Download Self Enhancement Theory and Hierarchy of Self Enhancement and more Study notes Psychology in PDF only on Docsity!
504 V. SELF AND SOCIAL PROCESSES 19. Self-Presentation of Personality: An Agency-Communion Framework 505
FIGURE 19.3. Hierarchy of self-enhancement.
endorsement rates in straight-take adminis-
trations. The low endorsement rates for such
items permit room for manipulators to delib-
erately enhance impressiop.s of their agency.
Examples are "I am very brave" and "No
one is more talented than I." Such items tend
not to be claimed, even by narcissists, under
anonymous conditions. But the .endorse-
ment rate is higher under agency-motivated
conditions than under anonymous condi-
tions (Lonnqvist, Verkasalo, & Bezmenova,
The impression management scales-
Agentic and Communal Management-
appear to be most useful in tapping response
sets rather than response styles. They per-
form very well in capturing the degree of sit-
uational press to appear agentic or commu-
nal (Carey & Paulhus, 2008). Because scores
are influenced strongly by context subtleties,
these scales are not especially useful as indi-
vidual difference measurc;s. In private admin-
istrations, much of the individual-difference
variance represents actual content differences
in positive qualities.
Summary
The traditional concern in the social desir-
ability literature is with self-presentation
on questionnaires. Such concern led to the
development of numerous SDR scales mea-
suring the degree to which respondents ex-
aggerate their assets or minimize their social
deviance. The assumption is that high scores
indicate dissimulation not only on the SDR
scale, but on all other questionnaires in the
same package.
A 50-year history of structural analyses
of SDR scales repeatedly confirmed that mul-
tiple underlying concepts were being tapped.
We have argued here that a clearer under-
standing of this extensive literature emerges
from our two-level framework: audience
(public vs. private) and personality image
(agency vs. communal).
The SDR approach has been of special
interest to personality psychologists because
of their continuing reliance on self-report
questionnaires (Paulhus & Vazire, 2007;
Tracy & Robins, this volume). Nonetheless,
there remains some difficulty with confirm-
ing the degree to which SDR scales tap exag-
geration, that is, departure from reality.
SELF-ENHANCEMENT
Although the concept of self-enhancement
overlaps conceptually with SDR, its histori-
cal origins are quite distinct. It began with an
early study suggesting that positive self-biases
are maladaptive (Frenkel-Brunswik, 1939).
Forty years later, two methodologically su-
perior papers provided evidence that posi-
tive self-biases may be more adaptive than
accurate self-evaluations (Alloy & Abram-
son, 1979; Lewinsohn, Mischel, Chaplin,
& Barton, 1980). Those studies contributed
to Taylor and Brown's (1988) assertion that
positive illusions are both common and
adaptive.
Rather than SDR scales, this literature
employs measures such as social comparison
(e.g., better than average) or self-criterion
discrepancies. Because a normative compari-
son is involved, such measures promised to
do a better job than do SDR scales in distin-
guishing distortion from truth.
Most writers follow Taylor and Brown
(1988) in defining self-enhancement as an
overly positive self-evaluation. The qualifi-
cation-overly positive-is of central impor-
tance, given our requirement of inaccuracy
in defining self-presentation. There is little
dispute about the fact that some people har-
bor overly positive self-evaluations, whereas
others are more accurate. To date, minimal
attention has been paid to underestimated
evaluations (but see Zuckerman & Knee,
Self-enhancement can be demonstrat-
ed even on anonymous self-descriptions
(Baumeister, 1982; Brown, 1998). As such,
the phenomenon corresponds to the private-
audience version of SDR. Because of its as-
sociation with illusions rather than purpose-
ful dissimulation, little attention has been
directed at the public-audience version of
self-enhancement (see Figure 19.3). Because
self-reports vary with degree and nature of
the audience, scores on self-enhancement
measures should vary to the same degree as
do SDR measures (Carey & Paulhus, 2008).
Nonetheless, that issue has attracted less in-
terest, and the following focus is on distor-
tion in private self-beliefs.
Three issues have dominated the self-
enhancement literature: One is how to meJa-
sure self-enhancement; a second addresses
the adaptiveness of self-enhancement; the
third concerns the breadth and structure of
self-enhancement.
Operationalizing Self-Enhancement
Although the concept might seem straight-
forward, much controversy has arisen over
the choice of operationalization. Here we
consider five types of operationalization that
warrant special attention.
Social Comparison
The most popular choice has been to index
self-enhancement as the tendency to view
oneself more positively than one views oth-
ers. Following Kwan, John, Kenny, Bond,
and Robins (2004), we refer to this opera-
tionalization as social comparison. A well-
replicated body of research indicates that a
majority of people tend to rate themselves
as above average on lists of evaluative traits
(e.g., Alicke, 1985). If pervasive, this tenden-
cy certainly implies an illusion: After all, it is
not possible for a large majority of people to
actually be better than average. 4
To index a general tendency, self-
enhancement scores are typically aggregated
across a wide set of evaluative traits. Re-
spondents may be asked for separate ratings
of self and others or, alternatively, a direct
comparison of themselves relative to the av-
erage other. A number of studies have con-
firmed that individuals scoring high on such
indexes of self-enhancement tend to be well
adjusted (Brown, 1986; Campbell, Rudich,
& Sedikides, 2002; Kurt & Paulhus, 2008;
Taylor, Lerner, Sherman, Sage, & McDowell,
Note, however, that this operational-
ization makes· it difficult to distinguish self-
enhancement from true differences in posi-
tive traits (Klar& Giladi, 1999; Robins &
John, 1997b). After all, many people are ac-
tually above average,even across a large set
of traits (Block & Colvin, 1994). In short, the
social comparison operationalization lacks a
reality criterion against which the validity of
the self-descriptions can be evaluated.
Criterion Discrepancy
This limitation led a number of other research-
ers to operationalize self-enhancement as a
criterion discrepancy, that is, the overestima-
tion of one's positivity relative to a credible
criterion. This category of measures includes
both difference scores and residual scores.
Rather than absolute values, higher numbers
indicate the degree to which respondents'
self-ratings exceed their criterion scores.
Almost invariably, discrepancy measures of
self-enhancement have shown negative asso-
506 V. SELF AND SOCIAL PROCESSES
19. Self-Presentation of Personality: An Agency-Communion Framework 507
ciations with long-term adjustment outcomes
(e.g., Colvin, Block, & Funder, 1995; John
& Robins, 1994; Kwan, John, Kenny, Bond,
& Robins, 2004; Paulhus, 1998a; Robins
& Beer, 2001; Shedler, Mayman, & Manis,
1993: but see Bonanno et aI.., 2002).
Overclaiming Technique
The overclaiming technique (Paulhus et aI.,
2003) also emphasizes departure from real-
ity, but in a different fashion. Respondents
are asked to rate their· familiarity with a set
of persons, places, items, or events. Twenty
percent of the items are foils: That is, they
do not actually exist. Such responses can be
scored via a signal detection method to yield
both accuracy· and bias scores for each re-
spondent.
Of great practical advantage is the fact
that the departure-from-reality aspect is in-
cluded in the questionnaire along with the
self-ratings. It is represented here by the an-
swer key distinguishing real ones from foils:
That is, a familiarity rating is accurate to the
extent that real items are claimed and foils
are disclaimed.
The original overclaimin.g questionnaire
comprised academic items such as philoso-
phy, history, literature, and science. On these
items, the accuracy index correlated sub-
stantially with IQ scores, whereas the bias
index correlated moderately with trait self-
enhancement measures such as narcissism
(Paulhus et aI., 2003). When the items con-
cerned lay topics such as sports, music, films,
etc., the bias link was subtler. Correlations
with narcissism were significant only for top-
ics that the respondent valued.
Krueger's Method
This method might be called the idiosyncrat-
ic weighting method (Krueger, 1998; Sinha
& Krueger, 1998). Each participant's self-
ratings are correlated with his or her desir-
ability ratings of the same items. Effectively,
the method weights each rating by the desir-
ability as judged by the rater. Other methods
assume implicitly that the social consensus
regarding the social desirability of each item
within a test is shared by all respondents.
The method also has the advantage of
adaptability because the weights can be ad-
justed to address context differences. For ex-
ample, judgments of social desirability differ
substantially across home, school, and lei-
sure contexts.
Kwan's Method
Three other operationalizations of self-
enhancement warrant mention here. Kwan's
method (K wan et aI., 2004) utilizes the statis-
tical sophistication of Kenny's (1994) social
relations model. The technique decomposes
self-perception into perceiver effect, target
effect, and unique self-perception compo-
nents.
The method is superior in controlling
for complex contamination factors inherent
in its competitors. The downside of this tech-
nique is that it can be applied only to round-
robin ratings: That is, all participants have to
rate each other.
Adaptireness of Self-Enhancement
Taylor and Brown's (1988) claim tor the
adaptiveness of self-enhancement ("posi-
tive illusions") was supported by research
such as the Brown (1986) study: He showed
that individuals who claimed to be above
average across a wide variety of traits also
scored' high on a standard self-esteem scale.
A number of subsequent studies have shown
the same pattern of adaptive outcomes (e.g.,
Campbell et aI., 2002; Sedikides, Rudich,
Gregg, Kumashiro, & Rusbult, 2004).
The Taylor-Brown proposition con-
flicted directly with traditional conceptions
of mental health that emphasize the impor-
tance of perceiving oneself accurately (e.g.,
Allport, 1960; Jahoda, 1958). Critics of
Taylor and Brown have tended to side with
the more traditional view. In their compre-
hensive rebuttal, for example, Colvin and
Block (1994) disputed both the logic and
evidence presented for the adaptive value
of self-enhancement. They acknowledged
that positive illusions might be helpful in
mood regulation and, therefore, might pro-
vide temporary relief from negative affect.
Unacceptable to these critics was the no-
tion that self-enhancement had sustained
benefits.
To dispute the putative evidence, critics
cited several specific faults with many of the
studies cited by Taylor and Brown (1988).
First was their use of the social comparison
operationalization, which lacks a reality cri-
terion against which the validity of the self-
descriptions can be evaluated (Robins &
John, 1997b).
Critics also pointed to the problem of
using self-report outcomes when studying
self-report predictors. If individual differ-
ences in self-favorability bias contaminate
both the predictor and outcome, this com-
mon method variance would induce an arti-
factual positive correlation (Colvin & Block,
1994). For that reason, many critics have in-
sisted that adaptiveness criteria be indepen-
dent external measures, such as peer-rated
adjustment (Paulhus, 1998a), expert ratings
of adjustment (Colvin et aI., 1995; Robins &
John, 1997b), or school grades (Gramzow,
Elliot, Asher, & McGregor, 2003; Robins &
Beer, 2001).
Finally, a combination of the above two
problems introduces an artifactual associa-
tion even when hard outcome measures are
used. If self-enhancement is operationalized
by self-report (e.g., the social comparison in-
dex), then high scores represent a composite
of true positive traits. But positive traits are
known to yield objectively better life out-
comes, including good adjustment (Block,
2002; Colvin & Block, 1994).
Such criticism led many researchers to
turn to the criterion-discrepancy operation-
alization of self-enhancement. 5 When exter-
nal criteria were used to evaluate outcomes,
discrepancy measures of self-enhancement
showed long-term maladaptive outcomes
(e.g., Colvin et aI., 1995; John & Robins,
1994; Paulhus, 1998a; Robins & Beer, 2001;
Shedler et aI., 1993). It is worth reviewing
the key studies reported by critics.
Key Studies
The first empirical response to Taylor and
Brown (1988) was the John and Robins
(1994) study of performance in a group
task. Each participant's self-rated perfor-
mance was compared against two criterion
measures: (1) others' ratings of the target's
performance and (2) a concrete measure of
success (money earned in the group exer-
cise). The discrepancy between self-ratings
and the two criterion measures provided
concrete indicators of self-enhancement.
Results showed that higher scores on both
indicators were negatively associated with
ratings of adjustment by 11 trained psychol-
ogists.
Colvin and colleagues (1995) went
further to conduct two longitudinal stud-
ies and a laboratory study. They assessed
self-enhancement by comparing partici-
pants' self-evaluations with trained exam-
iners' assessments of their personalities.
Self-enhancement scores were then corre-
lated with evaluations of adjustment from
another set of trained observers. Results of
their longitudinal studies showed that self-
enhancement was associated with poor so-
cial skills and psychological maladjustment 5
years before and 5 years after the assessment
of self-enhancement. The laboratory study
showed that, in a confrontational situation,
self-enhancers were rated negatively by both
expert raters and peers.
Even with the discrepancy operation-
alization, however, the outcomes of self-
enhancement are not uniformly negative. For
example, Paulhus (1998a) investigated reac-
tions to self-enhancers in two longitudinal
studies where small groups met weekly for
a total of 7 weeks. Results showed that, al-
though high self-enhancers were initially per-
ceived favorably, those perceptions became
more and more negative over time. Paulhus
concluded that self-enhancing tendencies
were a "mixed blessing" (p. 1207).
This mixed blessing was also evident in
later research reported by Robins and Beer
(2001). In two studies, they showed that
self-enhancing tendencies had short-term af-
fective benefits. However, long-term damage
was wrought to self-esteem and academic en-
gagement as disconfirmation of overly posi-
tive self-assessments became evident. On ob-
jective indicators of academic performance,
self-enhancement failed to predict higher
academic performance or higher graduation
rates. Gramzow and colleagues (2002) also
used college grades as the outcome criterion.
In two studies, higher discrepancies between
reported and actual grade-point average
(GPA) predicted poorer grades in the cur-
rent course. Even with concrete behavioral
criteria, then, the research seems to dispute
claims that self-enhancement has any long~
term adaptive outcomes.
510 V. SELF AND SOCIAL PROCESSES
19. Self-Presentation of Personality: An Agency-Communion Framework 511
dicators of departure from reality. That is,
high scores on both factors involve overly
positive self-descriptions.
Since publication of the Paulhus and
John (1998) paper, attention to agentic and
communal aspects of self-presentation has
burgeoned. For example, Campbell and col-
leaguest (2002) utilized the distinction to
clarify the difference between self-esteem
and narcissism. Others have applied it to
examining cultural differences in the struc-
ture of self-enhancement (Church et aI.,
2006; Kurman, 2001; Yik, Bond, & Paul-
hus, 1998). In search of a mechanism, Diji-
kic, Peterson, and Zelano (2005) found that
memory distortion is greater for agentic than
for communal self-enhancers. A variety of
other self-enhancement behaviors have been
shown to depend on the agency-eommunion
distinction (Lonnqvist et aI., 2007; Pauls &
Stemmler, 2003).
FINAL CONCLUSIONS
The vast research on self-presentation is scat-
tered across the literatures on social, clinical,
and industrial-organizational psychology as
well as personality, per see Even within the
latter, the literature is enormous and dis-
connected. In this chapter, we have tried to
integrate the disconnected units within a
two-level model. The first facet turns on the
nature of the audience: public versus private.
The second facet concerns the content of the
image presented: People tend to offer images
consistent with some combination of agen-
tic qualities (strong, competent, clever) and
communal qualities (cooperative, warm, du-
tiful). ,_
That two-level model allowed us to
organize three domains of research on self-
presentation: socially desirable responding,
self-enhancement, and, to a lesser extent,
underlying cognitive processes. Resonating
throughout the chapter is the historical fail-
ure of researchers to recognize the complex
nature of positivity. Individuals motivated
to self-present do not all behave the same
way because the definition of positivity has
(at least) two interpretations,' and different
audiences may differentially value those two
forms of positivity.
NOTES
- Abbreviating the term further to "social desir- ability" leads to misleading characterizations such as "high in social desirability." That ter- minology should be reserved for labeling indi- viduals who possess desirable attributes.
- Unfortunately confusion has ensured from the fact that Digman (1997) referred to similar factors as Alpha and Beta.
- Part of the problem is where to draw the line. The same self-evaluation can be viewed as overestimated, underestimated, or accurate, depending on the choice of observer (Camp- bell & Fehr, 1990).
- Although impossible if everyone were refer- ring to the same dimension, individuals tend to define evaluative traits (e.g., intelligence) in idiosyncratic fashion to ensure that they score high (Dunning, 2005). In that sense, everyone can legitimately report being above average.
- We use the term "discrepancy" to subsume difference scores and residual scores. Rather than an absolute values, we refer to directional values, with higher numbers indicating a self- rating greater than the criterion rating.
- This result emerged when Conscientiousness was measured as Dutifulness rather than Am-
bition (Jackson, Paunonen, Fraboni, & Goffin,
1996). Dutifulness is most faithful, conceptu- ally and empirically, to the Communal factor (Wiggins & Trapnell, 1990).
- This convergence also helps to address alle- gations that discrepancy methods may be en- tirely misguided (Griffin, Murray, & Gonzalez, 1999; Zuckerman & Knee, 1996).
REFERENCES
Abel, A. E., & Wojiscke, B. (2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 93, 751-763. Alicke, M. D. (1985). Global self-evaluation as determined by the desirability and controlla- bility of trait adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1621-1630. Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1979). Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser? Journal of Experi- mental Psychology: General, 108,441-485. Allport, G. W. (1960). Personality and social en- counter. Boston: Beacon Press. Arkin, R. M. (1981). Self-presentational styles. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression manage- ment theory and social psychological research (pp. 311-333). New York: Academic Press. Asendorpf, ]. B., & Ostendorf, F. (1998). Is self-
enhancement healthy?: Conceptual, psycho- metric, and empirical analysis. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 74, 955-966. Baer, R. A., Rinaldo, ]. C., & Berry, D. T. R. (2003). Response distortions in self-report as- sessment. In Rocio Fernandez-Ballesteros (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychological assessment (pp. 319-321). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Baer, R. A., Wetter, M. W., & Berry, D. T. (1992). Detection of underreporting of psychopathol- ogy on the MMPI: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 12, 509-525. Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human exis- tence: Isolation and communion in Western man. Boston: Beacon Press. Bauer, ]. ]., & McAdams, D. P. (2004). Person- al growth in adults' stories of life transitions. Journal of Personality, 72, 573-602. Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bul- letin, 91, 3-26. Baumeister, R. F., Dale, K., & Sommer, K. L. (1998). Freudian defense mechanisms and em- pirical findings in modern social psychology: Reaction formation, projection, displacement, undoing, isolation, sublimation, and denial. Journal of Personality, 66,1081-1124. Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psycho- logical androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 165-172. Benet-Martinez, V., & Waller, N. G. (1997). Fur- ther evidence for the cross-cultural generality of the "Big Seven" model: Imported and indig- enous Spanish personality constructs. Journal of Personality, 65, 567-598. Berry, C. M., Page, R. C., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Effects of self-deceptive enhancement on per- sonality-job performance relationships. Inter- national Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15,94-109. Block, ]. (1965). The challenge of response sets. New York: Century. Block, ]. (2002). Personality as an affect- processing system: Toward an integrative the- ory. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Block, J., & Colvin, R. D. (1994). Do positive il- lusions foster mental health?: Separating fiction from fact. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 28. Bolino,M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (1999). Measur- ing impression management in organizations: A scale development based on the Jones and Pittman taxonomy. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 187-206. Bonanno, G. A., Field, N. P., Kovacevic, A., & Kaltman, S. (2002). Self-enhancement as a buffer against extreme adversity: Civil,war in Bosnia and traumatic loss in the United States. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 184-196.
Borkenau, P. (1990). Traits as ideal-based and goal-derived social categories. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 58, 381-396. Briggs, S. R., & Cheek,]. M. (1988). On the na- ture of self-monitoring: Problems with assess- ment, problems with validity. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 54, 663-678. Brown,]. D. (1986). Evaluations of self and oth- ers: Self-enhancement biases in social judg- ments. Social Cognition, 4, 353-376. Brown, J. D. (1998). The self. Boston: McGraw- Hill. Buss, A. H. (1980). Self-consciousness and social anxiety. San Francisco: Freeman. Byrne, D. (1961). The Repression-Sensitization Scale: Rationale, reliability. and validity. Jour- nal of Personality, 29, 334-349. Campbell, K. W., Rudich, E. A., & Sedikides, C. (2002). Narcissism, self-esteem, and the posi- tivity of self-views: Two portraits of self-love. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 358-365.
Campbell,]. D., & Fehr, B. A. (1990). Self-esteem
and perceptions of conveyed impressions: Is negative affectivity associated with greater real- ism? Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 58, 122-133. Cantor, N., & Kihlstrom,]. F.(1987). Personality and social intelligence. Englewood Cliffs, N]: Prentice Hall. Carey, ].,.& Paulhus, D. L. (2008, August). The structure of self-presentation scales. Paper pre- sented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Boston. Carson, R. C. (1969). Interaction concepts of per- sonality. Chicago: Aldine.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Ma-
chiavellianism. New York: Academic Press. Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., del Prado, A. M., Valdez-Medina, ]. L.,Miramontes, L. G., & Ortiz, F. A. (2006). A cross-eultural study of trait self-enhancement, explanatory variables, and adjustment. Journal of Research in Person- ality,40, 1169-1201.
Colvin, C. R., & Block,]. (1994). Do positive il-
lusions foster mental health? An examination of the Taylor and Brown formulation. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 116, 3-20. Colvin, C. R., Block, ]." & Funder, D. C. (1995). Overly positive self-evaluations and personal- ity: Negative implications for mental heCl:lth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1152-:1162.
Costa, P. T., ]r., & McCrae, R. R. (1989). Manual
for the NEO Personality Inventory: Five Fac- tor Inventory/ NEO-FFI. Odessa, FL: PAR. Costa, P. T., ]r., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and In- dividual Differences, 13, 653-665.
512 v. SELF AND SOCIAL PROCESSES 19. Self-Presentation of Personality: An Agency-Communion Framework 513
Crowne, D. P. (1979). The experimental study of personality. Hillsdale, Nj: Erlbaum. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The ap- proval motive. New York: Wiley. De Raad, B., & Van Oudenhoven, j.P. (2008). Factors of values in the Dutch Language and their relationship to factors of personality. Eu- ropean Journal of Personality, 22, 81-108. DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, jordan B., & Higgins, D. M. (2002). Higher-order factors of the Big Five predict conformity: Are there neuroses of health? Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 533-552. Digman, j. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 73, 1246-1256.
Djikic, M., Peterson,j. B., & Zelazo, P. D. (2005).
Attentional biases and memory distortions in self-enhancers. Personality and Individual Dif- ferences, 38, 559-568. Dunning, D. (2005). Self-insight: Roadblocks and detours on the road to knowing thyself. New York: Psychology Press. Duval, T. S., & Wicklund, R. A. (1972). A theory of objective self-awareness. New York: Aca- demic Press. Edwards, A. L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. Fort Worth, TX:Dryden Press. Edwards, A. L. (1970). The measurement of per- sonality traits by scales inventories. New
York: Holt,. Rinehart .&. Winston.
Eysenck, S. B. G., & Eysenck, H. J. (1964). Man-
ual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. Lon- don: Stodder & Hougton. Fenigstein, A.,. Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522-527. Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1939). Mechanisms of self- deception. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 409-420. Furnham, A., & Henderson, M. (1982). The good, the bad, and the mad: Response bias in self-report measures. Personality and Individu- al Differences, 3,311-320.
Gailliot, M. T., Baumeister, R. F., de Waal, C.
N., Maner, j. K., Plant, E. A., Tice, D. M., et aL (2007). Self-control relies on glucose as a limited energy source: Willpower is more than a metaphor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 325-336.
Gangestad, S. w., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-
monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psy- chological Bulletin, 126, 530-555.
Gilbert, D. T., Pelham, B. w., & Krull, D. S. (1988).
On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 733-739.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psycho- logical theory and women's development. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press .. Godfrey, D., jones, E. E., & Lord, C. G. (1986). Self-promotion is not ingratiating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 106-115. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday. Gough, H. G. (1957). Manual for the California Psychological Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Con- sulting Psychologists Press. Gramzow, R. H., Elliot, A. j., Asher, E., & McGregor, H. A. (2002). Self-evaluation bias and academic performance: Some ways and some reasons why. Journal of Research in Per- sonality, 37, 41-61. Griffin, D., Murray, S., & Gonzalez, R. (1999). Difference score correlations in relationship research: A conceptual primer. Personal Rela- tionships, 6, 505-518. Gur, R. C., & Sackeim, H. A. (1979). Self- deception: A concept in search of a phenome- non. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 37, 147-169.. Hartshorne, H., & May, M. A. (1928). Studies in deceit. New York: Macmillan. Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, j. C. (1951). MMPI manual. New York: Psychological Cor- poration. Helgeson, V. S., & Fritz, H. L. (1999). Unmitigat- ed agency and unmitigated communion: Dis- tinctions from agency and communion. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 131-158. Hinz, A., Brahler, E., Schmidt, P., & Albani, C. (2005). Investigating the circumplex structure of the Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ). Jour- nal of Individual Differences, 26, 185-193. Hogan, R. (1983). A socioanalytic theory of per- sonality. In M. M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska Sym- posium on Motivation (VoL 30, pp. 55-89). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Holden, R. R. (2007). Socially desirable respond- ing does moderate personality scale valid- ity both in experimental and nonexperimental contexts. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Sci- ence, 39, 184-201. Holden, R. R., & Evoy, R. A. (2005). Personality inventory faking: A four-dimensional simula- tion of dissimulation. Personality and Individ- ual Differences, 39, 1307~1318. Holden, R. R., & Fekken, G. C. (1989). Three common social desirability scales: Friends, ac- quaintances, or strangers? Journal of Research in Personality, 23, 180-191. Hoorens, V. (1995). Self-favoring biases, self- presentation, and the self-other asymmetry in social comparison. Journal of Personality, 63, 793-817.
Horowitz, L. M., Wilson, K. R., Turan, B., Zo- lotsev, P., Constantino, M. j., & Henderson, L. (2006). How interpersonal motives clarify the meaning of interpersonal behavior: A revised circumplex model. Personality and Social Psy- chology Review, 10, 67-86. jackson, D. N., & Messick, S. (1962). Response styles and the measurement of psychopathol- ogy. Psychological Bulletin, 55, 243-252. jackson, D. N., Paunonen, S. V., Fraboni, M., & Goffin, R. D. (1996). A five-factor versus six- factor model of personality structure. Personal- ity and Individual Differences, 20, 33-45. jahoda, M. (1958). Current concepts of positive mental health. Oxford, UK: Basic Books.
john, o. P., Cheek, j. M., & Klohnen, E. C.
(1996). On the nature of self-monitoring: Con- struct explication with Q-sort ratings. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 763-776.
john, o. P., & Robins, R. W. (1994). Accuracy
and bias in self-perception: Individual differ- ences in self-enhancement and the role of nar- cissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 66,206-219.
john, o. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five
trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. john (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychol- ogy (pp. 102-139). New York: Guilford Press. johnson, E. A. (1995). Self-deceptive responses to threat: Adaptive only in ambiguous circum- stances. Journal of Personality, 63, 759-791. johnson, j. A., & Hogan, R. (1981). Moral judg- ments and self-presentations. Journal of Re- search in Personality, 15, 57-63. jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a theory of strategic self-presentation. In j. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 231-262). Hillsdale, Nj: Erlbaum. judd, C. M., james-Hawkins, L., Yzerbyt, V., & Kashima, Y. (2005). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: Understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 988-913. Kasser, T., Cohn, S., Kanner, A. D., & Ryan, R. M. (2007). Some costs of American corporate capitalism: A psychological exploration of value and goal conflicts. Psychological Inquiry, 18,1-22. Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
Kiesler, D. j., & Auerbach, S. M. (2003). Integrat-
ing measurement of control and affiliation in studies of physician-patient interaction: The interpersonal circumplex. Social Science and Medicine, 57(9), 1707-1722.
Klar, Y., & Giladi, E. E. (1997). "No one in my group can be below the group's average": A robust positivity bias in favor of anonymous peers. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 73, 885-901. Krueger, j. (1998). Enhancement bias in descrip- tions of self and others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 505-516. Kurman,j. (2001). Self-enhancement: Is it restrict- ed to individualistic cultures? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1705-1716. Kurt, A., & Paulhus, D. L. (2008). Moderators of the adaptive value of self-enhancement: Op- erationalization, motivational domain, adjust- ment type, and evaluator. Journal of Research in Personality. Kwan, V. S. Y., Barrios, V., Ganis, G., Gorman, j., Lange, C., Kumar, M., et al. (2007). Assessing the neural correlates of self-enhancement bias: A transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Ex- perimental Brain Research, 182, 379-385.
Kwan, V. S. Y., john, o. P., Kenny, D. A., Bond,
M. H., & Robins, R. W. (2004). Reconceptual- izing individual differences in self-enhancement bias: An interpersonal approach. Psychological Review, 111,94-110. Laforge, R., Leary, T. F., Naboisek, H., Coffey, H. S., & Freedman, M. B. (1954). The interper- sonal dimension of personality: II. An objective study of repression. Journal of Personality, 23, 129-153.
Leary, M. R. (1995). Self-presentation: Impres-
sion management and interpersonal behavior. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark. Leary, M. R. (2007). Motivational and emo- tional aspects of the self. Annual Review, 58, 317-344. Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impres- sion management: A literature review and two- component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34-47. Leary, M. R., T chividjian, L. R., & Kraxberger, B. E. (1999). Self-presentation can be hazardous to your health: Impression management and
health risk. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), The self
in social psychology (pp. 182-194). New York:. Psychology Press. Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of per- sonality: A functional theory and methodology for personality evaluation. Oxford, UK: Ron- ald Press. Lee, S.-j., Quigley, B. M., Nesler, M. S., Corbet, A. B., & Tedeschi, j. T. (1999). Development of a self-presentation tactics scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 701-722. Lennox, R. D., & Wolfe, R. N. (1984). Revi- sion of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1349-1364.
516 V.^ SELF^ AND^ SOCIAL^ PROCESSES^ 19. Self-Presentation of Personality: An Agency-Communion Framework 517
ness. In G. E. Schwartz & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation: Advances in research (Vol. 2, pp. 139-197). New York: Plenum Press. Saucier, G. (1994). Separating description and evaluation in the structure of personality at- tributes. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 66, 141-154. Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2001). Lexi- cal studies of indigenous personality factors: Premises, products, and prospects. Journal of Personality, 69, 847-879. Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interperson- al relationships. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole. Schlenker, B. R., Britt, T. W., & Pennington, J. W. (1996). Impression regulation and manage~ ment: A theory of self-identification. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Vol. 3. The inter- personal context (pp. 118-147). New York: Guilford Press. Schlenker, B. R., & Weigold, M. F. (1990). Self- consciousness and self-presentation: Being au- tonomous versus appearing autonomous. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 820-828. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests ·in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental. social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-66). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Scott, W. A. (1968). Concepts of nocmality. In E. F. Borgatta & W. W. Lambert (Eds.), Hand- book of personality: Theory and research. Chi- cago: Rand-McNally. Sedikides, C., Rudich, E. A., Gregg, A. P., Ku- mashiro, M., & Rusbult, C. (2004). Are nor- mal narcissists psychologically healthy?: Self- esteem matters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 400-416. Sedikides, C., & Strube, M. J. (1997). Self- evaluation: To thine own self be good, to thine own self be sure, to thine own self be true, and to thine own self be better. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychol- ogy (Vol. 29, pp. 209-269). New York: Aca- demic Press. Shedler, J., Mayman, M., & Manis, M. (1993). The illusion of mental health. American Psy- chologist, 48, 1117-1131. Shepperd, J. A., & Kwavnick, K. D. (1999). Mal- adaptive image maintenance. In R. M. Kowal- ski & M. R. Leary (Eds.), The social psychol- ogy of emotional and behavioral problems: Interfaces of social and clinical psychology (pp. 249-277). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Sherry, S. B., Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Lee- Baggley, D. L., & Hall, P. A. (2007). Trait per- fectionism and perfectionistic self-presentation in personality pathology. Personality and Indi-
vidual Differences, 42, 477-490.
Sinha, R. R., & Krueger, J. (1998). Idiographic self-evaluation and bias. Journal of Research in
Personality, 32, 131-155.
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 30, 526-537.
Spence, J. T. (1984). Masculinity, feminity, and gender-related traits: A conceptual analysis and critique of current research. Progress in Experi~ mental Personality Research, 13, 1-97. Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton. Swann, W. B. J. (1990). To be adored or to be known? The interplay of self-enhancement and self-verification. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sor- rentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 408-448). New York: Guilford Press. Taylor, S. E., & Armor, D. A. (1996). Positive il- lusions and coping with adversity. Journal of Personality, 64, 873-898. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1994). Positive il- lusions and well-being revisited: Separating fact from fiction. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 21-27. Taylor, S. E., Lerner, J. S., Sherman, D. K., Sage, R. M., & McDowell, N. K. (2003). Portrait of the self-enhancer: Well adjusted and well liked or maladjusted and friendless? Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 84, 165-176.
Tice, D. M., Butler, J. L., Muraven, M. B., & Still-
well, A. M. (1995). When modesty prevails: Differential favorability of self-presentation to friends and stranger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1120-1138. Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (in press). Agen- tic and communal values: Their scope and mea- surement. Journal of Personality Assessment. Trapnell, P. D., & Wiggins, J. S. (1990). Exten- sion of the Interpersonal Adjective Scales to include the Big Five dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 781-790. Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behav- ior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-520. Vazire, S. (2006). Informant reports: A cheap, fast, and easy method for personality assess- ment. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 472-481.
Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. E, & Ciarocco, N. J. (2005). Self-regulation and self-presentation: Regulatory resource depletion impairs im- pression management and effortful self- presentation depletes regulatory resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 632-657. Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 33, 448-457.
Weinberger, J., & Silverman, L. H. (1990). Test- ability and empirical verification of psychoana- lytic dynamic propositions through sublimi- nal activation. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 7, 299-339. Wiggins, J. S. (1959). Interrelationships among MMPI measures of dissimulation under stan- dard and social desirability instructions. Jour-
nal of Consulting Psychology, 23, 419-427.
Wiggins, J. S. (1964). Convergence among stylis- tic response measures from objective personal- ity tests. Educational and Psychological Mea-
surement, 24, 551-562.
Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the under- standing and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In D. Cicchetti & W. M. Grove (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology: Essays in honor of Paul E. Meehl, Vol. 2. Per-
sonality and psychopathology (pp. 89-113). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Wiggins, J .. S., & Holzmuller, A. (1978). Psycho- logical androgyny and interpersonal behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46,40....52. Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D.(1996). A dyadic- interactional perspective on the five-factor model. In J.S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality (pp. 88--162). New York: Guilford Press.
Winter, D. G., John, o. P.. , Stewart, A.J., Klohnen,
E. C., & Duncan, L. E.. (1998). Traits and mo- tives: Toward an integration of two traditions in personality research. Psychological Review,
Woike, B. A., Gershkovich, I., Piorkowski, R., & Polo, M. (1999). The rolenf motives in the con- tent and structure of autobiographical memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 600-612. Yik, M. S. M., Bond, M. H., & Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Do Chinese self-enhance or self-efface? It's a matter of domain. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 24, 399-406.
Zuckerman, M., & Knee, C. R.(1996). A com- ment on Colvin, Block, and Funder (1995). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
