Conflicting Self-Tendencies: The Role of Self-Esteem and Self-Monitoring in Lying to Others

TED ELAM The effects of conflicting self-tendencies and reporting of self-related feedback were examined. One hundred forty-four participants were given a self-monitoring scale, RANDALL E. OSBORNE* a self-esteem measure, and a “perceptions scale.” One hundred nineteen partici- pants (30 scoring low on both self measures, 31 scoring high on both self mea- JOSEPH NORMAN sures, and 58 scoring high on one scale but low on the other) were selected to participate in a follow-up study. During the follow-up, participants were given Indiana University East random bogus feedback (told they scored either an 84 or 76) from the “perceptions” test. Each participant waited with presumably another participant (actually a confederate) who inquired about the participant’s performance. As predicted, par- ticipants scoring high or low on both of the self measures were significantly more likely to misreport their feedback score than those scoring high on one but low on the other. Discussion centers on the effect that such conflicting self-tendencies have on information processing and on behavioral choices.

ECENT EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO ADDRESS For many years, the prevailing assumption in the the questions of: (a) when do people lie? (b) self-esteem literature suggested that all persons are R to whom do people lie? and (c) why do people motivated to acquire as much positive self-related lie? (e.g., DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, & Epstein, information as possible (e.g., C. R. Snyder & Higgins, 1996; Kashy & DePaulo, 1996). Certainly these are 1988). However, this tendency, referred to in the lit- important questions. Most of this research, however, erature as self-enhancement, has been consistently utilizes diaries to assess the degree to which individu- challenged by the work of William Swann and others als are lying. Participants are asked to record their (e.g., Spencer, Josephs, & Steele, 1993). Self-esteem social interactions each day for a week and to note has been defined as “a relatively permanent positive when they had used deception, toward whom the or negative feeling about the self that may become interaction was directed, and why deception was more positive or negative as a person encounters utilized. DePaulo et al. (1996) discovered that par- success and failure in daily life” (Osborne, 1993, p. ticipants tend to tell more self-centered lies to men, to tell more other-oriented lies to women, and to Author note. Ted Elam, now at the Department of Business Administration, Ball State University; Randall E. Osborne, Indiana consider their lies not to be serious. University East; Joseph Norman, Indiana University East. We contend there may be a myriad of self-related The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the coop- factors that may influence information processing, eration of our colleagues in the Behavioral and Social Science Division and the Natural Science and Math Division at Indiana behavioral choices, and interpretation of feedback. University East for their support of data collection in their classes. In addition, self-differences may prompt individuals We would also like to especially acknowledge Dr. Neil Sabine for to generate inaccuracies especially with the report- generously and frequently allowing us to come into his summer courses for data collection purposes. Lastly, we thank Diane ing of information that is self-related. What is known Osborne for her invaluable assistance with the preparation of this about the impact of self-variables on information pro- manuscript. cessing, behavioral choices, and interpretation of self- Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Randall E. Osborne, Department of Psychology, Indiana related feedback? It is to this question that we now University East, 2325 Chester Boulevard, Richmond, IN 47374. turn our attention. Electronic mail may be sent to [email protected].

110 PSI CHI JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH  Fall 1998 Copyright 1998 by Psi Chi, The National Honor Society in Psychology (Vol. 3, No. 3, 110–116 / ISSN 1089-4136). *Faculty Supervisor CONFLICTING SELF-TENDENCIES  Elam, Osborne, and Norman

2188). Swann suggested that low self-esteem persons someone else’s”) for this success, whereas high self- may actually prefer negative self-related information esteem persons generated primarily internal expla- because it reinforces the need to “self-verify” or nations (“I am highly qualified” or “I tried really hard confirms one’s self-conceptions (e.g., De La Ronde on the interview test”) for this success. When the sce- & Swann, 1993; Swann, 1983; Swann, Hixon, & De La nario involved a failure, however, the patterns were Ronde, 1992). Although persons with high self-esteem exactly the opposite. The low self-esteem persons cited may be more likely than those who are low in self- primarily internal causes, whereas the high self- esteem to seek out positive information, additional esteem persons cited primarily external causes. research has addressed the role that other self-motives As far as self-monitoring is concerned, the focal and situational importance may play in this process point for deciding on self-presentation strategies is (e.g., see Berglas, 1986; Pelham, 1991a; Tice, 1991, very different between those who score low on this 1993). scale versus those who score high (Gangestad & The self literature suggests that low self-esteem Snyder, 1985). Self-monitoring is defined as “differ- individuals may be motivated to “misinterpret” self- ences in the extent to which people monitor (observe, related feedback to maintain a sense of consistency regulate, and control) the public appearances of self and predictability for their selves (e.g., Brockner, they display in social situations and interpersonal 1983; Osborne, 1996a; Tice, 1993). If John believes, relationships” (M. Snyder, 1987, pp. 4–5). Low self- for example, that he is a failure, and is acutely aware monitors focus on internalized attitudes, values, and of that belief, he is particularly likely to find positive beliefs in deciding how to present themselves to performance feedback disquieting. Tice (1993) sug- others. High self-monitors, on the other hand, focus gested such an individual may find positive perfor- on situational demands and concerns in deciding how mance feedback threatening because it may set a to present themselves to others. Clearly, these differ- standard for future performance that he may feel ences will result in fundamentally different behavioral unable to attain. choices (e.g., Osborne et al., 1997). In addition, there is mounting evidence that in- Self-related motives, such as self-protection and dividuals high or low in self-monitoring utilize differ- self-monitoring, have been shown to have a signifi- ent strategies for processing self- and social-oriented cant impact on the behavioral choices that individu- information (Osborne, Penticuff, Norman, & Robin- als will make (e.g., Osborne et al., 1997; Tice, 1993), son, 1997), have different concerns about how they the manner in which individuals will process social present themselves to others (e.g., M. Snyder, Berscheid, information (e.g., Carpenter, 1988; Ickes, Layden, & & Glick, 1985), and make differential behavioral Barnes, 1978), and how individuals will present choices (e.g., M. Snyder, Berscheid, & Matwychuk, themselves to others (e.g., Lemon & Warren, 1974; 1988; Osborne et al., 1997; M. Snyder, 1987). Lewicki, 1983, 1984). Tice (1993) suggested high and Osborne and Stites (1994) found that individu- low self-esteem individuals may have different self- als with low self-esteem interpreted negative self- motives that influence the manner in which they will related feedback as due to internal, stable, and glo- process self-related feedback and how they will choose bal causes. These same individuals, however, inter- to present themselves to others. According to Tice, preted positive self-related feedback as due to exter- high self-esteem persons may be motivated to present nal, temporary, and specific causes. In this fashion, themselves positively and to seek out positive the low self-esteem persons are able to perpetuate or feedback. maintain their negative self-views regardless of the High self-esteem individuals should not find posi- “true” quality of the feedback they are receiving. In tive self-related information threatening. These per- this study, participants were given scenarios and asked sons should be willing to admit when they have done to write short answers as to why each scenario might poorly because their self-esteem is stable enough to happen to them. Osborne and Stites (1994) provided allow for some “failures” (e.g., Osborne, 1996a; the following scenario to participants: “Imagine that Pelham, 1991a, 1991b, 1993). Low self-esteem per- you get home just as the phone is ringing. You answer sons, on the other hand, may actually find positive it and discover that it is an employer offering you a self-feedback “threatening” because it creates a sense job that you applied for and really want. Why did you of inconsistency (e.g., Simon, 1990). In addition, the receive the offer?” individual may be motivated to “misinterpret” that Osborne and Stites (1994) found individuals scor- information to bring it more “in-line” with current ing low in self-esteem generated primarily external self-views and, thereby, reestablish a sense of predict- explanations (“no one else must have applied for the ability (e.g., Osborne, 1996a, 1996b; Pelham, 1991a, job” or “they must have confused my application with 1993).

PSI CHI JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH  Fall 1998 111 CONFLICTING SELF-TENDENCIES  Elam, Osborne, and Norman

Given this brief review of the self-esteem, self- on the test), there should be no conflict. The low monitoring, and self-motive literature, it may seem self-esteem level leads the person to expect poor that self-esteem and self-monitoring tendencies might performance, and the self-monitoring tendency lead to dramatically different patterns of interpret- motivates the person to rely on those beliefs when ing self-feedback. High self-esteem persons would reporting self-feedback to others. appear to be the most willing to admit when they had If the individual is high on one of these dimen- not performed well, and should also be willing to sions and low on the other (e.g., high in self-esteem admit when they had performed well. Low self-esteem but low in self-monitoring), the motives should not persons, however, may be operating from the motive conflict and one would expect feedback reporting to of self-protection. In this case, feedback that is con- be accurate. The high self-esteem person prefers posi- sistent with their self-image would be the least threat- tive feedback but does not find negative feedback ening (e.g., Tice, 1993). Poor performance feedback, threatening. If this person is low in self-monitoring, then, would mesh with what these individuals would he or she would focus more on internal values and expect and would be perceived by these persons as beliefs in deciding what feedback to report. In this less threatening than feedback that suggests they had case, the individual is not concerned with being performed well. situationally successful, which should enhance the The present study is innovative in its consider- tendency to report whatever score is given. A low self- ation of the effects of both self-esteem and self-moni- esteem person who is high in self-monitoring may toring on the reporting of self-related feedback. High want to be perceived as successfully as possible, self-monitors are highly motivated to adjust their be- thereby motivating the person to overreport a nega- haviors to fit with situational demands and to be per- tive score, but the discomfort that this action would ceived as situationally successful (e.g., M. Snyder, create because of negative self-related expectations 1987). Low self-monitors, however, are motivated to should cancel out this effect. behave in ways that are consistent with their internal values and beliefs. A high self-monitor who is also high in self- FIGURE 1 esteem and receives negative performance feedback, Study hypotheses based on self levels then, might be in a state of self-motive conflict. The and positivity or negativity of self-esteem level would suggest the person is performance feedback. comfortable with performance feedback that is negative, and thereby should motivate the person to Positive report that feedback accurately. The self-monitoring need to be perceived as successful, however, might Feedback Self-Monitoring Level motivate the individual to overreport the score. When High Low these individuals receive moderately successful feedback reports, however, there should be no High Accurately Report Accurately Report conflict. The low self-esteem person, on the other hand, may experience the same self-motive conflict when Low Accurately Report Underreport Positive he or she is also low in self-monitoring and is receiv-

ing positive feedback. The low self-esteem level would Self-Esteem Level cause the individual to feel discomfort with positive feedback (presumably because the feedback is incon- Negative sistent with self-perceptions and is thereby threaten- Feedback Self-Monitoring Level ing; Blaine & Crocker, 1993; Osborne, 1996a; Tice, 1993). This discomfort would motivate the person to High Low underreport success feedback. This tendency to under- report success feedback would be perpetuated by the High Overreport Negative Accurately Report low self-monitoring tendency to adhere to internal values and beliefs. The internal belief of these per- sons might be “I am unsuccessful,” and this belief Low Accurately Report Accurately Report could only be confirmed to the extent they under-

report their feedback. If the information that is pro- Self-Esteem Level vided is negative (e.g., that they performed poorly

112 PSI CHI JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH  Fall 1998 CONFLICTING SELF-TENDENCIES  Elam, Osborne, and Norman

TABLE 1 Sample Items From the General Perceptions Scale

1.) How many “dimples” are there on a golf ball? a.) 45 b.) 78 c.) 123 d.) 200

4.) What type of music is the biggest selling in terms of total sales? a.) rock b.) jazz c.) country d.) rap

5.) How do you define the word “eclectic”? a.) unusual or bizarre behavior b.) conscientious effort c.) utilizing the best of many methods d.) easy going

7.) What color for car paint is considered the “safest” in terms of visibility? a.) yellow b.) red c.) white d.) silver

20.) How many chunks of information can be held in short term memory? a.) 5–9 b.) 15 c.) 25–40 d.) 100+

The current study was built upon the assumptions Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct just outlined concerning the relationship between (American Psychological Association, 1992). self-monitoring tendency, self-esteem level, the rela- tive positivity or negativity of feedback provided, and Materials the degree to which individuals might overreport or Participants were administered a self-monitoring underreport that feedback to others. To summarize, scale (M. Snyder, 1974), a self-esteem measure we hypothesized that: (a) high levels of self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965), and a bogus information test, and self-monitoring would conflict when individuals designed for this study, titled “General Perceptions receive negative performance feedback causing them Scale.” to “overreport” their score, (b) low levels of self- General Perceptions Scale. This “perceptions” esteem and self-monitoring would conflict when in- scale actually contained 25 multiple choice questions dividuals receive positive feedback causing them to involving general but not widely known information. “underreport” their score, and (c) high levels on one As can be seen in Table 1, the types of questions asked variable coupled with low levels on the other variable are esoteric enough for participants to be unsure of would interact to cause accurate reporting of posi- their performance. Each question was followed by tive and negative feedback. These hypotheses are dia- four multiple-choice options. This scale was included grammed in Figure 1. to generate bogus but believable performance feedback. Method Self-Monitoring Scale. The Self-Monitoring Scale Participants is an 18-item true-false measure. Scale statements ask Participants were 144 undergraduate students (98 participants to assess the truth of statements about women and 46 men) from a small midwestern uni- their behaviors in social situations. versity. Participants were recruited from undergradu- Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. The Rosenberg ate biology courses and asked to volunteer for the Self-Esteem Scale is a 10-item scale. Participants rate study without compensation. From the initial 144 their level of agreement with statements about per- participants, 119 (81 women, 38 men) completed ceptions of their self-worth with a 4-point Likert scale. both components of the study. This distribution is consistent with the sex makeup of the student popu- Design and Procedures lation; 70% of the students enrolled in the university During the initial part of the study, participants are women. The average age of participants was 25.8 completed the previously described measures. Once years (range = 18 to 61) which, again, is consistent the self scales had been scored, participants scoring with the overall campus demographics. All partici- the same (e.g., high on both, low on both, or high on pants were treated in accordance with the Ethical one and low on the other) were randomly assigned

PSI CHI JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH  Fall 1998 113 CONFLICTING SELF-TENDENCIES  Elam, Osborne, and Norman to receive either the positive or negative performance FIGURE 2 feedback during the follow-up study. On average, the follow-up sessions were held 2 days after the partici- Mean difference scores between pants completed the scales. experimenter-provided and participant- During the second part of the study, participants reported performance feedback as a function were asked to submit their coded participant card, of self-monitoring level, self-esteem level, were provided with performance feedback (bogus) and type of performance feedback provided. on the “General Perceptions Test,” and were asked to sign up for the follow-up session. Participants were Positive randomly given one of two different performance Feedback Self-Monitoring Level feedback scores. Participants were informed that they had scored either an “84” or a “76” out of 100. No High Low other information about the score was given. When participants arrived at the waiting area they High .235 0 found a male participant (actually a confederate) already waiting. During the conversation, the confed- erate asked the participants how they scored on the Low perceptions test. After participants provided an 0 –7.500 answer, the confederate told them that he had been Self-Esteem Level told to send them to a different room to wait. Partici- pants appeared to be very willing to report their scores Negative to the confederate. Common comments from the par- Feedback Self-Monitoring Level ticipants were: “sure, I got an 88” or “I think I got a High Low 79.” At the final room, participants were met by another experimenter. This person conducted a full High 7.750 .333 debriefing, probed participants for suspicions and concerns, and allowed them to ask any and all ques- tions before dismissal. Low .438 .125

Results Self-Esteem Level Participants’ self-monitoring (M. Snyder, 1974), self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965), experimenter-pro- vided “perceptions,” and participant-reported “per- tive performance feedback and 17 who received nega- ceptions” scores were included in the analyses. Self- tive feedback were utilized in the analyses). Thirty monitoring (SM) and self-esteem (SE) scales were participants scored high on the self-monitoring scale scored and median splits performed. The median and low on the self-esteem measure (15 each received split score on the self-monitoring construct was 12 positive and negative performance feedback). (participants with SM scores > 12 were categorized as The difference in participants who scored low on “high self-monitors” and those with SM scores < 12 the self-monitoring scale and those who scored high were categorized as “low self-monitors”). The median on the self-esteem scale appears to be an error of ran- split score for the self-esteem measure was 31 (par- dom assignment. Thirty-four participants who scored ticipants scoring > 31 were categorized as “high self- in this fashion received feedback (17 received posi- esteem” and those scoring < 31 were categorized as tive and 17 received negative). Only 11 of those who “low self-esteem”). received positive performance feedback returned to These scores resulted in four categories of par- complete the follow-up study. Although we do not ticipants utilized in the analyses. Thirty participants know why 6 participants chose not to complete par- scored low on both scales (15 received positive per- ticipation, the fact that they all were from the same formance feedback and 15 received negative feed- group is troublesome. back). Thirty-one participants scored high on both A difference score was computed in which each scales (15 received positive performance feedback participants’ actual score (the feedback score of 86 and 16 received negative feedback). Thirty-four par- or 74 that each participant was given) was subtracted ticipants scored low on the self-monitoring scale and from the score that participant reported. A negative high on the self-esteem scale (11 who received posi- difference score would result, then, if a participant

114 PSI CHI JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH  Fall 1998 CONFLICTING SELF-TENDENCIES  Elam, Osborne, and Norman

reported a score lower than the one originally given. negative feedback, or when individuals low in both A positive difference score would result if a partici- self-esteem and self-monitoring are provided with pant reported a score higher than the one originally positive feedback. given. Participants’ difference scores were entered Individuals who are low in self-esteem have been into a 2 × 2 × 2 (Performance Feedback × Self-Esteem shown to misinterpret success feedback as due to ex- Score × Self-Monitoring Score) factorial analysis of ternal causes (e.g., Osborne & Stites, 1994). In this variance (ANOVA). fashion, low self-esteem persons can reconfirm their As can be seen in Figure 2, the pattern of differ- negative self-perceptions even in the face of appar- ence scores clearly supported the hypotheses. Those ently discrepant positive feedback. When this ten- individuals who scored low on both self scales and dency is further augmented by a low self-monitoring received positive performance feedback under- level (which results in a strong tendency to adhere to reported their scores by an average of 7.5 points internal beliefs), it is likely that success feedback whereas those participants who scored high on both would seem particularly contradictory. scales and received negative performance feedback It is possible that two powerful motives (like self- overreported their scores by an average of 7.75 points. esteem and self-monitoring) that are in conflict There was no significant over- or underreporting of create a sense of internal tension (not unlike cognitive scores when individuals scored high on either scale dissonance) that needs to be alleviated (e.g., Blaine and low on the other. & Crocker, 1993). In the scenario presented to these The analysis revealed the predicted main effects participants, the only real method available for alle- for type of feedback, F(1, 119) = 122.053, p < .0001, viating the discomfort created by the self-motive con- self-esteem level, F(1, 119) = 112.219, p < .0001, and flict was to take the opportunity to misreport their self-monitoring level, F(1, 119) = 115.305, p < .0001. score when that opportunity was provided. Although The average difference scores across the conditions nothing in our data allows us to confirm whether resulted in the predicted Feedback × Self-Esteem × participants experienced any sort of psychological Self-Monitoring interaction, F(1, 119) = 99.546, discomfort from the feedback received, the fact that p < .0001. only the two predicted groups of participants mis- Scheffé post hoc comparisons also were con- reported their scores is highly suggestive. ducted. This test was chosen because it is a fairly con- It has been said that everyone lies. But is it the servative test and because some of the cells had an lie itself that is informative or the circumstances be- unequal number of participants. As expected, the hind the lie? We would argue that the simple fact of Scheffé revealed significant effects for the difference lying tells us very little about the individual except score as a function of feedback level (positive or nega- that he or she was less than truthful. Lying (discussed tive), M = 4.008, p < .0001; self-esteem level (low or within the context of this study as misreporting of high), M = –3.861, p < .0001; and self-monitoring level self-related feedback) appears to be much more com- (low or high), M = –3.883, p < .0001. plex than one would first believe (e.g., DePaulo et al., 1996). Goffman (1959) was one of the first to sug- Discussion gest that individuals may engage in lies (or decep- It may strike individuals as paradoxical that some- tion) to avoid conflict and minimize tension in social one would underreport a positive score. However, the interactions. current self literature is strongly challenging the pre- Individuals surely engage in deceit for a variety vious assumption that all persons in all circumstances of reasons, but perhaps the goal is not always to avoid will choose to maximize the positivity of their self- conflict or minimize tension on the part of the inter- related feelings. Swann et al. (1992) clearly showed action partner as much as self-protection. We believe that persons with low self-esteem will often choose it is highly likely that individuals tell lies in order to self-related information that is negative, presumably reduce their own inner conflicts (much as partici- because these persons find such information self- pants in Festinger’s classic dissonance studies changed confirming or find positive information threatening. their attitudes to reduce tension associated with The picture becomes much more complex when lying). The current results support this contention multiple self-related motives are considered. It is pos- given that the only conditions in which self scores sible that individuals can be motivated by different were significantly misreported were conditions in motives and that, sometimes, these motives would lead which the self of the individual was directly threat- to conflicting behaviors. It is our belief that this very ened by a self-motive conflict. conflict occurs when individuals who are high in both Given the relative importance of self-motives as self-esteem and self-monitoring are provided with predictors of behavior (e.g., Simon, 1990), it is im-

PSI CHI JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH  Fall 1998 115 CONFLICTING SELF-TENDENCIES  Elam, Osborne, and Norman perative that more effort be put into delineating the Osborne, R. E. (1993). Self-esteem. In F. N. Magill (Ed.), Survey of Social Science: Psychology Series (Vol. 5, pp. 2188–2191). Pasa- potential effects of self-motive conflicts. If conflict- dena, CA: Salem Press. ing self-motives can cause some individuals to find Osborne, R. E. (1996a). Self: An eclectic approach. Needham Heights, positive information threatening, as our data clearly MA: Allyn & Bacon. Osborne, R. E. (1996b). You are what you think: The perpetuat- suggest, then it stands to reason that such conflicts ing nature of self-esteem. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of could have an impact on the development and main- Science, 104(3–4), 233–239. tenance of relationships, perceptions of unknown Osborne, R. E., Penticuff, J., Norman, J., & Robinson, M. (1997). I think therefore I vote: Self-monitoring and 1996 presidential elec- others, interactions with other persons during times tion choices. Manuscript submitted for publication. of discomfort associated with such conflicts, persis- Osborne, R. E., & Stites, L. R. (1994). Perpetuating low self-regard: tence and attainment in college, or even performance Self-esteem and interpretations for success and failure. Unpublished manuscript, Indiana University East, Richmond. on the job. Pelham, B. W. (1991a). On confidence and consequence: The certainty and importance of self-knowledge. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 60, 518–530. References Pelham, B. W. (1991b). On the benefits of misery: Self-serving biases in the depressive self-concept. Journal of Personality and American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of Social Psychology, 61, 670–681. psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, Pelham, B. W. (1993). On the highly positive thoughts of the highly 1597–1611. depressed. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem: The puzzle of Berglas, S. (1986). The success syndrome: Hitting bottom when you reach low self-regard. New York: Plenum Press. the top. New York: Plenum. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, Blaine, B., & Crocker, J. (1993). Self-esteem and self-serving biases NJ: Princeton University Press. in reactions to positive and negative events: An integrative re- Simon, H. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review view. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self- of Psychology, 41, 1–19. regard. New York: Plenum Press. Snyder, C. R., & Higgins, R. L. (1988). Excuses: Their effective Brockner, J. (1983). Low self-esteem and behavioral plasticity: role in the negotiation of reality. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 23– Some implications. In L. Wheeler & P. Shaver (Eds.), Review of 35. Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 237–271). Beverly Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal Hills, CA: Sage. of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526–537. Carpenter, S. L. (1988). Self-relevance and goal-directed process- Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances, private realities: The psychol- ing in the recall and weighing of information about others. ogy of self-monitoring. New York: W. H. Freeman. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 310–332. Snyder, M., Berscheid, E., & Glick, P. (1985). Focusing on the De La Ronde, C., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (1993). Caught in the exterior and the interior: Two investigations of the initiation crossfire: Positivity and self-verification strivings among people of personal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social with low self-esteem. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem: The Psychology, 48, 1427–1439. puzzle of low self-regard. New York: Plenum Press. Snyder, M., Berscheid, E., & Matwychuk, A. (1988). Orientations DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & toward personnel selection: Differential reliance on appear- Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personal- ance and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, ity and Social Psychology, 70, 979–995. 54, 972–979. Gangestad, S., & Snyder. M. (1985). “To carve nature at its joints”: Spencer, S. J., Josephs, R. A., & Steele, C. M. (1993). Low self- On the existence of discrete classes in personality. Psychologi- esteem: The uphill struggle for self-integrity. In R. F. cal Review, 92, 317–349. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard. New Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden York: Plenum Press. City, NY: Doubleday/Anchor Books. Swann, W. B., Jr. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality Ickes, W. J., Layden, M. A., & Barnes, R. D. (1978). Objective self- into harmony with the self. In J. Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), awareness and individuation: An empirical link. Journal of Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 2, pp. 33–66). Hillsdale, Personality, 46, 146–161. NJ: Erlbaum. Kashy, D. A., & DePaulo, B. M. (1996). Who lies? Journal of Person- Swann, W. B., Jr., Hixon, J. G., & De La Ronde, C. (1992). Em- ality and Social Psychology, 70, 1037–1051. bracing the bitter “truth”: Negative self-concepts and marital Lemon, N., & Warren, N. (1974). Salience, centrality and self- commitment. Psychological Science, 3, 118–121. relevance of traits in construing others. British Journal of Social Tice, D. M. (1991). Esteem protection or enhancement? Self- and Clinical Psychology, 13, 119–124. handicapping motives and attributions differ by trait self- Lewicki, P. (1983). Self-image bias in person perception. Journal esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 711–725. of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 384–393. Tice, D. M. (1993). The social motivations of people with low self- Lewicki, P. (1984). Self-schema and social information process- esteem. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem: The puzzle of low ing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1177–1190. self-regard. New York: Plenum Press.

116 PSI CHI JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH  Fall 1998