You are on page 1of 26

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 8, 2005, pp.

1139-1163
QUINLIVAN
BODY
APPRAISAL
AND LEARY
DISCREPANCIES

WOMENS PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR BODIES:


DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN SELFAPPRAISALS
AND REFLECTED APPRAISALS
ERIN QUINLIVAN AND MARK R. LEARY
Wake Forest University

Previous research has revealed that some women rate their physique differently
from how they believe others perceive them. This study examined the nature of this
discrepancy, relying on research on selfverification and selfenhancement regarding how people respond to consistent vs. enhancing selfrelevant information.
Participants received feedback about their appearance that was either congruent
with their selfappraisal, congruent with their reflected appraisal, or more positive
than their selfappraisal. Affectively, participants responded to positive feedback
more favorably than negative feedback, regardless of the direction of their discrepancy. For perceived accuracy, participants who rated themselves heavier than they
thought other people see them responded more favorably to selfenhancing feedback, while participants who rated themselves thinner than they thought others see
them responded more favorably to selfverifying feedback.

Twenty years ago, Rodin, Silberstein, and StriegelMoore (1984) addressed the increasing importance for women to have a thin figure, referring to this focus on thinness as a cultural norm. Today, even a
cursory look at Western society suggests that many women are still exceptionally concerned with the appearance of their bodies. Ultrathin
fashion models, magazine headlines (Lose 10 pounds before summer!), the popularity of fitness clubs, and innumerable products for
body enhancement all reflect widespread obsession with the female figure. Not surprisingly, the number of women who are unhappy with
their bodies is quite high and has increased over the preceding two decades (Cash & Henry, 1995). The importance placed on having a particu-

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mark Leary, Department of Psychology, Wake Forrest University, Winston-Salem, NC 27109. E-mail:
leary@wfu.edu

1139

1140

QUINLIVAN AND LEARY

lar, ideal body shape leads to a great deal of negative affect and
maladaptive behavior among women who view their bodies unfavorably (Jacobi & Cash, 1994; Levine, Smolak, & Hayden, 1994; Monteath &
McCabe, 1997; Muth & Cash, 1997).
Although many measures have been designed to assess womens
body dissatisfaction, one longstanding and widely used measure is
Stunkard, Sorenson, and Schulsingers (1983) Figure Rating Scale (e.g.,
Altabe & Thompson, 1996; Mautner, Owen, & Furnham, 2000; Monteath
& McCabe, 1997; Snyder & Hasbrouck, 1996; Stuhldreher & Ryan, 1999;
TantleffDunn & Thompson, 1995; Tiggemann, 1996). Participants report which of nine figures, ranging from very thin to very overweight,
they think is most like their current actual figure and which most resembles their ideal body shape. The degree of discrepancy between an individuals actual and ideal figures, if any, is assumed to indicate the degree to which the woman is dissatisfied with her body (Smolak &
Levine, 2001).
Not only do many women report a discrepancy between their actual
and ideal figures, but some also perceive their figures differently from
how they think other people perceive them. Using figures based on
those by Stunkard et al. (1983), Quinlivan and Leary (2001) asked female
participants to rate both how they see themselves (i.e., their selfappraisal) and how they think others see them (i.e., their reflected appraisal). The majority of the participants demonstrated a discrepancy
between their self and reflected appraisals, with 51% of the participants
reporting that they are actually heavier than they think other people see
them and 22% reporting that they are thinner than others think.
Discrepancies between self and reflected appraisals of ones body
may occur for many reasons. Previous research has shown that people
assess their own figure both cognitively and affectively (Tiggemann,
1996). One possibility for differences in self and reflected appraisals is
that a womans feelings of dissatisfaction with her body come into play
when asked how she thinks she looks (i.e., leading to a more affectrelated judgment), while her feelings of dissatisfaction are not a factor
when considering how others would see her (i.e., resulting in a more
cognitivelybased judgment). Thus, womens positive or negative attitudes toward their bodies may lead them to view their body more favorably or unfavorably than is objectively so, just as peoples attitudes influence judgments of physical stimuli in other domains (Bruner &
Goodman, 1947).
Alternatively, some women may rate themselves as heavier or thinner
than they suspect they really are as a way of maintaining positive feelings about themselves. For example, some may maintain that they are
thinner than others see them to avoid feeling dissatisfied with them-

BODY APPRAISAL DISCREPANCIES

1141

selves. The literature is replete with evidence that people maintain excessively positive views of themselves, often while knowing that other
people see them less positively, to maintain selfesteem or reduce negative affect (e.g., Greenwald, 1980; Taylor & Brown, 1988). In addition,
people sometimes express selfappraisals that they know are inconsistent with the truth to elicit selfaffirming feedback from others. For example, women may claim that they are heavier than they think others
see them, hoping that someone will discredit their remark and reassure
them that they are thinner than they claim. Participants may even rate
themselves as heavier than they think they are on questionnaires, in anticipation of future interactions with individuals who have viewed these
ratings. If the viewer has an initial impression of the participant as
heavier than she is, then the viewer may have a more positive reaction
when meeting the participant and realizing that she is thinner than the
viewer had expected.
The present study was designed to explore the nature of the discrepancies between womens perceptions of their own bodies and how they
believe other people perceive them. Reported discrepancies could be the
result of a perceptual bias stemming from negative body image or from
the motivation to maintain positive feelings about ones physique. To
address these issues, we relied on insights provided by previous research regarding how people respond to selfverifying vs.
selfenhancing information.
Selfverification theory states that people seek information that is consistent with how they see themselves (Swann, 1997; Swann & Read,
1981). Validation of ones selfviews provides assurance that the person
can predict others reactions to the individual and allows one to behave
in adaptive ways (Swann, 1997). According to selfverification theory,
people seek feedback that is consistent with their selfviews, regardless
of the positive or negative content of such information. Within the realm
of body dissatisfaction, Joiner (1999) found that women with bulimic
symptoms were more likely than women who were satisfied with their
bodies to invite negative feedback from others regarding their physical
appearance. Joiner proposed that bulimic women may be caught in a
dangerous cycle of selfverification that perpetuates their body
dissatisfaction.
Selfenhancement theory, on the other hand, proposes that people
have a pervasive tendency to maintain positive views of themselves
(Hoyle, Kernis, Leary, & Baldwin, 1999). According to the selfenhancement perspective, people desire and seek out information that makes
them feel good about themselves, regardless of whether the information
is accurate (Baumeister, 1995; Swann, Hixon, SteinSeroussi, & Gilbert,
1990; Taylor & Brown, 1988).

1142

QUINLIVAN AND LEARY

Selfenhancement motives lead people to view themselves in unrealistically flattering ways. For example, they may rate themselves favorably on important attributes, overestimate their control over events, see
themselves as being unusually moral, and construe events in ways that
reflect positively upon themselves (for reviews, see Baumeister, 1998;
Blaine & Crocker, 1993; Greenwald, 1980; Taylor & Brown, 1988). In the
realm of body image, women may underestimate their size or weight,
and preferentially seek positive information about their appearance, to
maintain a reasonably favorable selfimage. Selfenhancement motives
have received little attention in the body image literature although we
know that peoples selfesteem is tied to how they think they look (Fleming & Courtney, 1984; Harter, 1999), and we can assume that people
prefer to feel good rather than bad about their physical appearance.
In response to conflicting findings regarding whether people are motivated primarily by selfverification vs. selfenhancement, researchers
have proposed that selfverification and selfenhancement motives
produce separate cognitive vs. affective effects. Shrauger (1975) proposed that affective reactions to feedback are determined by the
positivity of the feedback, whereas cognitive reactions are determined
more by its consistency with the persons selfimage. Put differently,
people react emotionally to selfrelevant information based primarily
on its implications for their selfesteem but cognitively assess its veracity based on its consistency with their selfviews. Empirical evidence
provided by Swann, Griffin, Predmore, and Gaines (1987) revealed that,
regardless of how negative or positive a participants selfconcept, positive feedback was preferred to the same extent on an affective level.
Cognitively, however, verification of ones own selfview was
preferred.
This line of research suggests that affective reactions to feedback about
ones appearance may reflect selfenhancement processes, whereas cognitive reactions to the same feedback may reflect selfverification processes. In the present study, female participants received feedback about
their appearance that was either consistent with their view of themselves (i.e., selfcongruent), consistent with how they thought other people see them (i.e., socialcongruent), or more positive than they saw
themselves (i.e., idealized). Cognitive and emotional reactions to this
feedback were assessed to provide an indication of the processes underlying womens assessment of their bodies. Support for cognitive
selfverification processes would be obtained if women judged information about their bodies to be more accurate the more it confirmed
their own body image, regardless of its favorability. Support for affective selfenhancement processes would be obtained if women judged

BODY APPRAISAL DISCREPANCIES

1143

positive feedback about their bodies as more affectively pleasing,


without respect to its accuracy.

METHOD
PARTICIPANTS
Women were chosen as participants for the current study due to the
higher occurrence of body dissatisfaction among women than men
(Cash & Brown, 1989; Feingold & Mazzella, 1998; Franzoi, Kessenich, &
Sugrue, 1989; McKinley, 1998; Muth & Cash, 1997; Stuhldreher & Ryan,
1999). Three-hundred and eighty undergraduate participants were pretested during a mass testing session held at the beginning of the semester. During this session, women rated themselves using a modification
of Stunkard et al.s (1983) Figure Rating Scale. Scores on this measure
have been shown to be stable over 45 weeks (testretest r = .87;
Banasiak, Wertheim, Koerner, & Voudouris, 2001) and to predict body
dissatisfaction (Altabe & Thompson, 1992, 1996; Thompson & Altabe,
1991; Tiggemann, 1996).
Participants were asked to rate themselves on the nine figures from
two different points of view. The selfappraisal question asked participants to indicate the figure that corresponds to how you think you currently look, and the reflected appraisal question asked participants to indicate the figure that corresponds to how you think others think you
look. A distinction between feelings and beliefs about ones body was
not made, as we sought to measure the overall perception each woman
had of her body from the perspectives of self and others, perceptions that
may be affected by both feelings and beliefs. To provide participants
with a greater range of response options than that offered by the original, 9item version of the Figure Rating Scale, responses were made on a
27point scale displayed below the nine figures (see Figure 1). Previous
work showed that participants may indicate a self/reflected appraisal
discrepancy that is less than one whole figure, making the expansion of
the scale necessary (Quinlivan & Leary, 2001). In addition, participants
completed the Body Dissatisfaction subscale of the Eating Disorders Inventory (EDI; Garner, Olmsted, & Polivy, 1983) and the Appearance
Evaluation subscale of the Multidimensional BodySelf Relations
Questionnaire (MBSRQ; Cash, 1994b) during this mass testing session.
Based on their reported self/reflected appraisal discrepancy (negative, positive, or none), participants were able to sign up for what appeared to be one of three experiments. This process facilitated an equal
number of participants for each discrepancy condition. The primary

1144

QUINLIVAN AND LEARY

FIGURE 1. Silhouettes and corresponding 27-point scale used for participants self-appraisal and reflected appraisal ratings. Note that the numbers did not appear below the
boxes on the questionnaires that participants completed.

study included 81 women from the initial pool. Participants received required experimental participation credit for their involvement.
PROCEDURE
When participants reported for the experimental session, they were
placed alone in a room containing a oneway mirror. Participants were
told that the study was investigating how people form first impressions
of others based on minimal information about them. After completing
an informed consent form, participants were told that another participant would observe them through the oneway mirror to form
impressions of them.
Participants stood facing the oneway mirror, where the observer ostensibly viewed them for two minutes. Following the observational period, participants were told that, in different experimental sessions, the
observers rated different characteristics and that, in this particular session, the observer had been asked to rate their physical appearance. A
feedback form ostensibly completed by the observer was then shown to
the participant. In actuality, the feedback that participants received was
based on their own appearance ratings from the questionnaire they had
completed in mass testing 24 weeks earlier. The form showed the nine
figures accompanied by the 27point scale that participants had used to
rate themselves earlier.
In the selfcongruent feedback condition, participants were given feedback that was identical to their selfratings at mass testing. In the socialcongruent feedback condition, participants were given feedback that
was consistent with how they reported that other people view them. In

BODY APPRAISAL DISCREPANCIES

1145

the idealized feedback condition, participants received feedback that was


proportionally thinner than they rated themselves. Using the value of
their selfappraisal as the starting point, the idealized rating was established by subtracting onefourth of their current figure rating. For example, a participant who had rated her current figure as a 12 would receive
an idealized rating of 9 (i.e., 12 12/4 = 9). Previous studies indicate that,
with rare exception, women choose an ideal figure thinner than their
current figure (Quinlivan & Leary, 2001; Tiggemann, 1996).
After participants reviewed their feedback form, they completed a
questionnaire. First, participants rated the observers evaluation on five
adjectives intended to assess its accuracy: accurate, valid, misleading,
true, and wrong. Each adjective was rated on a 9point scale. Then, using a 12point scale with five labeled points that ranged from not at all to
extremely, participants rated the degree to which (a) they thought they
would like the observer, and (b) the observer was someone they would
like to get to know. In addition, three bipolar adjectives were used to
asses the observers friendliness (friendlyunfriendly, approachableunapproachable, conceitedmodest). These were measured using
a 9point scale.
State selfesteem was measured using Heatherton and Polivys (1991)
State SelfEsteem Scale (SSES). The SSES consists of 20 items intended to
tap into three factors of state selfesteem: performance, social, and appearance. These items were rated using a 5point scale. Appearance
selfesteem was expected to be influenced by the positive or negative
nature of the feedback, as was social selfesteem. An effect of feedback
on social selfesteem would indicate that participants believe that others judgments of their bodies influence others opinions of them more
generally. Performance selfesteem was not expected to be influenced
by feedback. Participants also rated their feelings on 24 emotion adjectives (e.g., happy, angry, strong, anxious) on 7point scales.
To ensure that the feedback manipulation was effective, participants
indicated the observers rating of them on a set of figures identical to
those on which they had received feedback. Additionally, participants
were asked to provide their height and weight. Finally, participants
were asked to once again rate their current figure using the Figure Rating Scale. After completing the questionnaires, participants were fully
debriefed and dismissed.

RESULTS
Following the analysis of the manipulation check, the results will be described in four sections, focusing on accuracy ratings, state selfesteem,
emotional responses, and ratings of the observer. Body mass index

1146

QUINLIVAN AND LEARY

(BMI), calculated using participants selfreports of their height and


weight, showed no significant differences across discrepancy groups,
indicating that there was no systematic difference between participants
actual size and the direction of their discrepancies, F(2, 77) = 2.76, p > .05.
MANIPULATION CHECK
Remembered feedback ratings correlated .97, p < .001, with the feedback
that participants had received, demonstrating that participants correctly recalled the feedback presented to them.
ANALYTIC STRATEGY
Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted using feedback condition, selfappraisal (at mass testing), and the discrepancy between self and reflected appraisals as predictor variables.
Selfappraisal and self/reflected appraisal discrepancy were zerocentered, and feedback condition was dummycoded. Feedback condition
was entered on Step 1, selfappraisal and the self/reflected appraisal
discrepancy were entered on Step 2, two of the three possible 2way interactions were entered on Step 3, the remaining 2way interaction was
entered on Step 4, and the threeway interaction of feedback, selfappraisal, and selfreflected appraisal discrepancy was entered on Step 5.
Three regression analyses were conducted to allow each of the twoway
interactions to be entered on Step 4 after partialing out the other two
twoway interactions.
To examine the form of significant interactions, conditional regression
equations were calculated separately for each experimental condition.
For each of the three feedback conditions, predicted mean scores on the
criterion variable were calculated and plotted for selfappraisals or
self/reflected appraisal discrepancies that fell one standard deviation
below, one standard deviation above, and at the mean. In addition, the
significance of the slope for each conditional regression line was tested,
and regions of significance and nonsignificance were determined using
the JohnsonNeyman procedure (Aiken & West, 1991; Pedhazur, 1982).
The JohnsonNeyman test, which is analogous to post hoc tests following a significant analysis of variance, identifies regions of
nonsignificance along the separate (conditional) regression lines for two
experimental conditions. Results of the JohnsonNeyman procedure are
expressed as the lower and upper bounds of the region of
nonsignificancethe range of values on the conditional regression lines
that do not differ between feedback conditions.

BODY APPRAISAL DISCREPANCIES

1147

FIGURE 2. Interaction of feedback condition by self/reflected appraisal discrepancy for


accuracy ratings.

ACCURACY RATINGS

A principal axes factor analysis of the adjectives used to assess accuracy


revealed that these five ratings formed a single factor. Thus, a factor
score was computed for each participant. A hierarchical multiple regression analysis revealed a nearly significant interaction for feedback condition and self/reflected appraisal discrepancy, F(2, 70) = 2.95, p = .059,
R2 = .07. The conditional regression lines for accuracy judgments for
each experimental condition are shown in Figure 2.
Tests of the significance of each slope revealed that participants in the
selfcongruent condition (who received feedback that perfectly mirrored their selfratings at mass testing) showed a significant negative relationship between self/reflected appraisal discrepancy and accuracy
ratings, F(1, 70) = 6.76, p < .05. Participants who rated themselves thinner
than they thought they are seen by others judged selfcongruent feedback to be more accurate than participants who rated themselves as
heavier than others think they are. These results are consistent with a
selfenhancement explanation because perceived accuracy increased
with more flattering feedback, even though all feedback was perfectly
consistent with how participants had earlier rated themselves.
In the socialcongruent feedback condition (in which the feedback
mirrored how participants reported other people saw them), the simple
slope was not significant, F(1, 70) = .35, p > .05. Nor was the effect of

1148

QUINLIVAN AND LEARY

self/reflected appraisal discrepancy significant in the idealized feedback condition, F(1, 70) = 1.67, p > .05.
Analyses of differences between feedback conditions using the JohnsonNeyman procedure revealed that participants who rated themselves
as thinner than others see them (i.e., those with negative self/reflected appraisal discrepancies) did not rate the accuracy of the feedback differently
in the self and socialcongruent feedback conditions (upper boundary of
region of nonsignificance = .09). Thus, participants with a negative
self/reflected appraisal discrepancy rated the accuracy of the feedback
similarly when it was consistent with either their selfappraisal or their
reflected appraisal. For these same participants, idealized feedback was
rated as significantly less accurate than either selfcongruent feedback
(lower boundary of region of nonsignificance = .12) or socialcongruent
feedback (lower boundary = .77). (To clarify the meaning of regions of
nonsignificance, a lower boundary of .12 means that accuracy ratings in
the idealized and selfcongruent feedback conditions were significantly
different for participants with a discrepancy more negative than .12, but
not significantly different for participants whose discrepancy was greater
than .12.) Results for these participants seem to support the selfverification perspective because they rated idealized feedback as less accurate
than ratings that mirrored those they had provided during mass testing.
For individuals who rated themselves as heavier than they think others see them (i.e., those with positive self/reflected appraisal discrepancies), however, selfcongruent feedback was viewed as significantly less
accurate than both socialcongruent feedback (upper boundary = .10)
and idealized feedback (upper boundary = .30). Results for participants
in this group seem to support a selfenhancement hypothesis because
they should find selfcongruent feedback to be relatively negative in
comparison to the other two types of feedback.
For participants who did not report a discrepancy between their self
and reflected appraisals at mass testing, ratings of the accuracy of
selfcongruent feedback and idealized feedback did not differ significantly (lower boundary = .12; upper boundary = .30). Thus, when
women with no self/reflected appraisal discrepancy received overly
positive information, they rated this positive information just as accurately as they rated selfappraisal feedback. Therefore, results for participants with no self/reflected appraisal discrepancy seem to reflect a
selfenhancement process.
STATE SELFESTEEM
Internal consistency (Cronbachs alpha) for each of the three subscales of
Heatherton and Polivys (1991) was adequate: social, .89; performance,

BODY APPRAISAL DISCREPANCIES

1149

FIGURE 3. Interaction of feedback condition by self-appraisal for appearance state self-esteem.

.85; and appearance, .91. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed an


interaction of feedback condition and selfappraisal for appearance
state selfesteem, F(2, 71) = 7.56, p < .001.
Testing the simple slopes (see Figure 3) revealed a significant negative
relationship between selfappraisal and appearance state selfesteem
only for participants in the selfcongruent feedback condition, F(1, 71) =
29.9, p < .05. Participants who rated themselves as thin during mass testing had higher appearance selfesteem when given selfcongruent feedback than participants who had rated themselves as heavy during mass
testing. The JohnsonNeyman procedure showed that, for participants
who rated themselves thinner than the average participant, appearance
selfesteem was not significantly different in the selfcongruent and
idealized feedback conditions (lower boundary = 7.7), p > .05. Similarly,
among participants whose selfappraisal fell at or near the mean of participants selfappraisals, appearance selfesteem was not influenced by
the feedback they received. (All upper and lower boundaries between
feedback conditions encompassed the zero value.) For participants
whose selfappraisal was heavier than average, selfcongruent feedback led to significantly lower appearance selfesteem than either socialcongruent (upper boundary = 14.5) or idealized feedback (upper
boundary = 13.6). Thus, the appearance state selfesteem of
heavierthanaverage individuals was lower when they received information consistent with their selfappraisal, but higher when they

1150

QUINLIVAN AND LEARY

FIGURE 4. Interaction of feedback condition by self-appraisal for social state self-esteem.

received idealized feedback or information consistent with their


reflected appraisal.
For social state selfesteem, analyses also revealed an interaction of
feedback condition by selfappraisal, F(2, 71) = 3.67, p < .05 (See Figure
4.). A significant relationship between selfappraisal and social state
selfesteem was obtained for participants in the selfcongruent feedback condition, F(1, 71) = 204.33, p < .05, and the socialcongruent condition, F(1, 71) = 77.02, p < .05. In the selfcongruent feedback condition,
participants who rated their figure as thin during mass testing had
higher social state selfesteem than participants who rated their figure
as heavy. In contrast, in the socialcongruent condition, participants
who rated themselves as heavy during mass testing had higher social
selfesteem than did individuals who had rated themselves as thin.
Tests of regions of nonsignificance revealed that the appearance feedback did not differentially affect social selfesteem for participants who
reported average selfappraisals, as all upper and lower boundaries included the zero value. However, for participants whose selfappraisals
were thinner than average, socialcongruent feedback led to significantly lower appearance state selfesteem than did selfcongruent
(lower boundary = 12.5) and idealized feedback (lower boundary =
12.8). For individuals who rated themselves as heavier than average by
at least three scale points, selfcongruent information led to significantly
lower social selfesteem than did socialcongruent feedback (upper
boundary = 15.8). When individuals rated themselves as heavier than

BODY APPRAISAL DISCREPANCIES

1151

FIGURE 5. Interaction of feedback condition by self/reflected appraisal discrepancy for


dysphoria.

average by five scale points or more, selfcongruent information led to


significantly lower social selfesteem than idealized feedback (upper
boundary = 18.2).
No main effects or interactions were found for the Performance State
SelfEsteem subscale.
EMOTIONAL REACTIONS
A principal axes factor analysis was performed on the 24 affective ratings. Inspection of eigenvalues and a scree plot revealed four factors that
were rotated to a direct oblimin solution. Factor 1 is characterized by
dysphoria, and included high loadings by adjectives such as let down, angry, blue, disappointed, and sad (alpha = .96). Factor 2 reflected positive
affect and included both happy, joyful items and strong, proud items (alpha = .92). Factor 3 was characterized by feelings of guilt and shame, as
well as irritability and hostility (alpha = .83). Factor 4 was comprised of
adjectives related to anxiety (alpha = .73).
Dysphoria. A hierarchical multiple regression analysis conducted on
the standardized factors scores for Factor 1 (dysphoria) revealed an interaction of feedback condition and self/reflected appraisal discrepancy, F(2, 68) = 3.26, p < .05. Conditional regression lines are shown in
Figure 5. No relationship between self/reflected appraisal discrepancy
and dysphoria was obtained in either the idealized or selfcongruent
feedback conditions (i.e., the slopes of the conditional regression lines

1152

QUINLIVAN AND LEARY

FIGURE 6. Interaction of feedback condition by self-appraisal for dysphoria.

are essentially zero), ps > .05. However, participants in the socialcongruent feedback condition reacted differently depending on their
self/reflected appraisal discrepancy at mass testing, F(1, 68) = 3.72, p <
.05. After receiving socialcongruent feedback, participants who saw
themselves as thinner than they thought others viewed them had the
highest negative affect, whereas participants who saw themselves as
heavier than they thought others saw them had the lowest negative
affect.
For participants who rated themselves as thinner than they think others see them, socialcongruent feedback led to higher dysphoria than
did both selfcongruent (lower boundary = .02) and idealized feedback
(lower boundary = 1.3), ps < .05. For these individuals, socialcongruent
feedback is relatively more negative than the other two feedback conditions. Conversely, for individuals who rated themselves as heavier than
others see them, selfcongruent feedback led to significantly higher
dysphoria than did socialcongruent (upper boundary = .46) and idealized feedback (upper boundary = 2.4), p < .05. Selfcongruent feedback
is relatively more negative for these individuals than socialcongruent
or idealized feedback.
A marginal feedback condition by selfappraisal interaction was also
found for the dysphoria factor (see Figure 6), F(2, 68) = 3.03, p = .055, R2 =
.07. Tests of simple slopes revealed that participants in the selfcongruent feedback condition reported significantly greater dysphoria the
heavier they rated themselves, F(1, 68) = 7.89, p < .05. Individuals in the
socialcongruent feedback condition, F(1, 68) = .27, p > .05, and the ideal-

BODY APPRAISAL DISCREPANCIES

1153

FIGURE 7. Interaction of feedback condition by self-appraisal for positive affect.

ized feedback condition, F(1, 68) = .01, p > .05, did not differ significantly
across selfappraisals.
For participants with a thinnerthanaverage selfappraisal, socialcongruent feedback led to higher levels of dysphoria than selfcongruent (lower boundary = 13.0) and idealized feedback (lower boundary
= 18.7), ps < .05. In contrast, participants with a heavierthanaverage
selfappraisal reported greater dysphoria when given selfcongruent
feedback than either socialcongruent (upper boundary = 14.0) or idealized feedback (upper boundary = 10.8), ps < .05. Selfcongruent feedback for heavier individuals should be relatively more negative because
it confirms a heavier than average selfappraisal.
Positive Affect. An interaction of feedback condition by selfappraisal
was also found for Factor 2 (happy/strong, Figure 7), F(2, 70) = 3.10, p < .05,
R2 = .07. Again, participants in the selfcongruent feedback condition
differed significantly as a function of selfappraisal, F(1, 70) = 7.60, p <
.05, while individuals given socialcongruent feedback, F(1, 70) = 1.27, p
> .05, and individuals given idealized feedback, F(1, 70) = .10, p > .05, did
not differ across selfappraisals. In the selfcongruent feedback condition, the thinner that individuals rated themselves during mass testing,
the higher their positive affect in the experiment.
Participants with an average selfappraisal responded to self and socialcongruent information with roughly the same positive affect (lower
boundary = 12.9; upper boundary = 13.7), p > .05. Idealized information
for these individuals, however, led to higher positive affect than either
selfcongruent feedback (upper boundary = 11.7) or socialcongruent

1154

QUINLIVAN AND LEARY

feedback (lower boundary = 15.3), ps < .05. For participants who rated
themselves as thinner than average, selfcongruent and idealized feedback did not influence positive affect differently (upper boundary =
11.7), p > .05, and socialcongruent feedback led to lower positive affect
than selfcongruent (lower boundary = 13.4) and idealized feedback
(lower boundary = 15.3), ps < .05.
In contrast, participants who rated themselves heavier than average
experienced lower positive affect when given selfcongruent feedback
than socialcongruent feedback (upper boundary = 13.7), p < .05.
Selfcongruent feedback should be relatively negative to these individuals because it affirms their perception that they are heavier than average. Similar to those with both thin and average selfappraisals, however, heavier participants also had high levels of positive affect when
given idealized feedback.
Scores for factors 3 (guilt/hostility) and 4 (anxiety) were not significantly related to feedback condition, self/reflected appraisal discrepancy, or selfappraisals.
RATINGS OF THE OBSERVER
Liking. A main effect of feedback condition was found for the question
How much do you think you would like the observer?, F(2, 77) = 6.10,
p < .01. Tukeys HSD test revealed that participants in the idealized feedback condition (M = 8.9) reported that they would like the observer more
than did individuals in the selfcongruent condition (M = 7.4) and the
socialcongruent condition (M = 7.6), ps < .05, which did not differ
significantly.
Desire to Get to Know the Observer. No main effects or interactions
were found on participants ratings of how much they would like to get
to know the observer.
Friendliness. Analysis of the ratings of the observers friendliness revealed a main effect of feedback condition, F(2, 77) = 7.77, p < .05. Participants who received idealized feedback gave the observer the highest ratings for friendliness (M = 18.8), followed by individuals in the
socialcongruent feedback condition (M = 16.3). Tukeys HSD test
showed that participants in the idealized feedback condition rated the
observer as significantly more friendly than participants in the selfcongruent feedback condition (M = 13.6), p < .05.
An interaction between feedback condition and self/reflected appraisal discrepancy, F(2, 70) = 4.90, p < .05, R2 = .10, was also obtained on
ratings of friendliness (Figure 8). Level of discrepancy and friendliness
rating were significantly related in both the selfcongruent, F(1, 70) =
6.83, p < .05, and socialcongruent feedback conditions, F(1, 70) = 3.49, p

BODY APPRAISAL DISCREPANCIES

1155

FIGURE 8. Interaction of feedback condition by self/reflected appraisal discrepancy for


ratings of observer friendliness.

< .05. In the socialcongruent feedback condition, participants who saw


themselves as thinner than they think others do rated the observer as less
friendly than participants who saw themselves as heavier than others,
suggesting that individuals rated the observer as more friendly when
the observer provided relatively positive information. In the selfcongruent feedback condition, an opposite pattern emerged. Participants
who thought that they were thinner than others believe they are judged
the observer as more friendly than individuals who thought that they
were heavier than others think.
Compared to individuals in the self and socialcongruent feedback
conditions, individuals in the idealized feedback condition appeared to
rate the observer as rather friendly regardless of their self/reflected appraisal discrepancy, F(1, 70) = .63, p > .05. Thus, when individuals were
given positive information, they rated the observer positively regardless
of the magnitude of their self/reflected appraisal discrepancy.
The JohnsonNeyman procedure revealed that participants who see
themselves as heavier than they think others see them rated observers
who provided selfcongruent feedback as less friendly than observers
who provided idealized (upper boundary = 2.7) or socialcongruent
feedback (upper boundary = .48), ps < .05. In contrast, individuals who
see themselves as thinner than they think others see them gave the observer lower friendliness ratings when the feedback was consistent with
their reflected appraisal than when the feedback was idealized (lower

1156

QUINLIVAN AND LEARY

boundary = 2.2) or consistent with their selfappraisal (lower boundary


= 2.0), ps < .05.
ANCILLARY DATA
Ancillary data collected during mass testing showed that participants
whose selfappraisals are thinner than their reflected appraisals reported significantly greater body dissatisfaction than did participants
whose selfappraisals are heavier than their reflected appraisals and
participants reporting no discrepancy, F(2, 78) = 3.86, p < .05. Additionally, body mass index was a significant predictor of participants
selfappraisals, F(1, 78) = 96.64, p < .001, and reflected appraisals, F(1, 78)
= 100.83, p < .001, indicating that participants were being fairly realistic
in their reports. Although these findings are of interest in interpreting
the results, they do not change the findings as reported.

DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to explore discrepancies between how
some women see themselves and how they think other perceive them.
The results of this study were intended to address the question of
whether the discrepancy reflects a cognitive bias (or, perhaps, perceptual distortion) or a selfserving tactic for maintaining selfesteem or
seeking selfenhancing information. Results supporting selfverification would suggest that at least some women actually perceive their
bodies differently than they believe other people do. Results supporting
selfenhancement, however, would suggest that the perceptual discrepancy arises from the motivation to maintain selfesteem and/or gain
positive feedback from others.
Overall, the results supported the selfenhancement perspective, although a few exceptions will be discussed. In general, participants appeared to prefer feedback about their physique that was relatively positive, responding with higher positive affect and more positive feelings
toward the person who provided the feedback. Importantly, the effects
of flattering feedback occurred even when the feedback was not consistent with how participants had rated themselves during mass testing.
First, negative affect was consistently low and positive affect was consistently high in the idealized feedback condition across all levels of discrepancy and selfappraisal. This pattern supports the hypothesis that
positive feedback regarding ones figure evokes positive reactions even
when this information is not congruent with a womans self or reflected
appraisals. Furthermore, women who reported seeing themselves as

BODY APPRAISAL DISCREPANCIES

1157

thin, and who were given feedback congruent with their thin selfappraisal, had lower negative affect than women who reported seeing
themselves as heavy and who received feedback congruent with their
heavy selfappraisal. Had participants been reacting only to the accuracy or selfconsistency of the feedback, they should have felt the same
about selfcongruent feedback regardless of its content. Clearly, however, they preferred positive selfcongruent feedback to negative
selfcongruent feedback. Because there is a cultural norm of thinness
(Rodin et al., 1984), we can assume that feedback confirming a thin
selfappraisal is more selfenhancing than feedback confirming a heavy
selfappraisal. Additionally, participants who reported that others see
them as heavier than they really are reacted more negatively to feedback
consistent with that idea (i.e., socialcongruent feedback) than participants who reported that others see them as thinner than they really are.
Participants in the latter group find socialcongruent feedback more
positive because it is thinner than they see themselves.
Not surprisingly, results revealed that participants selfappraisals
were related to their appearance state selfesteem. Feedback that confirmed a thin selfappraisal created higher appearance selfesteem than
feedback confirming a heavy selfappraisal. These results also suggest
that individuals prefer positive information about their appearance.
The results also revealed that individuals social state selfesteem was
affected by the feedback that they received, indicating that evaluations
of ones physique can generalize to affect social selfesteem. When given
selfcongruent feedback, participants with a thin selfappraisal had
higher social state selfesteem than participants with a heavy selfappraisal. This effect of feedback on social state selfesteem suggests that
women assume that other peoples judgments of their bodies influence
others opinions of them more generally. It is also consistent with
sociometer theory (Leary & Downs, 1995), which proposes that state
selfesteem monitors other peoples evaluations of the individual
visvis social acceptance and rejection. Apparently, judging women
as heavy makes them feel less socially accepted and thus lowers their
selfesteem (Leary & Baumeister, 2000). Furthermore, the fact that appearance feedback generalized across domains of selfesteem suggests
the potential for body dissatisfaction to pervade everyday life beyond
situations in which physical appearance is directly relevant.
Additionally, the feedback that participants received affected their
ratings of the bogus observer. Ratings of the observers friendliness and
likeability indicated that participants viewed observers who gave them
positive feedback as friendlier and more likeable than observers who
gave relatively negative feedback. Women given idealized feedback
consistently rated the observer as more friendly than average, with no

1158

QUINLIVAN AND LEARY

differences among individuals with different self/reflected appraisal


discrepancies. Ratings of the observers friendliness in the self and socialcongruent feedback conditions, however, depended on the relative
positivity of the feedback.
If participants were seeking information to verify their selfappraisals, they should have rated selfcongruent feedback as more accurate
than socialcongruent or idealized feedback. However, in the selfcongruent feedback condition, accuracy ratings increased as the feedback
became more positive than the individual expected and decreased when
the feedback became more negative than the individual expected. Thus,
the overall pattern found for accuracy ratings in the selfcongruent
condition supports a selfenhancement explanation.
However, participants in the selfcongruent feedback conditions who
possessed a positive vs. negative self/reflected appraisal discrepancy
reacted differently to selfverifying feedback. Although participants
whose selfappraisals were heavier than their reflected appraisals always preferred idealized or relatively positive feedback, participants
whose selfappraisals were thinner than their reflected appraisals did
not. Rather, for the ratings of feedback accuracy, participants with thinner self than reflected appraisals seemed to prefer selfverifying feedback. For responses assessing emotional reactions, however, these individuals preferred feedback that was positive, regardless of its accuracy.
These findings suggest that individuals who think that they are thinner
than others see them react differently to feedback about their appearance than individuals who think that they are heavier than others see
them. Therefore, the nature of the discrepancy for these two groups of
individuals will be discussed separately.
The pattern of results suggest that women who rate themselves as
heavier than they indicate that others see them may not experience a true
cognitive discrepancy between how they see themselves and how they
think others see them. Surprisingly, they do not appear to assume that
their selfappraisals are accurate. If they believed their selfappraisals,
then these individuals should rate selfcongruent feedback as more accurate than socialcongruent or idealized feedback. Instead, however,
these individuals rated selfcongruent feedback as significantly less accurate than either socialcongruent or idealized feedback. If their
selfappraisals reflect how they truly see themselves, then why would
these individuals rate selfcongruent feedback as less accurate?
One possibility is that their selfappraisals are susceptible to biases
that reflected appraisals are not. Specifically, individuals selfappraisals may be influenced by an affective component (i.e., how they feel
about how they look), whereas reflected appraisals correspond to a cognitive view of their figure (i.e., how they think they actually look). Re-

BODY APPRAISAL DISCREPANCIES

1159

searchers have suggested that womens perceptions of their bodies can


be influenced by how they feel about themselves (Cash, 1994a; Muth &
Cash, 1997; Tiggemann, 1996). For example, a womans body dissatisfaction could make her feel that she is heavy even though under some
circumstances she can recognize that she is not actually as heavy as she
feels. When simply asked to rate herself, as was done in mass testing, a
womans response might be influenced by how heavy she feels. However, when asked how other people see her, a womans own selfimage
may not be as salient, and her response may be influenced more by how
she thinks she really looks than by how she feels about herself.
Research conducted on bodysize estimation documents how body
image may differ as a result of being asked to view oneself from a
selfperspective versus from an otherperspective. Strauman and
Glenberg (1994) found that participants with high body dissatisfaction
overestimated the size of their own figures to a greater extent than did
individuals with low body dissatisfaction. Because it was also shown
that women with high body dissatisfaction could accurately estimate
figure sizes in general, Strauman and Glenberg concluded that women
high in body dissatisfaction express a bias only toward their own figure
and do not have a general perceptual bias when judging peoples sizes.
They may accurately assess the size of their figure cognitively but their
body perception is influenced by how they feel.
Extending from this research, it is possible that participants who reported a discrepancy between their self and reflected appraisals were
biased when making their selfappraisal but did not show this same bias
when assessing how others see them. When a woman appraises her own
figure, it is possible, as in Strauman and Glenbergs study (1994), that her
body satisfaction or dissatisfaction biases the judgment that she makes.
When she assesses her figure from the perspective of others, however, it
may be similar to the nonbiased ratings that she provides for other peoples figures and her own body attitude does not influence someone
elses view of her figure.
Results for women who rated themselves thinner than they think others see them showed a different pattern. On affective responses, these
women reacted similarly to those whose selfappraisals were heavier
than their reflected appraisals. They responded to positive information
with lower dysphoria and higher ratings for the observers friendliness
and likeability. However, on ratings of the accuracy of the feedback,
these women rated feedback that verified either their selfappraisal or
their reflected appraisal as more accurate than idealized feedback that
was more positive than either of these appraisals. Thus, the results for
participants with a thinner selfappraisal than reflected appraisal resemble those obtained in studies of the cognitiveaffective independ-

1160

QUINLIVAN AND LEARY

ence of selfenhancement and selfverification. Participants who rated


themselves as thinner than others see them responded to positive feedback with higher positive affect while rating selfcongruent feedback as
more accurate.
Why would participants with a negative discrepancy respond in this
way, when participants with a positive discrepancy did not? As discussed earlier, women whose selfappraisals are heavier than their reflected appraisals may not truly believe that they are as heavy as their
selfappraisals would indicate. The results for women whose selfappraisals are thinner than their reflected appraisals raise the intriguing
possibility that these women may believe that both their selfappraisals
and their reflected appraisals are accurate.
Because of ancillary data showing that these individuals have greater
body dissatisfaction, participants who see themselves as thinner than
they think others see them may be more chronically aware of their appearance and more convinced that their selfview is correct than participants who think that they are heavier than they think others see them or
who report no discrepancy. The selfverification literature shows that
individuals for whom a particular selfview is more salient and important to their selfdefinition are more likely to seek selfverifying information than individuals for whom this selfview is not as personally
relevant (Swann, 1997).
The importance of the domain assessed in this study, physical appearance, should not be overlooked. Women may be expressing a preference
for selfenhancing or selfverifying feedback as a result of the importance they place on appearance. Thus, women who believe that their appearance is strongly contingent to their selfworth may have different
reactions than will women for whom appearance is not as tied to
selfworth (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). For example, if a participant views
her appearance as a vital component of her selfworth, then she may feel
threatened by an evaluation in this domain and desire positive feedback
over negative feedback, regardless of its accuracy. Future research
might address this issue by assessing the value participants assign to
their appearance and by comparing physical appearance feedback with
feedback in other, less relevant, domains.
In summary, the results showed that participants generally responded to relatively positive feedback about their physiques more favorably than relatively negative feedback, regardless of how accurate
the feedback was. These effects appear to be driven by selfenhancement processes rather than selfverification processes because participants responded more favorably to feedback that made them feel good
about themselves than feedback that verified their selfviews. However,
participants whose selfappraisals were thinner than their reflected ap-

BODY APPRAISAL DISCREPANCIES

1161

praisals responded differently in judging the accuracy of the feedback


than those whose selfappraisals were heavier than their reflected appraisals. Results for participants whose selfappraisals were heavier
than their reflected appraisals seemed to reflect selfenhancement processes, whereas results for participants whose selfappraisals were thinner than their reflected appraisals seemed to reflect selfverification. Because of the difference in body dissatisfaction and weight between these
two groups, the psychological impact of their discrepancies may be
different.
Given the prevalence of body dissatisfaction and eating disorders
among women, understanding body image is of both scientific and clinical importance. Although many previous studies have explored body
image by looking at the discrepancy between a womans current self and
her ideal self, the current study suggests that the existence of a discrepancy between how a woman sees herself and how she believes others see
her may also have important implications for body dissatisfaction.
Moreover, the direction of this discrepancy may distinguish women
who are experiencing a perceptual bias from women who use the discrepancy to maintain selfesteem or to elicit positive feedback. The present investigation offers new insights into womens perceptions of their
bodies and a novel approach for examining whether women stand
behind the claims they make about their weight and appearance.

REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Altabe, M., & Thompson, J. K. (1992). Size estimation versus figural ratings of body image
disturbance: Relation to body dissatisfaction and eating dysfunction. International
Journal of Eating Disorders, 11, 397402.
Banasiak, S. J., Wertheim, E. H., Koerner, J., & Voudouris, N. J. (2001). Testretest reliability
and internal consistency of a variety of measures of dietary restraint and body concerns in a sample of adolescent girls. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 29,
8589.
Altabe, M., & Thompson, J. K. (1996). Body image: A cognitive selfschema construct? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 20, 171193.
Baumeister, R. F. (1995). Self and identity: An introduction. In A. Tesser (Ed.), Advanced social psychology (pp. 5198). Boston: McGrawHill.
Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook
of social psychology: Vol. 1 (4th ed., pp. 680740). New York: McGrawHill.
Blaine, B., & Crocker, J. (1983). Selfesteem and selfserving biases in reaction to positive
and negative events: An integrative review. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Selfesteem:
The puzzle of low selfregard (pp. 5585). New York: Plenum.
Bruner, J. S., & Goodman, C. C. (1947). Value and need as organizing factors in perception.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42, 3344.

1162

QUINLIVAN AND LEARY

Cash, T. F. (1994a). Bodyimage attitudes: Evaluation, investment, and affect. Perceptual


and Motor Skills, 78, 11681170.
Cash, T. F. (1994b). Users manual for the Multidimensional BodySelf Relations Questionnaire.
Norfolk, VA: Old Dominion University.
Cash, T. F., & Brown, T. A. (1989). Gender and body images: Stereotypes and realities. Sex
Roles, 21, 361373.
Cash, T. F., & Henry, P. (1995). Womens body images: The results of a national survey in
the U.S.A. Sex Roles, 33, 1928.
Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108,
593623.
Feingold, A., & Mazzella, R. (1998). Gender differences in body image are increasing. Psychological Science, 9, 190195.
Fleming, J. S., & Courtney, B. E. (1984). The dimensionality of selfesteem: II. Hierarchical
facet model for revised measurement scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 404421.
Franzoi, S. L., Kessenich, J. J., Sugrue, P. A. (1989). Gender differences in the experience of
body awareness: An experiential sampling study. Sex Roles, 21, 499515
Garner, D. M., Olmstead, M. P., & Polivy, J. (1983). Development and validation of a multidimensional eating disorder inventory for anorexia nervosa and bulimia. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 2, 1534.
Greenwald, A. G. (1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history.
American Psychologist, 35, 603618.
Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York: Guilford
Press.
Heatherton, T. F., & Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation of a scale for measuring
state selfesteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 895910.
Hoyle, R. H., Kernis, M. H., Leary, M. R., & Baldwin, M. W. (1999). Selfhood: Identity, esteem,
regulation. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Jacobi, L., & Cash, T. F. (1994). In pursuit of the perfect appearance: Discrepancies among
selfideal percepts of multiple physical attributes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 379396.
Joiner, T. E., Jr. (1999). Selfverification and bulimia symptoms: Do bulimic women play a
role in perpetuating their own dissatisfaction and symptoms? International Journal of
Eating Disorders, 26, 145151.
Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of selfesteem: Sociometer
theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 32). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Leary, M. R., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Interpersonal functions of the selfesteem motive: The
selfesteem system as a sociometer. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and
selfesteem (pp. 123144). New York: Plenum Press.
Levine, M. P., Smolak, L., & Hayden, H. (1994). The relations of sociocultural factors to eating attitudes and behaviors among middle school girls. Journal of Early Adolescence,
14, 471491.
Mautner, R. D., Owen, S. V., & Furnham, A. (2000). Crosscultural explanations of body
image disturbance in Western cultural samples. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 28, 165172.
McFarlin, D. B., & Blascovich, J. (1981). Effects of selfesteem and performance feedback on
future affective preferences and cognitive expectations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 521531.
McKinley, N. M. (1998). Gender differences in undergraduates body esteem: The mediat-

BODY APPRAISAL DISCREPANCIES

1163

ing effect of objectified body consciousness and actual/ideal weight discrepancy.


Sex Roles, 39, 113123.
Monteath, S. A., & McCabe, M. P. (1997). The influences of societal factors on female body
image. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 708727.
Muth, J. L., & Cash, T. F. (1997). Bodyimage attitudes: What difference does gender make?
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 14381452.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction
(2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Quinlivan, E., & Leary, M. (2001). [A new measure of body image dissatisfaction]. Unpublished raw data.
Rodin, J., Silberstein, L., & StriegelMoore, R. (1984). Women and weight: A normative discontent. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 32, 267307.
Shrauger, J. S. (1975). Responses to evaluation as a function of initial selfperceptions. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 581596.
Smolak, L., & Levine, M. P. (2001). Body image in children. In J. K. Thompson & L. Smolak
(Eds.), Body image, eating disorders, and obesity in youth: Assessment, prevention, and
treatment (pp. 4166). Washington, DC: APA.
Snyder, R., & Hasbrouck, L. (1996). Feminist identity, gender traits, and symptoms of disturbed eating among college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 593598.
Strauman, T. J., & Glenberg, A. M. (1994). Selfconcept and bodyimage disturbance:
Which selfbeliefs predict body size overestimation? Cognitive Therapy and Research,
18, 105125.
Stuhldreher, W., & Ryan, W. (1999). Factors associated with distortion in body image perception in college women. American Journal of Health Studies, 15, 813.
Stunkard, A. J., Sorenson, T. I., & Schulsinger, F. (1983). Use of the Danish Adoption Register for the study of obesity and thinness. In S. Kety, L. P. Rowland, R. L. Sidman, & S.
W. Matthysse (Eds.), The genetics of neurological and psychiatric disorders (pp.
115120). New York: Raven Press.
Swann, W. B., Jr. (1997). The trouble with change: Selfverification and allegiance to the
self. Psychological Science, 8, 177180.
Swann, W. B. Jr., Griffin, J. J., Jr., Predmore, S. C., & Gaines, B. (1987). The cognitiveaffective crossfire: When selfconsistency confronts selfenhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 881889.
Swann, W. B., Jr., Hixon, J. G., SteinSeroussi, A., & Gilbert, D. T. (1990). The fleeting gleam
of praise: Cognitive processes underlying behavioral reactions to selfrelevant
feedback. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1726.
Swann, W. B., Jr., & Read, S. J. (1981). Selfverification processes: How we sustain our
selfconceptions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 351372.
TantleffDunn, S., & Thompson, J. K. (1995). Romantic partners and body image disturbance: Further evidence for the role of perceivedactual disparities. Sex Roles, 33,
589605.
Taylor, S, E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and wellbeing: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193210.
Thompson, J. K., & Altabe, M. N. (1991). Psychometric qualities of the Figure Rating Scale.
International Journal of Eating Disorders, 10, 615619.
Tiggemann, M. (1996). Thinking versus feeling fat: Correlates of two indices of body
image dissatisfaction. Australian Journal of Psychology, 48, 2125.

You might also like