analyses (see Winstead & Cash, 1984). REFERENCES Berscheid, E., Dion, K., Walster. E., & Walster, G. W. (1971). Physical attractiveness and dating choice: A test of the matching hypothesis. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, I, 173-189. Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1988). On the nature of Self-Monitoring: Problems with assessment, problems with validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 663-678. Briggs, S. R., Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1980). An analysis of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 679-686. Boldrick, L. N. (1983). Psychological centrality of physical attributes: A reexamination of the relationship between subjective importance and self-esteem. Journal of Psychology, 115, 97-102.
Cash, T. F. (1988). [Grooming and Body Image]. Unpublished raw data. Cash, T. F., & Green, G. K. (1986). Body weight and body image among college women: Perception, cognition, and affect. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 290-301. Cash, T. F., Winstead, B. A., & Janda, L. H. (1986, April). The great American shapeup. Psychology Today, pp. 30-37. Cash, T. F., & Wunderle, J. M. (1988). Self-Monitoring and cosmetics use among college women. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2, 563-566. Davis, L. L., & Lennon, S. J. (1985). Self-monitoring, fashion opinion leadership, and attitudes toward clothing. In M. Solomon (Ed.), The Psychology of Fashion (pp. l77182). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Fisher, S. (1986). Developmenf and structures ofthe body image (Vol. 1, p. 17). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Higgins, E. T. (1983). A theory of discrepant self-concepts. Unpublished manuscript, New York University. Higgins, E. T., Strauman, T., & Klein, R. (1986). Standards and the process of selfevaluation: Multiple affects from multiple stages. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 26-63). New York: Wiley. Huston, T. L. (1973). Ambiguity of acceptance, social desirability, and dating choice. Journal
of Experimental
Social
Psychology,
9, 32-42.
Jackson, L. A., Sullivan, L. A., & Rostker, R. (1988). Gender, gender role, and body image. Sex Roles, 19, 429-443. Lerner, R. M., Karabenick, S. A., & Stuart, J. L. (1973). Relations among physical attractiveness, body attitudes, and self concept in male and female college students. Journal
of Psychology,
85, 119-129.
Miller, L. C., Murphy, R., & Buss, A. H. (1981). Consciousness of body: Private and public. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 357-406.
SULLIVAN
302
AND HARNISH
Noles, S. W., Cash, T. F., & Winstead, B. A. (1985). Body image, physical attractiveness, and depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 88-94. Omoto, A. M., DeBono, K. G., & Snyder, M. (1985). Personality and relationship initiation: Advertising in the personals. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota. Rosen. G. M., & Ross, A. 0. (1968). Relationship of body image to self concept. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical
Psychology,
32, 100.
Silverstein, B., Perdue, L., Peterson, B., & Kelly, E. (1986). The role of the mass media in promoting a thin standard of bodily attractiveness for women. Sex Roles, 14, 519532. Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,
30, 526-537.
Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearance/Private realities: The psychology of self-monitoring. New York: Freeman. Snyder, M., Berscheid, E., & Glick, P. (1985). Focusing on the exterior and the interior: Two investigations of the initiation of personal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,
48, 1427-1439.
Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 51, 125-139. Snyder. M., Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. (1986). Personality and sexual relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 181-190. Spence, S. T., Helmreich, R.. & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex role attributes and their relation to self esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 29-39. Striegel-Moore, R. H.. Silberstein, L. R., & Rodin, J. (1986). Toward an understanding of risk factors for bulimia. American Psychologist, 41, 246-263. Tucker, L. A. (1985). Dimensionality and factor satisfaction of the body image construct: A gender comparison. Sex Roles, 12, 931-937. Winstead, B. A., & Cash, T. F. (1984, March). Reliability and validity of the Body-SeU Relations Questionnaire: A new measure of body image. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.
