JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN PERSONALITY 24, 291-302 (1998)

Body Image: Differences between High and Low Self-Monitoring

Males and Females
LINDA A. SULLIVAN AND RICHARD J. HARNISH
Michigan State University
This study investigated the relationship between self-monitoring, sex, and body
image. One hundred seventy-seven undergraduate subjects completed the 18-
item Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986) and the Body Self Re-
lations Questionnaire (BSRQ) (Winstead & Cash, 1984). The Self-Monitoring
scale was scored for both the total score and the two factor scores (Other
Directedness, Public Performance) identified by Briggs and Cheek (1988). Results
showed that sex was a better predictor, overall, of body image ratings than was
self-monitoring. Nevertheless, self-monitoring was a significant predictor of body
image ratings, particularly on scales pertaining to physical appearance. The total
self-monitoring score was a more extensive predictor of ratings than the factor
scores, whereas the factor scores were more specific predictors than the total
score. Results are discussed in terms of social desirability norms for high self-
monitors. 0 1990 Academic Press. Inc.
Body image, or the physical self-concept (Noles, Cash, & Winstead,
1985), is considered by most researchers to be a multidimensional con-
struct which includes evaluative and cognitive dimensions of physical
appearance, as well as physical fitness, health, and sexuality (Tucker,
1985; Winstead & Cash, 1984). Individuals differ in the degree to which
they evaluate their body image and the importance they place on their
body image (e.g., Noles et al., 1985).
Research conducted on self-evaluation has led to the conclusion that
a discrepancy between ones actual self and ones ideal self leads to
negative affect (see Higgins, Strauman, & Klein, 1986). An inability to
change ones attributes to reach ones ideal state may lead to feelings
of hopelessness (Adler, 1929/1964, cited in Higgins et al., 1986). Body
We are very grateful to Linda A. Jackson, Charles G. Stangor, Robert A. Emmons,
and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article.
Portions of this article were presented at the annual convention of the American Psycho-
logical Association, New York City, August 1987. Correspondence and reprint requests
should be addressed to Linda A. Sullivan or Richard J. Hamish, Department of Psychology,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1117.
291
0092-6X16/90 $3.00
Copyright 8 I!390 by Academic Fress. Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
292 SULLIVAN AND HARNISH
type or physical appearance is an attribute of significance as individuals
may not be able to change their physical appearance to reach their ideals.
Thus, any perceived discrepancy between actual and ideal body type or
physical appearance is a discrepancy with which one may be constantly
confronted.
One would assume that those individuals for whom body image is
important would be most likely to notice a discrepancy between their
actual and ideal body image. Clearly then, it is critical, as a first step
in research on actual-ideal body image discrepancy, to identify variables
that predict the importance individuals place on their body image. One
such variable is sex. Research has shown that females, compared with
males, place more importance on their physical appearance (Jackson,
Sullivan, & Rostker, 1988); perceive a greater actual-ideal body concept
discrepancy (Striegel-Moore, Silberstein, & Rodin, 1986); and are much
more likely to suffer from eating disorders, which are considered by
some to be affective disorders (Striegel-Moore et al., 1986).
Another variable that may predict the importance that individuals place
on their body image is self-monitoring. Self-monitoring can be defined
as being attuned to ones self-presentation in social situations and as
regulating ones behavior to create a desired impression (Snyder, 1974).
High self-monitors, being highly sensitive to social and interpersonal
cues of situationally appropriate behavior, regulate their expressive self-
presentation for the sake of desired public appearance. In contrast, the
expressive self-presentation of the low self-monitor reflects his or her
own attitudes, feelings, and beliefs. Thus, high self-monitors place more
emphasis on their public appearance and low self-monitors are more
interested in their private realities (Snyder, 1987).
That individuals who differ in self-monitoring may evaluate themselves
differently along dimensions of body image is suggested by a number of
different perspectives. First, Fisher (1986, p. 17) suggested that self-
monitoring may be important to the study of body image because the
construct concerns increased self-awareness (i.e., high self-monitors are
aware of their behavior in social situations in order to regulate or control
their expressive selves).
Second, research suggests that personality traits concerned with var-
ious aspects of the self are related to body image. For example, Miller.
Murphy, & Buss (1981) have demonstrated that public self-consciousness
(awareness of the self as a focal object) is strongly and positively related
with public body-consciousness (awareness of observable aspects of
ones body). A positive body image has been associated with a positive
self-concept and with high self-esteem (Boldrick, 1983; Cash, Winstead.
& Janda, 1986; Jackson et al., 1988; Lerner, Karabenick, & Stuart, 1973;
BODY IMAGE
293
Rosen & Ross, 1968; Winstead & Cash, 1984). Thus, self-monitoring, as
a construct concerned with the self, may also be related to body image.
As a principal component of body image, physical appearance has
been shown to be related to self-monitoring (Tucker, 1985; Winstead &
Cash, 1984). When males reviewed personal information about a potential
dating partner, high self-monitors spent more time examining the pho-
tograph in this profile than did low self-monitors (Snyder, Berscheid, &
Glick, 1985). In contrast, low self-monitors spent more time examining
the personality profile than did high self-monitors. When asked to select
a date from these profiles, high self-monitors tended to choose partners
who were, on average, more attractive than those chosen by low self-
monitors. In a related study, high self-monitors were reported to place
and respond to personal advertisements that emphasize the physical
appearance of a potential dating partner more than low self-monitors
(Omoto, DeBono, & Snyder, 1985).
While these findings show that high self-monitors placed greater im-
portance on the physical appearance of others than did low self-monitors,
we believe that this emphasis may extend to the self. For example, it
has been demonstrated that high self-monitors are particularly concerned
about giving skilled social performances in order to appear to be the
right person in the right place at the right time (see Snyder, 1987, for a
review). One method that high self-monitors might use to accomplish
their impression-management goal is to enhance their physical appear-
ance. Indeed, a recent study (Davis & Lennon, 1985) reported that high
self-monitoring females used clothing to attain social approval and at-
tention. Taken together, the above findings suggest that self-monitoring
is related to self-perceptions of body image in terms of the attention to,
and awareness of, physical appearance.
Another interpretation for Snyder et al.s (1985) results is that self-
perceptions of physical attractiveness by these individuals may be critical
in their behavioral choices. Although Snyder et al. concluded that there
is no reason to suspect that our findings . . . are in any way accounted
for by inherent differences between individuals in their own physical
appearance (1985, p. 1433), they measured physical attractiveness as
judged by independent raters but did not examine self-ratings. As Ber-
scheid, Dion, Walster, and Walster (1971) have noted elsewhere, Ones
social desirability (which includes ones assessment of his [sic] own
physical attractiveness) should influence ones perception of the prob-
ability of attaining any particular object. When making realistic choices,
then, one should choose romantic partners of approximately his [sic]
own level of physical attractiveness (p. 174). High self-monitors may
perceive themselves to be more physically attractive than low self-mon-
294 SULLIVAN AND HARNISH
itors and thus choose more physically attractive partners, congruent with
the notion of the matching phenomena in which individuals choose
others who are a good match to themselves in attractiveness and other
traits (Berscheid et al., 1971; Huston, 1973). These explanations suggest
that self-monitoring is positively associated with the evaluation and im-
portance of physical appearance. Assuming that self-monitoring is as-
sociated with the importance placed on physical appearance, one would
also expect self-monitoring to be associated with appearance-related be-
haviors. In summary, we expected high scores on self-monitoring to be
predictive of high scores on these dimensions of physical appearance,
as measured by the Body Self Relations Questionnaire (BSRQ).
We also expected self-monitoring to be associated with the evaluation
of ones sexuality. Research (Snyder, Simpson, & Gangestad, 1986) in-
vestigating the relationship between sexual behavior and self-monitoring
demonstrated that high self-monitors reported that they were more likely
to engage in sex with others to whom they were not psychologically
close than were low self-monitors. High self-monitors, as compared with
low self-monitors, also indicated that they had a larger number of dif-
ferent sexual partners in the last year and anticipated having sex with
a larger number of different sexual partners. One possible explanation
for this finding is that it is unlikely that high self-monitors would pursue
intimate encounters if they did not believe that they could perform well.
From this perspective, the findings suggest that self-monitoring is pos-
itively related to the evaluation of ones sexuality. To test these predic-
tions, subjects completed the BSRQ (Winstead & Cash, 1984) and the
18-item Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986).
In an earlier investigation of body image with the BSRQ, Jackson et
al. (1988) reported that females, compared to males, considered their
physical appearance to be more important and engaged in more behaviors
directed at their appearance and their health. Males, on the other hand,
evaluated their physical fitness more positively and considered fitness
to be more important than did females. Because sex is clearly associated
with perceptions of body image, another purpose of the present study
was to examine if there were predictive differences between sex and
self-monitoring on ratings of body image.
Finally, recent research has argued that the self-monitoring scale does
not measure a unidimensional construct (Briggs & Cheek, 1988). To
address this issue, the two factor scales (Public Performance, Other
Directedness) identified by Briggs and Cheek (1988) were computed. This
permitted us to compare the predictive power of the factor scores with
the total self-monitoring score on ratings on body image.
BODY IMAGE 295
METHOD
Subjects
One hundred seventy-seven undergraduates (109 females, 68 males) at Michigan State
University participated in a questionnaire survey on Perceptions of Self for Introductory
Psychology course credit.
Measures and Procedure
Subjects participated in one of two mixed-sex groups of approximately 85 persons su-
pervised by a male and a female experimenter. Participants completed the 18-item version
of the Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986) and the BSRQ, Revision III
(Winstead & Cash, 1984), in counterbalanced order. The 18-item self-monitoring scale was
presented in a true-false format. Revision III of the BSRQ consists of 140 items which
subjects respond to on a S-point Likert scale ranging from definitely disagree to definitely
agree. The BSRQ measures self-perceptions along three somatic domains (physical ap-
pearance, physical fitness, and physical health) fully crossed with three psychological
dimensions (evaluation, importance/attention, and behavior). The 10th and final subscale
measures self-evaluation of ones sexuality (see Appendix). The BSRQ subscales show
test-retest reliabilities ranging from .65 to .91 (Winstead & Cash, 1984). The measure has
also been shown to possess adequate validity (see Cash, 1988; Cash & Green, 1986; Cash
et al., 1986; Noles et al., 1985).
RESULTS
A composite score was computed for each of the 10 subscales of the
BSRQ. All subscales were internally consistent (all coefficient (YS > .67).
See Table 1 for Cronbachs (YS and descriptive statistics on these sub-
TABLE 1
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE TEN SUB~CALES OF THE BSQR
Males Females
(n = 68)
(n = 109)
M SD M SD
Physical appearance
Evaluation (.91) 3.56 .57
Importance C.89) 3.90
.49
Behavior (.85) 3.25 .59
Physical fitness
Evaluation (.89) 3.77 .52
Importance (.82) 3.83
.58
Behavior (.85) 3.54
.74
Physical health
Evaluation (.85) 3.80 .58
Importance (.68) 3.24
.ss
Behavior (.76) 3.19 .59
Sexuality (.74) 4.01 .60
Note. Values in parentheses are standardized coefficient as,
3.20 .62
4.05 .48
3.65 .58
3.31 .58
3.39 .66
3.02 .85
3.39 .56
3.19 .56
3.1s .58
3.83 .ss
296 SULLIVAN AND HARNISH
scale scores for males and females. Correlations among the subscales
within each somatic domain ranged from .OO to .76, with the highest
correlations occurring between ratings of importance and behaviors
within the same domain.
We scored the self-monitoring scale in two ways. First, we computed
a score for the total self-monitoring scale (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986).
Second, we computed scores for the Public Performance and Other Di-
rectedness factor scales (Briggs & Cheek, 1988). We conducted corre-
lations between the Public Performance and the Other Directedness fac-
tors, and the total self-monitoring score. Correlations were conducted
separately for sex. Public Performance correlated most highly with the
total self-monitoring score (r = .78, females; Y = .80, males, ps < .05).
Other Directedness was not as strongly correlated with the total score
(r = .70, females; r = .75, males, ps < .05). The factor scales show
a moderate relationship with each other (r = .34, females; Y = .35,
males, ps < .05).
Finally, before conducting the regression analyses we tested the re-
lationship between sex and self-monitoring. The analyses revealed a
significant but weak correlation between the two variables, 4176) = .14,
p < .05, indicating that males scored higher on the total self-monitoring
scale than did females. Two sets of regression analyses were conducted.
The first stepwise multiple regression set was performed with the different
BSRQ subscales as the criteria and sex and self-monitoring (total score)
as predictors. The interactive term was also entered as a predictor (Sex
x Self-monitoring). The second set of regressions used the two Self-
monitoring factor scales (Other Directedness, 5 items; Public Perfor-
mance, 8 items), sex, and the interactive terms as predictors.
The results of the regressions are shown in Table 2. As predicted,
self-monitoring was positively related to attention to ones physical ap-
pearance and appearance-directed behaviors, but not with the evaluation
of ones physical appearance. These results suggest that self-monitoring
is indeed a predictor of ratings on the physical appearance dimension of
body image but, as Table 2 demonstrates, sex is the better predictor
overall. Being female was associated with higher ratings on the impor-
tance of physical appearance and self-reported appearance-directed be-
haviors. Being male was associated with higher evaluations of appear-
ance. We had expected self-monitoring to be positively related to the
evaluation of ones sexuality. Results revealed that self-monitoring in-
teracted with sex to predict sexuality evaluation. Breaking down the
regressions by sex showed that self-monitoring was not a significant
predictor of females sexuality ratings but was marginally significant for
males F(1, 66) = 2.92, p < .lO.
We had no specific predictions for self-monitoring on the fitness and
BODY IMAGE 297
TABLE 2
Criterion
Predictor
P
F value
A
RZ
Regression analyses to predict the BSRQ subscales from sex and total self-monitoring
AEVAL Sex
.28 14.43*** .28 .08
AA-I-T Self-monitoring .20 6.%** .20 .04
Sex
-.18 6.60** .27 .07
ABEH Sex - .32 19.35*** .32 .lO
Self-monitoring
.17 12.70*** .36 .13
FEVAL Sex .30 29.61*** .38 .I5
FAT-T Sex x Self-monitoring
.34 23.64*** .34 .i2
FBEH Sex .30 17.33*** .30 .09
HEVAL Sex
.34 22.52*** .34 .ll
HAT-I No significant predictors
HBEH No significant predictors
CSEX Sex X Self-monitoring .21 8.23** .21 .04
Regression analyses to predict the BSRQ subscales from sex and self-monitoring
factor scales
AEVAL Sex .28 14.43*** .28 .08
AAT-T Other .16 4.78* .16 .03
Sex -.I7 5.02** .23 .05
ABEH Sex - .32 19.35*** .32 .lO
Other
.15 12.23*** .35 .I2
FEVAL Sex .38 29.61*** .38 .I5
FATT Sex .33 21.36*** .33 .I1
Public .15 13.06*** .36 .13
FBEH Sex
.30 17.13*** .30 .09
HEVAL Sex .34 22.52*** .34 .I1
HAT-f No significant predictors
HBEH
No significant predictors
CSEX Sex x Public
.23 10.03** .23 .05
Note. AEVAL, evaluation of appearance; AAlT, importance/attention of appearance:
ABEH, behaviors directed at appearance; FEVAL, evaluation of fitness. FATT = im-
portance/attention of fitness. FBEH = behaviors directed at fitness; HEVAL evaluation
of health; HATT, importance/attention of health; HBEH, behaviors directed at health;
CSEX, evaluation of sexuality. A positive (negative) p indicates results in the direction
of male (female) ratings.
* p < .05.
** p < .Ol.
*** p < .ool.
health dimensions of the BSRQ, but we did expect males to rate them-
selves higher than females on the fitness dimension. Results showed that
sex was a much stronger predictor of health and fitness ratings. As
expected, males rated themselves higher than did females. By interacting
with sex, self-monitoring had an impact on ratings of the importance of
fitness. Again, breaking down the regressions by sex revealed that self-
298 SULLIVAN AND HARNISH
monitoring was a significant predictor only for males, F(1, 66) = 3.86,
p = .05.
Regressions conducted on the factor scores of self-monitoring (Public
Performance, Other-Directedness) showed a pattern of results very sim-
ilar to that of the total score, with the principal exception being that the
factor scores did not predict appearance behavior.
DISCUSSION
As predicted, those higher in self-monitoring rated their physical ap-
pearance as being more important to them and reported engaging in more
behaviors directed toward their physical appearance than did those lower
in self-monitoring. These findings extend the results of previous research
(Snyder et al., 1985; Omoto et al., 1985) which demonstrated that high
self-monitors placed more emphasis on the physical appearance of others
than did low self-monitors. Thus, the importance of physical appearance
to high self-monitors is not simply a concern with the physical appearance
of others but is also a concern with the physical appearance of ones
self.
Although sex was the better predictor of appearance-directed behaviors
than was self-monitoring, the significance of self-monitoring as a predictor
is consistent with the results from the importance ratings. Because high
self-monitors are more concerned with their physical appearance one
would expect that they would act upon this concern. This result, how-
ever, is at odds with Cash and Wunderles (1988) research that found
no relationship between self-monitoring and physical appearance-related
behaviors for females (i.e., the use of cosmetics). The more encompassing
nature of the items on the BSRQ may explain this discrepancy.
Self-monitoring did not predict physical appearance evaluation. As
such, we cannot argue with Snyder et al. (1985) that differences in the
self-perceptions of physical attractiveness between high- and low self-
monitors account for the findings of their dating study. Neither our
research nor the research of Snyder et al. (1985) found evaluation dif-
ferences to be dependent on self-monitoring. This null finding is surprising
and merits more attention because physical appearance is important to
high self-monitors. We speculate that a discrepancy between actual and
ideal body image would be noticed to a greater extent by high self-
monitors because their appearance is a salient issue for them. This dis-
crepancy could in turn lead to negative affect (Higgins et al., 1986) if
the discrepancy is not being acted upon or if the discrepancy cannot be
reduced. Future research should compare high and low self-monitors on
perceived body image, ideal body image, and discrepancies between the
two in order to test these predictions.
Both sex and self-monitoring predicted the importance dimension of
BODY IMAGE 299
physical appearance. That is, being female or being high in self-moni-
toring was associated with more importance having been placed on phys-
ical appearance. Self-monitoring may be related to physical appearance
because of self-imposed standards to appear to be socially desirable. In
the language of self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1983), high self-mon-
itors may use the ideal self as a guide to self-perception. That is, they
may be stressing a standard of physical appearance that they themselves
desire or wish to possess. Females may focus on their physical appear-
ance because of culturally imposed standards of attractiveness (cf., Sil-
verstein, Perdue, Peterson, & Kelly, 1986). They may use the ought
self (Higgins, 1983) as a guide to perception, stressing a standard of
physical appearance that they feel obligated or responsible to maintain.
The question is begging: What of the high self-monitoring female? Is she
focused on appearance because of culturally imposed standards of at-
tractiveness (the ought self) or self-imposed standards of attractive-
ness (the ideal self) or are these processes additive?
The main findings to emerge from the physical fitness analyses were
that males were more focused on physical fitness than were females,
consistent with traditional stereotypes (see also Jackson et al., 1988).
Self-monitoring exerted an effect only on the physical fitness importance
dimension such that males higher in self-monitoring reported more con-
cern with physical fitness. Traditionally, a socially desirable male is one
who is active and athletic (Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1975). We
suggest that high self-monitoring males reported being concerned with
physical fitness behaviors because of concerns with goals of social de-
sirability. Supporting this conclusion are the null findings on the health
measures indicating that for high self-monitoring males the importance
of fitness did not seem to be a salubrious concern.
The interaction between sex and self-monitoring on the sexuality di-
mension showed that males higher in self-monitoring evaluated their
sexuality more positively than did females and those lower in self-mon-
itoring. One possible expianation for this finding is that high self-moni-
toring males may come to believe that, because of their greater number
of different sexual partners (Snyder et al., 1986), they perform well
sexually. Further research is needed to examine the cause and effect
relationship between these variables.
Recently, there has been much controversy surrounding the self-mon-
itoring construct regarding its measurement (e.g., Briggs & Cheek, 1988;
Briggs, Cheek, & Buss, 1980). On the basis of our data we conclude
that at least on measures related to somatic domains the total score on
the self-monitoring scale appears to be a more encompassing predictor
than the factor scores. Nevertheless, the factor scales were more specific
predictors of ratings of body image. That is, Other Directedness predicted
300 SULLIVAN AND HARNISH
appearance ratings, whereas Public Performance predicted fitness and
sexuality ratings. Although the factor scales predicted fewer ratings than
did the total score, it appears that in certain domains, such as somatic
domains, the factor scores may provide more insight into attitudes and
self-reported behaviors than may the total score. Other researchers using
the self-monitoring scale should examine both the total score and the
factor scores for differential effects because a meta-analysis conducted
on an accumulation of such studies could further our knowledge about
the self-monitoring construct.
In summary, the regression analyses performed on sex, the total self-
monitoring score, and the two underlying factor scales as identified by
Briggs and Cheek (1988) indicated that, overall, sex is the better predictor
of body image. However, this does not undermine the importance of
self-monitoring (whether one considers the total score or the factor
scales) as a significant predictor of body image ratings, particularly those
pertaining to physical appearance. Thus, self-monitoring as a personality
construct accounts for variance in body image ratings unaccounted for
by sex. In fact, it is an important finding that self-monitoring is a better
predictor of attention to appearance than is sex because previous research
has shown tht females pay more attention to their appearance than do
males. Females are also at greater risk of developing eating disorders
than are males. If attention to appearance is related to eating disorders,
then high self-monitors may be a group at risk of developing such dis-
orders.
APPENDIX
Examples of the BSRQ Items
Physical Appearance
(18) Evaluation-Members of the other sex think I am attractive.
(20) Importance-I would do what ever it takes to look better.
(16) Behavior -1 spend at least an hour a day dressing and grooming.
Physical Fitness
(19) Evaluation-I readily learn physical skills.
(10) Importance-It is important that my body be in perfect working
order.
(8) Behavior
-1 am involved in a regular program of exercise.
Physical Health
(14) Evaluation-I am a physically healthy person.
(10) Importance-I believe that good health is the most important thing
in my life.
BODY IMAGE
301
(14) Behavior
-1 deliberately have developed a lifestyle that will con-
tribute to my bodys health.
Sexuality
(7) I feel good about how my body functions sexually.
Note. Values in parentheses indicate the number of items in each scale.
Four items are not included in analyses (see Winstead & Cash, 1984).
REFERENCES
Berscheid, E., Dion, K., Walster. E., & Walster, G. W. (1971). Physical attractiveness
and dating choice: A test of the matching hypothesis. Journal ofExperimental Social
Psychology, I, 173-189.
Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1988). On the nature of Self-Monitoring: Problems with
assessment, problems with validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54, 663-678.
Briggs, S. R., Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1980). An analysis of the self-monitoring
scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 679-686.
Boldrick, L. N. (1983). Psychological centrality of physical attributes: A reexamination of
the relationship between subjective importance and self-esteem. Journal of Psychology,
115, 97-102.
Cash, T. F. (1988). [Grooming and Body Image]. Unpublished raw data.
Cash, T. F., & Green, G. K. (1986). Body weight and body image among college women:
Perception, cognition, and affect. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 290-301.
Cash, T. F., Winstead, B. A., & Janda, L. H. (1986, April). The great American shape-
up. Psychology Today, pp. 30-37.
Cash, T. F., & Wunderle, J. M. (1988). Self-Monitoring and cosmetics use among college
women. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2, 563-566.
Davis, L. L., & Lennon, S. J. (1985). Self-monitoring, fashion opinion leadership, and
attitudes toward clothing. In M. Solomon (Ed.), The Psychology of Fashion (pp. l77-
182). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Fisher, S. (1986). Developmenf and structures ofthe body image (Vol. 1, p. 17). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Higgins, E. T. (1983). A theory of discrepant self-concepts. Unpublished manuscript, New
York University.
Higgins, E. T., Strauman, T., & Klein, R. (1986). Standards and the process of self-
evaluation: Multiple affects from multiple stages. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins
(Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp.
26-63). New York: Wiley.
Huston, T. L. (1973). Ambiguity of acceptance, social desirability, and dating choice.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 32-42.
Jackson, L. A., Sullivan, L. A., & Rostker, R. (1988). Gender, gender role, and body
image. Sex Roles, 19, 429-443.
Lerner, R. M., Karabenick, S. A., & Stuart, J. L. (1973). Relations among physical
attractiveness, body attitudes, and self concept in male and female college students.
Journal of Psychology, 85, 119-129.
Miller, L. C., Murphy, R., & Buss, A. H. (1981). Consciousness of body: Private and
public. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 357-406.
302
SULLIVAN AND HARNISH
Noles, S. W., Cash, T. F., & Winstead, B. A. (1985). Body image, physical attractiveness,
and depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 88-94.
Omoto, A. M., DeBono, K. G., & Snyder, M. (1985). Personality and relationship initi-
ation: Advertising in the personals. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota.
Rosen. G. M., & Ross, A. 0. (1968). Relationship of body image to self concept. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32, 100.
Silverstein, B., Perdue, L., Peterson, B., & Kelly, E. (1986). The role of the mass media
in promoting a thin standard of bodily attractiveness for women. Sex Roles, 14, 519-
532.
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 30, 526-537.
Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearance/Private realities: The psychology of self-monitoring.
New York: Freeman.
Snyder, M., Berscheid, E., & Glick, P. (1985). Focusing on the exterior and the interior:
Two investigations of the initiation of personal relationships. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 48, 1427-1439.
Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assess-
ment, matters of validity. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 51, 125-139.
Snyder. M., Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. (1986). Personality and sexual relations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 181-190.
Spence, S. T., Helmreich, R.. & Stapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex role
attributes and their relation to self esteem and conceptions of masculinity and femi-
ninity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 29-39.
Striegel-Moore, R. H.. Silberstein, L. R., & Rodin, J. (1986). Toward an understanding
of risk factors for bulimia. American Psychologist, 41, 246-263.
Tucker, L. A. (1985). Dimensionality and factor satisfaction of the body image construct:
A gender comparison. Sex Roles, 12, 931-937.
Winstead, B. A., & Cash, T. F. (1984, March). Reliability and validity of the Body-SeU
Relations Questionnaire: A new measure of body image. Paper presented at the meeting
of the Southeastern Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.