• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Running head: ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 1

NOTE: MANUSCRIPT UNDER REVIEW

Accurate Self-Knowledge and Self-Esteem

C. Randall Colvin Northeastern University

Dawne S. Vogt National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System Boston, Massachusetts and Division of Psychiatry Boston University School of Medicine

Author Note

C. Randall Colvin, Department of Psychology, Northeastern University; Dawne S. Vogt,

National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare

System.

We thank Krista Hill and Sun Park for their extremely helpful comments and suggestions. A

special thank you to Maureen Whalen whose helpful comments went far beyond conceptual

and statistical matters.

This research was supported in part by a grant from the National Institute of Mental

Health. ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 2

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to C. Randall Colvin, Department of

Psychology, Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Avenue – 125 NI, Boston, MA

02115. Email: [email protected] ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 3

Abstract

This article describes the construct of accurate self-knowledge (ASK), and examines its relationship with self-esteem (SE) and emotional well-being (EWB). The personality and social behavior of ninety-three participants was described by self, friends, parents, interaction partners, and trained behavior coders. Given that ASK and SE were highly correlated, residualized “pure”

ASK and “pure” SE scores were analyzed. Across all data sources, pure ASK was associated with agreeableness and communion. Pure SE was associated with narcissistic tendencies and unmitigated agency. Two models were tested to clarify the relationship between ASK and SE.

ASK and SE interacted to predict EWB, suggesting people must both know and like themselves to have a positive and satisfying emotional life. Future research on ASK, its relationship to SE, and implications for self-enhancement are discussed.

Keywords: accurate self-knowledge, self-esteem, self-perception, psychological coherence, emotional well-being ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 4

Accurate Self-Knowledge and Self-Esteem

Self-knowledge and self-esteem are revered constructs within psychology. Self- knowledge, and the ubiquitous “Know thyself,” has been a cornerstone of Western philosophy for more than 25 centuries. Many philosophers and psychologists believe that self-knowing is an admirable achievement associated with well-being (Copleston, 1957; Jahoda, 1958, Rogers,

1944). Self-esteem, on the other hand, attained its lofty position by sheer number of empirical studies and the implicit promise to help the hopeless. While the promise has yet to be fulfilled, future self-esteem research may help people transform feelings of self-loathing to self-liking.

Contemporary social psychology portrays self-knowledge and self-esteem as dueling motives, and self-esteem as the routine victor (Sedikides 1993; Taylor & Brown, 1988; Banaji &

Prentice, 1994; but see Swann, Pelham, & Krull, 1989). Despite strong claims that the motive for self-liking reigns supreme over self-knowing (Sedikides, 1993; Taylor & Brown, 1988), the empirical literature has remarkably little to say about the relationship between accurate self- knowledge and self-esteem.

Contrary to current belief, self-esteem may not be the master motive, and self-esteem and self-knowledge may not be rivals engaged in psychic warfare (Kwang & Swann, in press).

Rather, a harmonious relationship between self-knowing and self-liking might characterize high functioning people. Self-knowledge and self-esteem arguably are cognitive and affective constructs respectively; and both are integral components of the psychological self which is a domain of personality (Kwang & Swann, in press). In contrast to the dueling motives perspective and its implication for internal conflict, some theorists believe the self-system of ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 5 high functioning people is characterized by psychological coherence (e.g., Lecky, 1945; Rogers,

1944) and coordination between self-knowledge and self-esteem (Allport, 1955; Hoyle, 2006).

Spanning divergent theories, numerous writers believe coherence is a defining feature of mental health (Allport, 1955; Kernberg, 1976; Kohut; 1977; Loevinger, 1976; Maslow, 1954;

Rogers, 1961). Despite widespread consensus, coherence has not received the attention it deserves (Sheldon & Kasser, 1995). While theorists may emphasize different elements that comprise a coherent self, coherence can be defined as the integration of affective, cognitive, and motivational systems (Allport, 1955). Theory and research indicate a coherent self is associated with adaptive intrapersonal and interpersonal functioning (Allport, 1955; Biesanz & West, 2000;

Colvin, 1993; Donahue, Robins, Roberts, & John, 1993; Sheldon & Kasser, 1995). In contrast, an incoherent self is associated with thoughts, feelings, motives, and behavior that are disjointed.

For these people, the sense of self is filled with uncertainty, conflict, and lack of purpose; behavior may be perceived as erratic, a combination of impulsive acts and avoidant behaviors

(Allport, 1955; Kernberg, 1976; Kohut, 1977).

The goal of this article is to build on our previous research (Vogt & Colvin, 2005) by examining the interconnection between ASK and SE, and elaborating the ASK construct through its empirical relationship with multi-source personality and social behavior data. During the course of these empirical endeavors, we will evaluate the dueling motives and psychological coherence perspectives. In the sections that follow, we first describe the construct of accurate self-knowledge (ASK) and then briefly discuss self-esteem (SE). We then describe the theoretical and empirical links between ASK and SE, and provide an overview of the present study.

Accurate Self-Knowledge ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 6

Definition. The term self-knowledge has two uses in the psychological literature. The most common usage refers to processes or information about the self with no requirement for accuracy. Self-knowledge researchers study the theoretical structure (Schell, Klein, & Babey,

1996), neuroanatomy (Lieberman, Jarcho, & Satpute, 2004), processes (Hull, Van Treuren,

Ashford, Propsom, & Andrus, 1988; Mussweiler & Bodenhausen, 2002;), organization

(Showers & Ziegler-Hill, 2006) and categories (Robinson & Clore, 2002) associated with self- knowledge. These studies have made significant contributions to the scientific literature on self- knowledge; but none address the accuracy of self-relevant information.

This article focuses on the second, and less frequent, use of self-knowledge. We use the modified term “accurate self-knowledge” (ASK) to denote the correspondence between information possessed by people about themselves and their interpersonal lives, and objective reality. When objective reality eludes researchers, which it almost always does, a defensible proxy criterion is needed. In previous research, ASK was operationalized by comparing self- reported personality structure with social behavior and observers’ personality ratings (Vogt &

Colvin, 2005). We used the logic of construct validation and assessed several (fallible) criteria as proxies for objective reality (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). By aggregating criteria, validity is increased and error is reduced. It is a strategy researchers routinely use (Block, J.H. & Block, J.,

1980; Funder & Colvin, 1997).

Research. Researchers are just now beginning to study ASK. The meager literature falls into three categories. First, research on self-enhancement (i.e., positively distorted self-knowledge) and psychological well-being has provided provocative but indirect evidence about ASK. It indicates that self-enhancement and mental health are (a) positively related (e.g., Taylor and

Brown, 1988), (b) negatively related (Colvin, Block, & Funder, 1995), or (c) positively related ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 7 when evaluated by strangers and negatively related when evaluated by acquaintances (e.g.,

Paulhus, 1998). Low self-enhancement scores might imply ASK, self-derogation, or inaccurate self-beliefs that are neither positively nor negatively biased; thus, little can be concluded about

ASK from this literature. Second, researchers have studied faulty self-knowledge. Wilson

(Wilson, 2002; Wilson & Dunn, 2004) argued that much of the self, including mental processes, is inaccessible to the conscious mind and is therefore unknowable. Dunning and colleagues (e.g.,

Dunning, Heath, & Suls, 2004) reviewed the self-assessment errors people make related to health, education, and the workplace; the errors were numerous. But they also noted the importance of ASK stating “[a valuable] portrait is one that depicts what an individual looks like when he or she has achieved an accurate impression of his or her talents, capacities, and character” (Dunning, et al., p. 99). Third, self-evaluations have been shown to predict performance (John & Robins, 1994) and behavior (Gosling, John, Craik, & Robins, 1998; Vazire

& Mehl, 2008; Vogt & Colvin, 2005) in social settings, providing evidence for individual differences in ASK. Because Vogt and Colvin’s (2005) study provides the foundation for the present research, it is described next.

We began our research with the sobering realization that any operational definition we used would imperfectly assess ASK as we had defined it (Vogt & Colvin, 2005). Our guiding assumption was that people who possess ASK would provide self-reports that corresponded to their actual behavior. We limited our measure of self-knowledge to the domain of personality trait structure (i.e., the relative salience of traits within a person’s trait structure) and excluded other personality domains (e.g., emotion, motivation).

We created four indices to assess ASK. Two indices compared participants’ self-rated personality with trained coders’ behavior ratings. Two other indices assessed the profile ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 8 agreement between participants’ and parents’ personality ratings. The composite ASK score computed on all four indices was internally consistent (Cronbach’s α=.70). The ASK composite exhibited convergent and discriminant validity, and correlated positively with several self and peer rated measures of psychological well-being. Social desirability was examined and ruled out as an alternative explanation for the results (Vogt & Colvin, 2005).

Theory. Theory about the acquisition of ASK emphasizes intrapersonal and interpersonal processes. Socrates’ observation that “the unexamined life is not worth living” implies that introspection – deep thinking about self-relevant past, current, and future events -- facilitates self-understanding. Despite centuries of encouragement from philosophers, there is little empirical evidence for the relationship between introspection and ASK (but see Cheek, 1982;

Hixon & Swann, 1993). More recently, Wilson (2002; Wilson & Dunn, 2004) argued the processes that influence behavior are primarily unconscious and that introspection, a process utilizing conscious information, may yield explanations for behavior that are inaccurate.

“Symbolic interactionism” researchers believe people develop a sense of self by interacting with others (Mead, 1934; Shrauger & Schoeneman, 1979). Beginning in early childhood, it is believed that people observe, evaluate, and ultimately internalize other’s reactions to them. The internalized evaluations form the core of the self. While this process may contribute to self- knowledge, it is difficult to imagine people developing an identity, a sense of self-worth, or feelings of trust for others by passively observing others observe them.

Despite these reservations, the influence of interpersonal relationships on self-knowledge development should not be minimized. In addition to symbolic interactionism processes, self- knowledge may be cultivated in the context of personal relationships that thrive on the active exchange and evaluation of personal attitudes, beliefs, feelings, and values. These exchanges ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 9 might occur between close friends or romantic partners for whom trust and honesty are well established (Jopling, 2000). Despite their potential for enhancing ASK, many people may feel threatened by the prospect of such an exchange. An alternative and less threatening strategy occurs between friends when they psychologically dissect a common acquaintance. The process might proceed like this: the acquaintance’s behavior is discussed, various motives are put forth to explain the behavior, the friends evaluate each other’s opinions, arguments are made for one perspective over others, and finally, as possible explanations are exhausted, an attempt is made to reach consensus about the acquaintance. The people conducting the psychological dissection presumably want to better understand their mutual acquaintance, but statements like “I could never do that,” and “How can she live with herself” are often spoken. To listeners of such conversations, it might appear the friends are using the absent acquaintance to affirm their own beliefs and values. Thus, conversations about third parties may allow people to covertly compare self with others without exposing themselves to psychologically threatening responses.

Self-Esteem

Definition. Self-esteem is often defined as an affective attitude about the self that ranges from positive to negative. A person’s standing on the attitude dimension reflects feelings of worthiness. Also frequently used is the Jamesian definition “success divided by pretentions”

(James, 1890, p. 310). According to this definition SE is represented by the discrepancy between the self that “one is” and the self that “one would like to be.” The discrepancy between “real self” and “ideal self” indicates one’s evaluation of self-competence (Mruk, 2006). A third definition combines worthiness and competence to create a dimension that can be characterized as warranted vs. unwarranted SE (Baumeister, et al., 2003; Kernis, 2003; Mruk, 2006). A benefit of this definition is that it separates narcissists’ grandiose self-beliefs from adjusted persons’ ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 10 accurate self-beliefs. In the present study, self-esteem measures corresponding to the first two definitions were used that, when combined with other data, could potentially address the third definition.

Theory and Research. The theoretical distinction between contingent and true SE is particularly relevant for the present study (Crocker & Park, 2004; Deci & Ryan, 1995; Epstein &

Morling, 1995; Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Morling & Epstein, 1997). We use the term

“contingent SE” to refer to fluctuating feelings of self-worth influenced by real or perceived events in the social environment. People with high contingent SE, for example, may experience painful feelings after receiving a supervisor’s rebuke or a journal editor’s rejection letter. To overcome these feelings, they might engage in strategic behaviors, such as criticizing the boss or sending a fierce rebuttal letter to the editor, that reinforce their feelings of self-worth. Contingent

SE is associated with low (a) autonomy, (b) self-acceptance, (c) reality orientation, (d) tolerance for negative feedback, and (e) agreeableness (Kernis, Lakey, & Heppner, 2008).

People with noncontingent or true SE have a persistent sense of self-worth largely unaffected by day to day experiences (e.g., Kernis, 2003). Deci and Ryan (1995) argue that true SE occurs when people live lives and achieve goals of their own choosing. Research has demonstrated that true SE is associated with self-reported authenticity, unbiased processing, actual behavior, and relational orientation (Kernis & Heppner, 2008). In summary, true SE (a) occurs when people refrain from cognitive distortions, (b) is an outcome of living a life of one’s choosing and achieving goals set by the self, and (c) is associated with an accurate sense of self.

ASK and SE: The Present Study

In our previous research, one goal was to demonstrate the validity of the ASK index. The

ASK and SE correlation (r=.47; Vogt & Colvin, 2005) was one of several that provided validity ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 11 evidence. In the present study, the ASK and SE relationship takes center stage. We will examine the personality and behavior characteristics that uniquely define (a) ASK, after partialling SE, and (b) SE, after partialling ASK. Having removed their shared variance, these transformed ASK and SE scores are referred to as “pure ASK” and “pure SE,” throughout the remainder of this article (cf. Block & Kremen, 1996 for a similar strategy).

Pure ASK and Pure SE. Previous research has shown ASK and SE are related to positive psychological functioning (Leary & MacDonald, 2003; Robins, Tracy, Trzesniewski, Potter, &

Gosling, 2001; Vogt & Colvin, 2005). However, the interpretation of these results may be obscured if ASK and SE routinely covary. This is not an issue with the pure ASK and pure SE scores, but the pure scores raise a new concern – their psychological meaning. Earlier, several interpersonal processes were discussed that might affect the acquisition of ASK (Jopling, 2000).

Based on this discussion, the correlates of pure ASK might reveal a person who is humble and interpersonally-oriented, placing the needs of others before one’s own (i.e., controlling SE removes confident, assertive aspects of SE). This behavioral pattern is consistent with the concept of communion (Helgeson & Fritz, 1999) and, when need satisfactions are routinely denied, unmitigated communion. In contrast, SE controlling for ASK may be synonymous with unwarranted self-esteem, characterized by narcissistic behavior (e.g., Ziegler-Hill, Clark, &

Pickard, 2008) and unmitigated agency (e.g., Helgeson & Fritz, 1999).

Predicting Emotional Well-Being from ASK and SE. The perceived importance of self- knowing and self-liking has waxed and waned with time and discipline. But speculation rather than empiricism has guided these shifting perspectives. One goal of the present study is to test the contributions made by ASK and SE toward the prediction of an important criterion – emotional well-being (EWB). If it is presumed SE is the primary human motive (Sedikides, ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 12

1993), one might logically conclude that SE is the key determinant of EWB. This hypothesis is consistent with the dueling motives perspective which suggests the motive to self-enhance (i.e., maintain or increase SE) is primary and the motive to self-assess (i.e., increase ASK) is secondary. However, dueling motives implies psychic conflict which tends to be associated with poor psychological functioning (Westen, 1998). Furthermore, many theorists believe psychological maladjustment is characterized, in part, by the habitual satisfaction of one motive at the expense of other motives (Allport, 1955; Epstein & Morling, 1995; Greenberg & Mitchell,

1983; Westen, 1998). In contrast, psychological coherence, not conflict, is characteristic of healthy psychological functioning (Donahue et al., 1993). Drawing from this perspective, we predict people who possess high and corresponding levels of ASK and SE will exhibit EWB. In contrast, we expect people whose levels of ASK and SE are highly discrepant, or are both relatively low, will exhibit relatively low EWB (Allport, 1955; Deci & Ryan, 1995; Epstein &

Morling, 1995; Kernis & Heppner, 2008). Stated more formally, we hypothesize that the ASK and SE interaction will be a significant predictor of EWB.

In summary, the present study has two primary goals: (a) clarify the conceptual relationship between ASK and SE by identifying the independent and shared personality and behavior characteristics of ASK and SE , and (b) compare the dueling motives and personality coherence models by examining the relative contributions of ASK and SE toward the prediction of EWB.

Method

The data presented in this article are part of a larger dataset on personality and interpersonal perception. Subsets of the data have been published on several topics including the good judge of personality (Vogt & Colvin, 2003), thin slices of behavior (Carney, Colvin, &

Hall, 2007), the elicitation of personal information (Colvin & Longueuil, 2001), and the initial ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 13 study on ASK (Vogt & Colvin, 2005). The overlap in data from our first ASK study and the current study is restricted to the composite ASK index. Results presented in this article have not been previously reported.

Over a 6-month period, participants completed a battery of self-report questionnaires and tests, were videotaped in four dyadic interactions, and had their personality traits and behavioral tendencies described by parents, friends, behavioral coders, and interaction partners. In total, participants interacted with two unacquainted opposite-sex partners and two unacquainted same- sex partners. A team of trained coders later rated participants’ behavior in each of the four dyadic interactions. Participants also rated their partner’s behavior in each of the interactions. Only those data pertaining to this study are described in detail.

Participants

At a large urban university, participants were recruited by posting notices around campus.

Across two waves of data collection that spanned approximately 6 months each, 93 participants

(48 women and 45 men) completed the project. Participants came to the laboratory on five occasions, each time for a 2-hr research session. Participants were paid for their time and could earn up to $100 for completing all five research sessions. Participants were primarily White undergraduate students. Approximately half of the sample were in either their first or second year of college. The average age of students included in the sample was 21, with ages ranging between 17 and 33.

Participants’ self-descriptions. Participants completed two well-established omnibus measures of personality. First, participants described their own personality using the CAQ

(Block, 2008). The CAQ consists of 100 descriptive statements printed on separate cards that describe a full range of personality, cognitive, and social attributes. The task requires the Q- ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 14 sorter to place the items into a forced, approximately normal, nine-category distribution that ranges from extremely uncharacteristic (1) to extremely characteristic (9) of the person being rated. Example CAQ items include “is critical, skeptical, not easily impressed”; “wide range of interests”; “talkative”; “thin-skinned”; “sensitive to criticism”; and “high aspiration level.” The reliability and validity of the CAQ for describing personality is well established (Block, 2008;

Ozer, 1993).

Participants also described themselves on the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO;

Costa & McCrae, 1992) which assesses the five factor model of personality. The NEO contains

240 items that assess six facets within each of the five factors. Participants rated each item on a

5-point Likert scale that ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). There is extensive evidence for the reliability and validity of the NEO (Costa & McCrae, 1985).

Participants completed two self-esteem measures. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem questionnaire (RSE; Rosenberg, 1965) is a highly reliable (α=.83 in present study) 10-item measure of SE and is one of the most frequently used measures in psychological research.

SE was also measured by assessing the correspondence between participants’ real and ideal self. During the second laboratory session, participants described their “real” self with the

Adjective Q-sort (AQS; Block & Robins, 1993). The AQS consists of 43 adjectives (e.g., energetic, adventurous, cheerful), each printed on a separate card, that cover a broad range of personality characteristics. Participants described their “real” self (i.e., the person they perceive themselves to be) by placing each of the 43 cards into one of seven categories, using a rectangular distribution, ranging from least descriptive of self (1) to most descriptive of self (7).

During the fourth laboratory session several weeks later, participants described their “ideal” self

(i.e., the person they would like to be) with the AQS. The scores on the 43-item real and ideal ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 15 self profiles were correlated, separately by participant. The resulting correlation coefficient represents the correspondence between real and ideal self, with greater correspondence indicating higher self-esteem. The split-half reliability of the AQS real-ideal self was .71.

Participants also completed the Self-Reflectiveness factor (e.g., I’m always trying to figure myself out, I reflect a lot about myself) from the Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein,

Scheier, & Buss, 1975; alpha=.60) and the Block Self-Contemplation Scale (e.g., I think a lot about what I may do with my life; I am inclined to be introspective, that is, to analyze myself;

Colvin, Block, & Vogt, 2000; alpha=.73) both of which assess individual differences in the tendency to introspect.

Parents’ and friends’ ratings. Two parents or guardians and two friends were recruited to provide personality descriptions of each participant. They were mailed a modified CAQ in which items were rated on a very uncharacteristic (1) to very characteristic (5) Likert scale, and the NEO. Friends also completed a measure assessing their length of acquaintanceship with participants. The median length of acquaintanceship was approximately 4½ years, suggesting that friends had many opportunities to observe and interact with participants across a variety of situations. Thus, friends were likely to have had sufficient information to provide relatively accurate personality ratings (Funder & Colvin, 1988).

Coded behavior. Participants were videotaped in four 5-min “getting acquainted” dyadic interactions with other study participants. On two occasions, participants interacted with an opposite-sex partner; on two other occasions, participants interacted with a same-sex partner.

The videotaped behavior of each participant was coded using the 64-item RBQ (Funder, Furr, &

Colvin, 2000) by a team of trained coders. The RBQ assesses molar-level behaviors that are psychologically meaningful (Funder & Colvin, 1991). For instance, rather than counting the ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 16 number of frowns a participant exhibited, the degree to which a participant “expresses hostility” was coded. Thirty-nine items describe behaviors directly relevant to characteristics included in the CAQ. For example, one item in the CAQ reads “is cheerful,” and the corresponding RBQ item reads “behaves in a cheerful manner.” Another CAQ item reads “feels cheated and victimized by life” and the corresponding RBQ item reads “expresses self-pity or feeling of victimization.”

Coders viewed each 5-min videotape a minimum of two times, after which they arranged the cards of the RBQ deck into a forced, quasi-normal distribution ranging from extremely uncharacteristic (1) to extremely characteristic (9) of the target person’s behavior. Coders were instructed to use the RBQ items to describe behaviors they had witnessed and to avoid, as far as possible, “playing psychologist” or making inferences about participants’ behavior in other situations (Funder & Colvin, 1991). Overall, each 5-min interaction was coded by an average of five coders. No coder rated the behavior of a participant in more than one interaction.

As a general rule, coders were asked to recode any target for whom their average zero- order profile correlation with other coders fell below r = .30. This procedure was instituted to ensure that targets were coded reliably. In contrast with the more typical emphasis on the reliability of coders’ ratings across targets, we were interested in whether each target was coded reliably across coders. Thus, we examined the internal consistency reliability of the coders’ ratings for each individual target. In each case, the ratings of the four coders that had the highest contributions to the overall alpha reliability were retained. The average pairwise rater-by-rater correlation across the 64 items of the RBQ was r = .26. For each item, Spearman–Brown reliabilities were computed across all targets. The aggregate (Spearman–Brown) reliabilities of the RBQ items ranged as high as .79 and had a median reliability of .60 and a mean of .58 (SD ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 17

= .13). The observed item reliabilities are consistent with previous RBQ results (Funder et al.,

2000). Based on these acceptable psychometric properties, the RBQ rating profiles based on 4 coders were averaged to create composite ratings for each participant in each interaction.

Interaction partners’ ratings. Following each videotaped interaction, participants rated their partner’s behavior on 20 adjectives to assess the five factors of personality on a scale ranging from very uncharacteristic (1) to very characteristic (5). For example, they rated the extent to which their partners were “outgoing,” “trusting,” “practical,” “fearful,” and “insightful” in the interaction. Participants also rated their enjoyment of the interaction on five items (e.g.,

“How well do you feel the interaction went?” “How much did you enjoy your interaction with the other person?”).

Procedure

Session 1. The primary investigator described the goals of the project, the requirements for participating in the project (e.g., time requirements), and answered questions about the study to groups of one to four participants. Participants then completed a general consent form to participate in the study and a demographics questionnaire. They completed a variety of self- report measures of personality including the CAQ and the NEO. As time permitted, participants began working on a questionnaire packet that consisted of randomly ordered items from the battery of personality measures administered in the study.

Session 2 through Session 5. Participants were videotaped while interacting with an unacquainted partner. Specifically, two participants were seated on a couch in the laboratory while the experimenter turned on the videotaping equipment in full view of the participants.

They were then instructed to “talk about whatever you would like” for approximately 5 min while the experimenter left the room. Following the interaction, both participants rated their part- ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 18 ner’s behavior and their own enjoyment of the interaction. In Sessions 2 and 3, participants interacted with opposite-sex partners; in Sessions 4 and 5, they interacted with same-sex partners. For the remainder of each session, participants worked on the personality questionnaire given to them in Session 1.

Results

Accurate Self-Knowledge Composite Score

The development and psychometric properties of the ASK score were described in an earlier article (Vogt & Colvin, 2005); therefore, we provide only a brief description of the creation of the ASK score. In total, four ASK indices were calculated. Two indices were created by calculating the profile correlation between the 23 overlapping CAQ self-ratings and RBQ coded behaviors for the first opposite-sex and first same-sex dyadic interactions, respectively.

High scores (i.e., high positive correlation coefficients) indicated participants provided self- descriptions that accurately predicted their behavior in the two interactions.

Two additional indices assessed the correspondence between self and parent ratings on the CAQ and the NEO. The first index drew from the same subset of 23 CAQ items used to create the self-behavior correspondence scores. Profile correlation scores were computed on the

23 self and parent CAQ ratings, separately for each participant. High scores indicated agreement between participants’ self-descriptions and parents’ composite ratings of personality. The fourth

ASK index was calculated by correlating participants’ and parents’ 30 NEO facet scores, separately for each participant. High scores indicated agreement between participants’ and parents’ personality ratings. ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 19

The average pair-wise correlation among the four indices was r=.37. Each index score was transformed using Fisher’s r to z and standardized prior to summing the four scores. The

Spearman-Brown reliability of the four-index composite was .70.

Self-Esteem Composite Score

The correlation between the Rosenberg Self-Esteem questionnaire and the real- and ideal- self measure was r=.60, p<.001. The two scores were standardized and summed to create the composite SE score. The Spearman-Brown reliability of the SE composite was .75.

ASK and SE Relationship

The correlation between ASK and SE was r=.54, p<.001, indicating a relatively strong tendency for participants who knew themselves to also like themselves. Conversely, participants who possessed inaccurate self-knowledge were likely to experience negative feelings about themselves. This correlation is higher than the ASK and SE correlation previously reported

(r=.47; Vogt & Colvin, 2005). The SE score in the present study was a composite of the

Rosenberg Self-Esteem and real- and ideal-self measures whereas the previously reported correlation used only the Rosenberg Self-Esteem measure.

Five Factor Correlates of Pure Ask and Pure SE

“Pure” ASK and pure SE scores were created by regressing each variable on the other while retaining their residual scores for further analysis. To compare these residual scores with their zero-order counterparts, correlations were calculated between the ASK and SE residual and zero-order scores, and self and friend ratings on the NEO five factors and facet scores. The ASK results are displayed in Table 1; the SE results are displayed in Table 2.

Across the entire set of zero-order correlations for self and friend ratings, ASK was associated with the positive pole of each of the five factor dimensions. The SE results were ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 20 similar except that SE was negatively correlated with agreeableness for self and friend ratings.

Overall, the results indicate ASK and SE are strongly related, and exhibit similar, but not identical, patterns of correlates with the five factor model. However, the pure score results, presented next, indicate ASK and SE are not interchangeable measures.

Pure ASK was positively associated with agreeableness and extraversion, as rated by self and friends (see Table 1). The significant extraversion factor was driven primarily by the warmth and positive emotion facets. Closer inspection reveals the correlations between ASK and the gregarious, assertive, and activity facets diminish considerably after controlling for SE, suggesting ASK is primarily related to positive interpersonal aspects of extraversion. The correlations between ASK and self-reported personality should be interpreted with caution. Self- reports from people with low ASK (i.e., possess low or inaccurate self-knowledge) may possess lower validity than self-reports from people with high ASK. The issue of self-report validity will be considered later in this article. For the present purposes, the correlations between ASK and self-reported personality indicate how people with higher and lower ASK “perceive” themselves.

A comparison of residual and zero-order correlations in Table 1 indicates 32 of 35 residual score correlations decreased in absolute magnitude for the self-ratings whereas only 12 of 35 residual score correlations decreased for the friend ratings. According to the test of correlated proportions, the number of residual scores that decreased in magnitude relative to their zero-order counterparts was greater for self-ratings than friend-ratings, z=4.58, p<.001 (Guilford

& Fruchter, 1978). This finding suggests the presence of a positivity bias and that it is larger for self-ratings than friend-ratings. It is also evident that SE operated as a suppressor variable

(Paulhus, Robins, Trzesniewski, & Tracy, 2004). The relationship between ASK and ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 21 agreeableness became stronger after partialling SE for every friend-rated agreeableness facet and factor, and for the self-rated agreeableness factor (although the latter increase was small).

Table 2 reveals divergence between the pattern of correlations for self and friend ratings.

Pure SE is correlated with self-rated emotional stability, extraversion, and conscientiousness, all of which are positive characteristics. In contrast, pure SE is correlated with friend-ratings of low agreeableness and marginally with emotional stability. There is agreement, however, among self and friends on several facet scores. Pure SE is associated with the relative absence of negative emotions (i.e., anxiety, depression, self-consciousness), and the presence of social dominance

(i.e., assertiveness) and narcissistic tendencies (i.e., low modesty; Costa & McCrae, 1992).

By comparing the residual and zero-order correlations in Table 2, it was found that 32 of

35 residual score correlations decreased in absolute magnitude for the self-ratings whereas only

18 of 35 residual score correlations decreased for the friend ratings. Based on the test of correlated proportions, the number of residual score correlations that decreased in magnitude relative to the zero-order correlations was greater for self-ratings than friend-ratings, z=3.74, p<.001 (Guilford & Fruchter, 1978). Consistent with the results in Table 1, a suppressor effect was observed. The negative correlation between pure SE and agreeableness increased in magnitude after partialling ASK. The agreeableness results presented in Table 1 and Table 2 suggest people who score high on pure ASK “move toward” others whereas people who score high on pure SE “move against” others (Horney, 1945).

Introspection and Pure ASK

Pure ASK was correlated with two measures of introspective tendencies. The correlations between pure ASK and the Self-Reflectiveness factor (r=-.05, ns.), and the Block Self-

Contemplation scale (r=-.18, ns.) were not statistically significant. ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 22

Friend CAQ Correlates of Pure ASK and Pure SE

The correlate pattern between pure ASK and aggregate friend CAQ ratings (Table 3) converged with the pattern between pure ASK and aggregate friend NEO ratings (Table 1).

Across the two tables, pure ASK was related to aesthetic enjoyment, interpersonal warmth, trust, and low hostility. To facilitate further interpretation, each CAQ item was categorized according to its empirically-derived five-factor marker (McCrae, Costa, & Busch, 1986). The results indicated all five factors were represented in the friends’ CAQ ratings although pure ASK was associated primarily with agreeableness.

The correlations between pure SE and aggregate friend CAQ ratings are displayed in Table 4.

The CAQ items in Table 4 were again categorized according to their five factor markers. The results indicated pure SE was related to low agreeableness, but the pure SE and neuroticism results painted a more complex picture. Friends rated high scorers on pure SE as being satisfied with self (e.g., Is satisfied with self, Regards self as physically attractive, Has doubts about own adequacy as a person [reversed]). However, friends also rated them as exhibiting neurotic tendencies in their interpersonal relationships (e.g., Is subtly negativistic, hostile toward others, and blames others for mistakes).

Social Interaction Correlates of Pure ASK and Pure SE

After each unstructured interaction between unacquainted same-sex or different-sex partners, participants rated their interaction enjoyment on five questions, and self and partner’s behavior on 20 items measuring the five factor model. The results are displayed in Table 5. Across the interactions, people who scored higher on pure ASK enjoyed the interactions, and their partners enjoyed interacting with them, more than people who scored lower on pure ASK. In contrast, there was no relationship between pure SE and either the self or partner’s interaction enjoyment. ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 23

The pure ASK and interaction behavior correlations were similar for self and partners’ ratings. People who scored relatively high on pure ASK were rated as agreeable, open to experience, and extraverted. This pattern is similar to the friends’ NEO ratings displayed in

Table 1. The one notable difference is that self and partners’ ratings of emotional stability (i.e., low neuroticism) were positively correlated with pure ASK whereas friends’ ratings of neuroticism (Table 1) were unrelated to pure ASK. Pure SE was unrelated to self and partner five factor ratings except for a positive correlation with self-rated emotional stability.

Behavioral Correlates of Pure ASK and Pure SE

Participants’ behavior in each of 4 dyadic interactions was rated on the RBQ by trained coders. The RBQ ratings from the first and third dyadic interactions (i.e., first different-sex and first same-sex interaction) were used to create the ASK score. In the current analysis, RBQ ratings from the second different-sex dyadic interaction were correlated with pure ASK (Table 6) and pure SE (Table 7). Although the number and magnitude of significant correlations is relatively small, the pattern is meaningful and consistent with previously presented results.

People who scored high on pure ASK exhibited behavior associated with agreeableness (e.g., keeps partner at a distance [reversed]), openness to experience (e.g., shows interest in intellectual matters), extraversion (e.g., behaves in a cheerful manner), and emotional stability (e.g.,

Expresses self-pity [reversed]). Overall, pure ASK was associated with behavior that promoted positive social interactions.

The behavioral correlates of pure SE (Table 7) were related to extraversion (e.g., speaks in a loud voice), emotional stability (e.g., expresses insecurity [reversed]), and low agreeableness

(e.g., tries to control the interaction). Consistent with previous results, people who scored high on pure SE were self-confident, perhaps overly so, while displaying little concern for others. ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 24

Summarizing the Correlates of Pure ASK and Pure SE – Communion and Agency

Pure ASK and pure SE displayed unique patterns of personality and social behavior. Across four data sources – self, friend, interaction partner, and coded behavior – pure ASK was associated with positive social relationships. Across the same data sources, pure SE was associated with self-confidence, self-perceived superiority, and autonomy. Pure ASK and pure

SE appear to overlap with the constructs of communion and agency (Bakan, 1966), respectively.

To test this speculation, we created communion and agency measures derived from self and friend CAQ ratings. In previous research, 10 CAQ items (e.g., has warmth toward others, is sociable, is sympathetic) reliably measured communion (alpha=.73) and 10 other CAQ items

(e.g., power-oriented, productive, high aspirations; Dabbs & Colvin, 1998; Vogt & Colvin, 2003) reliably measured agency (alpha=.73). We then correlated the communion and agency scores with pure ASK and pure SE (see Table 8). Pure ASK was positively related to communion, and unrelated to agency, for both self and friend ratings indicating once again the close link between pure ASK and interpersonal relationships. Pure SE was positively related to self and friends’ ratings of agency; however, the correlations diverged for pure SE and self and friends’ ratings of communion. Self-rated communion and pure SE were unrelated whereas friends’ communion ratings and pure SE were negatively related. Consistent with previous results, participants high on pure SE view themselves as being productive, autonomous, high achievers whereas friends perceive them as being self-satisfied, condescending, and hostile.

Overall, the results suggest that pure ASK is perceived similarly by self and others whereas pure SE is perceived more favorably by self than others. Moreover, there is consensus among the data sources about ASK’s personality and behavioral correlates. For pure SE, there is consensus among the friend, partner, and coder data sources, all of which diverge from the self-report data. ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 25

EWB Predicted from ASK and SE

In our final set of analyses, we examined the contributions made by ASK and SE toward the prediction of EWB. Support for the dueling motives model requires that SE be the sole predictor of EWB, or that SE, relative to ASK, be a significantly larger predictor of EWB. Support for the coherence model requires the ASK and SE interaction term to be a significant predictor of EWB, such that high levels of both ASK and SE are most predictive of EWB. To compare the models, the original ASK and SE measures were used to predict EWB.

Beginning with Eysenck’s “Big 2” personality model (Eysenck, 1967), extraversion (E) and neuroticism (N) are included in most contemporary models of personality and temperament

(Clark & Watson, 2008). Moreover, so routinely are E and N related to positive and negative affect, respectively, that some have suggested E and N be renamed to “extraversion/positive emotionality” and “neuroticism/negative emotionality” (Clark & Watson, 2008). A measure that combined E and N presumably would account for a wide-range of affective and behavioral experience and assess emotional well-being. We created an EWB measure by standardizing and summing extraversion and neuroticism (reversed) scores, as rated by self, friends, parents, and interaction partners. Theory and research suggests high EWB reflects the tendency to approach and engage others, and experience relatively more positive than negative affect. In contrast, low

EWB reflects the tendency to avoid novel and stressful situations, view life as threatening, and experience relatively more negative than positive affect (Clark & Watson, 2008; McCrae &

Costa, 1991; Soldz & Vaillant, 1999). The internal consistency of the EWB composite was .66.

To examine the relationship between ASK, SE and EWB, we centered ASK and SE and multiplied the two variables to create an interaction term (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003).

ASK, SE, and ASK X SE predicted EWB, R2=.52, F(3, 77)=27.22, p<.001. ASK (β=.627, ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 26 p<.001) and SE (β=.447, p<.01) were significant predictors of EWB, as was the ASK X SE

(β=.460, p<.01) interaction. To clarify the ASK X SE interaction, Figure 1 displays the regression of EWB on SE at three levels of ASK (i.e., +1sd, mean, and -1sd). Two of three simple slopes displayed in Figure 1 are significant, .782, p<.001 at +1sd, .455, p=0.001 at the mean of ASK, and .128, p=0.4317, at -1sd. The results indicate that when ASK is low, SE does not predict EWB. When ASK is near its mean, individual differences in SE will significantly predict EWB; however, as ASK gets higher, the prediction of EWB by SE gets even stronger.

Thus, people who both know themselves well and have strong feelings of self-worth experience high levels of emotional well-being. In contrast, for people who score low on ASK or SE, there seems to be little or no benefit with regard to EWB to scoring high on the other variable.

Discussion

In the present study, we examined the relationship between self-knowing, self-liking, and emotional well-being. Multiple methods and operational definitions were used for each construct. Pure ASK and pure SE, residualized versions of ASK and SE, were correlated with personality and behavior ratings by self, friends, interaction partners, and trained coders. Across the data sources, pure ASK was associated with interpersonal behaviors consistent with agreeableness and communion. Across the same data sources, pure SE exhibited more favorable correlations with self-ratings than with other data sources. People who scored high on pure SE viewed themselves as assertive, competent, superior to others, and emotionally stable. Friends perceived little internal distress but they rated participants as being outwardly hostile, condescending, and power oriented. From the friends’ perspective, high scorers on pure SE were narcissistic and exhibited behavior consistent with unmitigated agency, a construct defined as an unhealthy focus on self, absence of concern for others, and the tendency to exhibit “hostile, ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 27 cynical, greedy, and arrogant” behavior (Helgeson & Fritz, 1999, p. 132). Despite the desirability of high self-esteem, a countervailing dose of accurate self-knowledge seems necessary to control its narcissistic dark side.

While pure SE clearly had its dark side, the data were less clear on pure ASK’s liabilities.

The correlates of pure ASK were all positive (e.g., warm, trusting, altruistic, tender-minded) with few exceptions (e.g., values independence and autonomy [reversed]). However, for many traits there is a tipping point whereby higher levels of a trait will lead to maladaptive behavior.

Moderate levels of warmth and trust are conducive to developing friendships; extremely high levels of warmth and trust might lead one to be a perennial doormat, a person lacking self-worth and incapable of asserting his or her own needs. The data do not tell us if high scorers on pure

ASK represent the ideal friend or conman’s fantasy, but the data do indicate that pure ASK is not as adaptive as ASK and SE combined.

We speculated that self-ratings might possess little validity when provided by participants with low ASK. The results suggested otherwise. The pure ASK correlates were consistent and conceptually meaningful across data sources. This may be due in part because the ASK scores for our college undergraduate sample ranged from moderate to high. With a more heterogeneous sample and greater variability of ASK scores, the likelihood may be greater for self and other rating differences to emerge.

Emotional Well-Being

People high on EWB both knew and liked themselves. Furthermore, a high score on our multi-source measure of EWB could not be achieved by having high SE alone. The pure SE and multiple regression results clearly indicate high SE is associated with narcissistic tendencies unless accompanied by at least a moderate level of self-understanding. There is a bit of irony in ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 28 these results. While it might seem that the combination of high SE and low ASK -- feeling self- worth and possessing no refutable evidence – represents the ideal state, the results indicate that

EWB is achieved by feeling self-worth and accurately knowing personal limitations (and strengths).

Previously, we described the necessary results to support the dueling motives and psychological coherence models. The ASK X SE interaction predicting EWB provided support for the coherence model. We would be remiss if we did not remind the reader that psychological coherence reflects more than self-knowledge and self-esteem operating in peaceful coexistence; according to Allport (1955) coherence represents a sense of “inward unity” as all facets of the self contribute to a person’s adaptive behavior and overarching life goals.

Some readers may question our use of EWB as a criterion in which to compare the dueling motives and coherence models. They might argue the intention of researchers comparing the motive to self-enhance (i.e., SE) vs. self-assess (i.e., ASK) is to determine the relative strength of each motive, not to predict EWB or any other criterion. However, to the extent SE is the master motive and therefore influences a wide range of social behavior (Sedikides & Gregg, 2008), SE should predict both naturally-occurring and laboratory behavior. Recently, Kwang and Swann (in press) offered the refreshing viewpoint that a motive’s relative strength is less important than how and when it combines with other motives to influence behavior.

Accurate Self-Knowledge

We described two types of processes that might increase ASK. The first process was introspection. We used two measures to assess introspection but neither one correlated with

ASK. While the null finding was disappointing, introspection is a private and unobservable process, and people may be unable to evaluate their introspectiveness relative to others. ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 29

Therefore, introspection may be better assessed by non-self-report methods. Experiential sampling methodology (ESM) is one viable alternative. When using ESM, participants typically describe their thoughts and feelings on a portable recording device (e.g., Palm Pilot) several times a day for several weeks. After repeated assessments of introspective thought, the experimenter could quantify individual differences in introspectiveness and circumvent participants’ limited access to social comparison information.

The second class of processes was interpersonal (e.g., symbolic interactionism, third-party evaluation). Although these processes were not directly tested, ASK was consistently related to agreeableness and communion, suggesting that people who possess high ASK value close interpersonal relationships. These results are consistent with the symbolic interactionism perspective, and others, asserting interpersonal relationships are causally implicated in the development of self-knowledge. Despite the observed theory-data agreement, inferences about causality would be inappropriate given the design of the present study.

Another plausible interpretation is that ASK influences social interactions. Again, while causation cannot be determined, partners enjoyed interacting with high pure ASK participants more than low pure ASK participants. After hearing of this finding, an esteemed colleague asked the “so what?” question. High ASK implies that people know and accept both their strengths and weaknesses, use defensive processes relatively infrequently, and when combined with self- confidence associated with high SE, have the ego strength to cope effectively with daily life. If this profile is accurate, high ASK people will likely accept others and their idiosyncrasies, be open to differing viewpoints, and refrain from denigrating others to enhance their self-worth.

Despite their interpersonal warmth and acceptance, they are far from being pushovers. High

ASK implies people have a sense of purpose and are motivated to achieve their immediate and ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 30 long term goals. It is no coincidence these characteristics are similar to those used to describe fully-functioning people (Allport, 1955; Deci & Ryan, 1991; Rogers, 1961). Whether ASK is viewed as an antecedent, consequent, or both, self-knowing is implicated in intra-psychic and interpersonal well-being.

There is growing interest in the psychological study of ASK. Wilson recently described ASK research as “one of the most interesting problems in psychology” (Wilson, 2009, p. 384). While we wholeheartedly agree with his endorsement, it reflects a positive shift from years ago when people were “telling more than we can know” (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). Contemporary researchers are conducting cutting-edge research on the accuracy of self-knowledge and positive psychological functioning (Carlson & Vazire, 2010; Human & Biesanz, 2010), and providing a counterpoint to research on cognitive errors and negative outcomes.

The present results address the ongoing debate about positive illusions and mental health.

High ASK individuals exhibited the most adaptive and mentally healthy personality characteristics, as rated by self, friends, interaction partners, and trained coders. The viability of the positive illusions perspective is diminishing. Research using multiple methods to control for method variance and self-report bias demonstrates that self-enhancement is related to negative outcomes and ASK is related to positive outcomes (Colvin & Griffo, 2008; Vogt & Colvin,

2005). The positive correlation between self-enhancement and mental health is found in studies that rely exclusively on self-report methods. Despite the fact that multi-method studies tend to associate self-enhancement with detrimental outcomes, the positive illusions legacy continues to influence researchers in personality and social psychology.

Self-Esteem ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 31

Baumeister et al. (2003) concluded there was no evidence that “boosting self-esteem…causes benefits” (p. 1) after reviewing the self-esteem literature. As we already pointed out, our results are generally consistent with this conclusion. But the message needs fine tuning. It is desirable for people to have high self-esteem when they have corresponding high ASK. Under these circumstances, positive feelings about the self are warranted; that is, self-knowledge is the source of substantiation and credibility for the positive feelings. Moreover, because feelings and knowledge correspond, defensive processes are required less often to maintain a sense of equilibrium within the self. As our results suggest, high SE without corresponding self- knowledge is the likely culprit for self-esteem’s dark side. Unwarranted self-esteem probably requires a steady state of defensive processes; once others discover the façade of unwarranted self-esteem, their negative reactions must be met with psychic barriers to maintain a high level of fragile self-esteem.

Limitations

ASK was defined as accurate knowledge about one’s personality structure. However, our operational definitions focused on behavioral tendencies which reflect only one domain of personality. As ASK research moves forward, we hope researchers will consider broadening their assessments of ASK by including affect, cognition, and motivation. It may turn out that

ASK pertaining to one personality domain predicts other personality domains, but the question of generality requires empirical answers. Furthermore, the generality of ASK may be limited to relatively normal populations. Discrepancies in ASK across personality domains may be a sign of disordered personality (DSM-IV).

In our data analytic approach, ASK and SE were predictors and the four data sources were criteria. The designation of predictor and criterion variables was an analytical convenience and ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 32 does not imply causal direction. Because the causal pathways are unclear, any attempt to enhance

EWB by increasing ASK would be premature. Furthermore, while ASK is a desirable end state, the pursuit of self-knowledge can produce emotional pain and interpersonal turmoil as people open their psychic trap doors and confront personal issues. Coping resources aplenty are needed to face the brutal reality of one’s imperfections.

Summary

Self-knowledge has been the domain of philosophers and self-esteem the domain of psychologists. We brought them together in the present study and demonstrated that both are needed for emotional well-being. We also separated them and found pure ASK was related to agreeableness and communion, whereas pure SE was related to unmitigated agency and qualities associated with narcissistic tendencies. Psychologists have traditionally viewed self-reported self-esteem as inherently valid, but a growing number of studies, including ours, indicate that self-esteem scores are best characterized as falling along a validity continuum. Future research on ASK that draws from heterogeneous populations will help shed light on the complex relationship between self-perception and mental health. ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 33

References

Allport, G. (1955). Becoming: Basic considerations for a psychology of personality. New Haven,

CT: Yale University Press.

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion. Oxford

England: Rand McNally.

Banaji, M., & Prentice, D. (1994). The self in social contexts. Annual Review of Psychology,

45297-332. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.45.020194.001501.

Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J.D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem

cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles?

Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1-44. doi: 10.1111/1529-1006.01431.

Biesanz, J., & West, S. (2000). Personality coherence: Moderating self–other profile agreement

and profile consensus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), 425-437.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.425.

Block, J. (2008). The Q-sort in character appraisal: encoding subjective impressions of persons

quantitatively. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the organization of

behavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology (Vol. 13, pp.

39-101). New York: Erlbaum.

Block, J., & Kremen, A. (1996). IQ and ego-resiliency: Conceptual and empirical connections

and separateness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 349-361.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.349.

Block, J., & Robins, R. W. (1993). A longitudinal study of consistency and change in self-esteem

from early adolescence to early adulthood. Child Development, 64, 909-923. ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 34

Carney, D., Colvin, C. R., & Hall, J. (2007). A thin slice perspective on the accuracy of first

impressions. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1054-1072.

doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.01.004.

Cheek, J. (1982). Aggregation, moderator variables, and the validity of personality tests: A peer-

rating study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6), 1254-1269.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.43.6.1254.

Clark, L., & Watson, D. (2008). Temperament: An organizing paradigm for trait

psychology. Handbook of personality psychology: Theory and research (3rd ed.) (pp.

265-286). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Colvin, C. R. (1993). 'Judgable' people: Personality, behavior, and competing explanations.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 861-873. doi:10.1037/0022-

3514.64.5.861.

Colvin, C. R., Block, J., & Funder, D. C. (1995). Overly positive self-evaluations and

personality: Negative implications for mental health. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 68, 1152-1162. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.6.1152.

Colvin, C.R., Block, J., & Vogt, D. (2000). The two faces of inner life: Self-contemplation and

rumination. Unpublished manuscript.

Colvin, C. R., & Griffo, R. (2008). On the psychological costs of self-enhancement. Self-

criticism and self-enhancement: Theory, research, and clinical implications (pp. 123-

140). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11624-008.

Colvin, C. R., & Longueuil, D. (2001). Eliciting self-disclosure: The personality and behavioral

correlates of the Opener Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 238-246.

doi:10.1006/jrpe.2000.2315. ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 35

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory manual. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources.

Copleston, F. (1962). A History of Philosophy. NY: Image Books.

Crocker, J., & Park, L. (2004). The costly pursuit of self-esteem. Psychological Bulletin, 130,

392-414. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.392.

Cronbach, L. J., Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological

Bulletin, 4, 281-302.

Dabbs, J., & Colvin, C. R. (1998). Agency and communion. Unpublished data.

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality.

Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1990: Perspectives on motivation (pp. 237-288).

Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem. In M. H. Kernis

(Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 31-49). New York: Plenum Press.

Donahue, E., Robins, R., Roberts, B., & John, O. (1993). The divided self: Concurrent and

longitudinal effects of psychological adjustment and social roles on self-concept

differentiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 834-846.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.834.

Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health,

education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 69-106.

doi: 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00018.x. ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 36

Epstein, S., & Morling, B. (1995). Is the self motivated to do more than enhance and/or verify

itself? In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 9-29). New York:

Plenum Press.

Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M., & Buss, A. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness:

Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522-527.

doi:10.1037/h0076760.

Funder, D., & Colvin, C. R. (1988). Friends and strangers: Acquaintanceship, agreement, and the

accuracy of personality judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55,

149-158. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.1.149.

Funder, D., & Colvin, C. (1991). Explorations in behavioral consistency: Properties of persons,

situations, and behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 773-794.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.5.773.

Funder, D.C., & Colvin, C.R. (1997). Congruence of self and others' judgments of personality. In

S. Briggs, R. Hogan, & W. Jones (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 269-

290). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Funder, D. C., Furr, R. M., & Colvin, C. R. (2000). The Riverside Behavioral Q-sort: A tool for

the description of social behavior. Journal of Personality, 68, 451-489.

Gosling, S. D., John, O. P., Craik, K. H., & Robins, R. W. (1998). Do people know how they

behave? Self-reported act frequencies compared with on-line codings by observers.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1337-1349. doi: 10.1037/0022-

3514.74.5.1337.

Greenberg, J. R., & Mitchell, S. A. (1983). Object relations in psychoanalytic theory.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 37

Guilford, J. P., & Fruchter, B. (1978). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education (6th

edition). New York: McGraw Hill.

Helgeson, V., & Fritz, H. (1999). Unmitigated agency and unmitigated communion: Distinctions

from agency and communion. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 131-158.

doi:10.1006/jrpe.1999.2241.

Hixon, J. G., & Swann, W. B. (1993). When does introspection bear fruit? Self-reflection, self-

insight, and interpersonal choices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 35-

43.

Horney, K. (1945). Our Inner Conflicts. Oxford, England: Norton and Company.

Hoyle, R. H. (2006). Self-knowledge and self-esteem. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Self-esteem issues

and answers : A sourcebook on current perspectives (pp. 208 – 215). New York:

Psychology Press.

Hull, J. G., Van Treuren, R. R., Ashford, S. J., Propsom, P., & Andrus, B. W. (1988). Self-

consciousness and the processing of self-relevant information. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 54, 452-465.

Jahoda, M. (1958). Current concepts of positive mental health. Oxford, England: Basic Books.

James, W. (1890). Principles of Psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1994). Accuracy and bias in self-perception: Individual

differences in self-enhancement and the role of narcissism. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 66, 206-219. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.206.

Jopling, D. A. (2000). Self-knowledge and the self. New York: Routledge.

Kernberg, O. F. (1976). Object-relations theory and clinical psychoanalysis. New York: J.

Aronson. ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 38

Kernis, M. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological

Inquiry, 14, 1-26. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1401.

Kernis, M., & Goldman, B. (2006). Assessing stability of self-esteem and contingent self-esteem.

Self-esteem issues and answers: A sourcebook of current perspectives (pp. 77-85). New

York: Psychology Press.

Kernis, M., & Heppner, W. (2008). Individual differences in quiet ego functioning: Authenticity,

mindfulness, and secure self-esteem. In H. A. Wayment & J. J. Bauer (Eds.),

Transcending self-interest: Psychological explorations of the quiet ego (pp. 85-93).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11771-008.

Kernis, M., Lakey, C., & Heppner, W. (2008). Secure versus fragile high self-esteem as a

predictor of verbal defensiveness: Converging findings across three different markers.

Journal of Personality, 76, 477-512. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00493.x.

Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Kwang, T, & Swann, W.B., Jr., (in press). Do people embrace praise even when they feel

unworthy? A review of critical tests of self-enhancement versus self-verification.

Personality and Social Psychology Review.

Leary, M., & MacDonald, G. (2003). Individual differences in self-esteem: A review and

theoretical integration. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and

identity (pp. 401-418). New York: Guilford Press.

Lecky, P. (1945). Self-consistency: A theory of personality. New York: Island Press.

Lieberman, M. D., Jarcho, J. M., Satpute, A. B. (2004). Evidence-based and intuition-based self-

knowledge: An fMRI study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 421-435.

Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego development: Conceptions and theories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 39

Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. Oxford, England: Harpers.

McCrae, R., & Costa, P. (1991). Adding Liebe und Arbeit: The full five-factor model and well-

being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 227-232.

doi:10.1177/014616729101700217.

McCrae, R., Costa, P., & Busch, C. (1986). Evaluating comprehensiveness in personality

systems: The California Q-Set and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 54,

430-446. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00403.x.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Morling, B., & Epstein, S. (1997). Compromises produced by the dialectic between self-

verification and self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,

1268-1283. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1268.

Mruk, C. J. (2006). Defining self-esteem: An often overlooked issue with crucial implications. In

M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Self-esteem issues and answers : A sourcebook on current

perspectives (pp. 10-15). New York: Psychological Press.

Mussweiler, T., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2002). I know you are, but what am I? Self-evaluative

consequences of judging in-group and out-group members. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 82, 19-32.

Nisbett, R., & Wilson, T. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental

processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231.

Ozer, D. (1993). The Q-sort method and the study of personality development. Studying lives

through time: Personality and development (pp. 147-168). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10127-023. ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 40

Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A

mixed blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1197-1208. doi:

10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1197.

Paulhus, D., Robins, R., Trzesniewski, K., & Tracy, J. (2004). Two replicable suppressor

situations in personality research. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 303-328.

doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3902.

Robins, R., Tracy, J., Trzesniewski, K., Potter, J., & Gosling, S. (2001). Personality correlates of

self-esteem. Journal of Research in Personality, 35(4), 463-482.

doi:10.1006/jrpe.2001.2324.

Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Episodic and semantic knowledge in emotional self-

report: Evidence for two judgment processes. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 83, 198-215. Doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.198.

Rogers, C. R. (1944). The development of insight in a counseling relationship. Journal of

Consulting Psychology, 8, 331-341.

Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Oxford, England: Houghton Mifflin.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. New Jersey: Princeton University

Press.

Schell, T. L., Klein, S. B., & Babey, S. H. (1996). Testing a hierarchical model of self-

knowledge. Psychological Science, 7, 170-173.

Sedikides, C. (1993). Assessment, enhancement, and verification determinants of the self-

evaluation process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 317-338.

Sedikides, C., & Gregg, A. (2008). Self-enhancement: Food for thought. Perspectives on

Psychological Science, 3(2), 102-116. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00068.x. ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 41

Sheldon, K., & Kasser, T. (1995). Coherence and congruence: Two aspects of personality

integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 531-543.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.531.

Showers, C. J., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2006). Pathways among self-knowledge and self-esteem: Are

they direct or indirect? In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Self-esteem issues and answers: A source

book of current perspectives (pp. 216-223). New York: Psychology Press.

Shrauger, J. S., Schoeneman, T. J. (1979). Symbolic interactionist view of self-concept:

Through the looking glass darkly. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 549-573.

Soldz, S. & Vaillant, G.E. (1999). The Big Five personality traits and the life course: A 50-year

longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 208-232.

Swann, W., Pelham, B., & Krull, D. (1989). Agreeable fancy or disagreeable truth? Reconciling

self-enhancement and self-verification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

57(5), 782-791. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.782.

Taylor, S., & Brown, J. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on

mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193-210. doi:10.1037/0033-

2909.103.2.193.

Vazire, S., & Mehl, M. R. (2008). Knowing me, knowing you: The accuracy and unique

predictive validity of self-ratings and other-ratings of daily behavior. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1202-1216. doi: 10.1037/a0013314.

Vogt, D., & Colvin, C. (2003). Interpersonal orientation and the accuracy of personality

judgments. Journal of Personality,71, 267-295.

Vogt, D. S., & Colvin, C. R. (2005). Assessment of accurate self-knowledge. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 84, 239-251. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8403. ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 42

Westen, D. (1998). The scientific legacy of Sigmund Freud: Toward a psychodynamically

informed psychological science. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 333-371.

doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.333.

Wilson, T.D. (2002). Strangers to ourselves: Discovering the adaptive unconscious.

Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.

Wilson, T. (2009). Know thyself. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 384-389.

doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01143.x.

Wilson, T.D., & Dunn, E.W. (2004). Self-knowledge: Its limits, value and potential for

improvement. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 493-518.

Zeigler-Hill, V., Clark, C., & Pickard, J. (2008). Narcissistic subtypes and contingent self-

esteem: Do all narcissists base their self-esteem on the same domains? Journal of

Personality, 76, 753-774. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00503.x. Running head: ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 43

Table 1

Self and Friend-Rated NEO Five Factors and Facets Correlated with Pure ASK

Factor and Facet Pure ASK

Self-Ratings Friend-Ratings Neuroticism -.21+ (-.58***) -.02 (-.19) Anxiety -.17 (-.46***) .11 (-.07) Angry Hostility -.31** (-.44***) -.24+ (-.16) Depression -.11 (-.46***) -.01 (-.25*) Self-Consciousness -.10 (-.38***) .09 (-.13) Impulsiveness -.08 (-.28**) .07 (-.03) Vulnerability -.14 (-.48***) -.04 (-.18)

Extraversion .26* (.51***) .35** (.48***) Warmth .31** (.39***) .51*** (.43***) Gregariousness .16 (.31**) .26* (.37**) Assertiveness .02 (.30**) .06 (.32**) Activity .09 (.30**) .20 (.36**) Excitement-Seeking .11 (.19+) -.08 (.04) Positive Emotion .29** (.44***) .36** (.27*)

Openness to Experience .08 (.22*) .30* (.22+) Fantasy -.01 (-.05) .13 (.08) Aesthetics .14 (.22*) .31** (.18) Feelings .09 (.18+) .16 (.14) Actions -.06 (.15) .20 (.15) Ideas -.04 (.14) .06 (.14) Values .18 (.23*) .27* (.17)

Agreeableness .33** (.31**) .39** (.18) Trust .41*** (.47***) .42*** (.33**) Straightforwardness .22* (.27**) .26* (.18) Altruism .22* (.23*) .32** (.15) Compliance .30** (.23*) .33** (.15) Modesty .10 (-.08) .24+ (-.16) Tender-Mindedness .05 (.11) .28* (.19)

Conscientiousness .05 (.33**) .15 (.14) Competence .05 (.36**) .05 (.10) Order -.05 (.07) .14 (.20+) Dutifulness .11 (.29**) .15 (.11) Achievement Striving .06 (.31**) .07 (.14) Self-Discipline .10 (.36**) .21 (.18) Deliberation - .07 (.08) .12 (-.06) ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 44 Note. Values in parentheses are zero-order correlations. *** p<.001, ** p<.01, * p<.05, + p<.10.

Table 2

Self and Friend-Rated NEO Five Factors and Facets Correlated with Pure SE

Factor and Facet Pure SE Self-Ratings Friend-Ratings Neuroticism -.48*** (-.71***) -.25+ (-.34**) Anxiety -.41*** (-.56***) -.32** (-.30) Angry Hostility -.13 (-.34***) .09 (-.05) Depression -.51*** (-.71***) -.38** (-.51***) Self-Consciousness -.38*** (-.57***) -.31* (-.39***) Impulsiveness -.21+ (-.29**) -.02 (.07) Vulnerability -.43*** (-.63***) -.19 (-.26*)

Extraversion .24* (.51***) .02 (.34**) Warmth -.05 (.23*) -.22 (.15) Gregariousness .13 (.30**) -.05 (.20+) Assertiveness .44*** (.58***) .28* (.46***) Activity .17 (.40***) .08 (.27*) Excitement-Seeking .01 (.02) .07 (.07) Positive Emotion .14 (.38***) -.11 (.19+)

Openness to Experience .15 (.27**) -.11 (.15) Fantasy -.01 (-.05) .01 (.07) Aesthetics .06 (.22*) -.18 (.10) Feelings .07 (.17+) -.16 (-.02) Actions .26* (.26**) -.11 (.12) Ideas .22* (.32***) .15 (.28**) Values -.04 (.07) -.14 (.03)

Agreeableness -.17 (-.06) -.41*** (-.24*) Trust -.10 (.18+) -.24+ (-.05) Straightforwardness -.03 (-.04) -.25* (-.23*) Altruism -.06 (.14) -.36** (-.16) Compliance -.16 (-.08) -.30* (-.13) Modesty -.38*** (-.44***) -.60*** (-.49***) Tender-Mindedness .03 (.04) -.19 (-.05)

Conscientiousness .27** (.43***) -.04 (.12) Competence .36 (.49***) .09 (.21+) Order .10 (.18+) -.01 (.00) Dutifulness .06 (.17+) -.13 (.03) Achievement Striving .21+ (.38***) .10 (.22*) Self-Discipline .30** (.46***) -.03 (.16) Deliberation .13 (.17+) - .21+ (-.04) ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 45 Note. Values in parentheses are zero-order correlations. *** p<.001, ** p<.01, * p<.05, + p<.10.

Table 3

Friends’ CAQ Ratings Correlated with Pure ASK Five Factor CAQ items Pure ASK Correspondence

66. Enjoys aesthetic impressions .29* O 21. Arouses nurturing feelings in others .28* A 35. Has warmth; compassionate .27* A,E 56. Responds to and appreciates humor .27* A 43. Is facially/gesturally expressive .26* E 70. Behaves in ethically consistent manner .26* C,-N,-E

38. Has hostility toward others -.48*** -A,N 36. Is subtly negativistic -.45*** N 49. Is basically distrustful of people -.44*** -A 37. Is guileful and deceitful; takes advantage of others -.35** -A,-C 23. Tends to blame others for own mistakes, shortcomings -.35** N 27. Is condescending toward others; acts superior -.32** -A 7. Favors conservative values -.32** -O 96. Values own independence and autonomy -.29* -A 22. Feels a lack of meaning in life -.28* -E,N 48. Keeps people at a distance -.27* -E,-A 65. Pushes and tries to stretch limits -.27* -A,E Note. CAQ=California Adult Q-sort. ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05. N=Neuroticism, E=Extraversion, O=Openness to Experience, A=Agreeableness, C=Conscientiousness. Multiple factors are listed by magnitude of factor loading. All loadings greater than |.25|. ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 46

Table 4

Friends’ CAQ ratings Correlated with Pure Self-esteem

Five Factor CAQ items Pure SE Correspondence

36. Is subtly negativistic .44*** N 31. Regards self as physically attractive .43*** ---- 74. Feels satisfied with self .42*** -N 38. Has hostility toward others .40** -A,N 37. Is guileful and deceitful; takes advantage of others .39** -A,-C 27. Is condescending toward others; acts superior .35** -A,-C 94. Expresses hostility, angry feelings directly .35** -A,E 59. Concerned with functioning of own body .31* ---- 23. Tends to blame others for own mistakes, shortcomings .29* N 62. Tends to be rebellious and non-conforming .26* O,-A 71. High aspiration level; is ambitious .26* C 73. Tends to see sexual overtones in many situations .26* -C 91. Is power oriented .26* -A,E 4. Is a talkative person .25* E 53. Unable to delay gratification; is impulsive .25* -C

72. Has doubts about own adequacy as a person -.40** N,-E 19. Seeks reassurance from others -.39** N,A 17. Behaves in a sympathetic and considerate manner -.36** A,C 79. Tends to ruminate and have persistent, preoccupying thoughts -.33** -E,N 47. Has a readiness to feel guilty -.31* N 35. Has warmth; compassionate -.28* A,E 5. Is giving, generous toward others -.26* A 10. Anxiety and stress find outlet in bodily symptoms -.26* N Note. CAQ=California Adult Q-sort. ***p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05. N=Neuroticism, E=Extraversion, O=Openness to Experience, A=Agreeableness, C=Conscientiousness. Multiple factors are listed by magnitude of factor loading. All loadings greater than |.25|. ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 47

Table 5

Self and Partner-Rated Interaction Enjoyment and Big Five Factors Correlated with Pure ASK and Pure SE

Pure ASK Pure SE

SR PR SR PR Interaction Enjoyment .24* .40*** -.09 -.15

Neuroticism -.24* -.39*** -.27* .02 Extraversion .20+ .24* .10 .08 Openness to Experience .31** .26* -.06 -.08 Agreeableness .31** .28** -.04 -.11 Conscientiousness -.18 .06 .11 -.04 Note. SR=Self-Rated Interaction Enjoyment and Big Five Factors. PR=Partner-Rated Interaction Enjoyment and Big Five Factors. *** p<.001, ** p<.01, * p<.05. ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 48

Table 6

RBQ Coded Social Behavior Correlated with Pure ASK

RBQ Items Pure ASK 63. Acts playful. .30* 42. Shows interest in intellectual matters. .28* 50. Behaves in a cheerful manner. .28* 12. Physically animated. .24+ 24. Exhibits high degree of intelligence. .23+ 16. Shows high enthusiasm/energy level. .21+

14. Exhibits an awkward interpersonal style. -.30* 20. Expresses criticism. -.28* 48. Expresses self-pity. -.24+ 41. Keeps partner(s) at a distance. -.22+ 52. Behaves in gender stereotyped manner. -.22+ 4. Seems interested in what partner(s) has to say -.21+ Note. RBQ=Riverside Behavioral Q-sort. *p<.05, +p<.10. ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 49

Table 7

RBQ Coded Social Behavior Correlated with Pure SE

RBQ Items Pure SE

44. Says or does interesting things. .35** 57. Speaks in a loud voice. .31** 5. Tries to control the interaction. .28* 60. Engages in constant eye contact with partner(s). .25* 20. Expresses criticism. .24+ 54. Speaks fluently and expresses ideas well. .23+ 21. Is talkative. .21+

37. Behaves in a fearful or timid manner. -.39** 22. Expresses insecurity. -.35** 23. Shows physical signs of tension/anxiety. -.33** 49. Expresses sexual interest. -.28* 19. Expresses agreement frequently. -.24+ 11. Smiles frequently. -.23+ 13. Seems to genuinely like the partner. -.23+ Note. RBQ=Riverside Behavioral Q-sort. **p<.01, *p<.05, +p<.10. ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 50

Table 8

Agency and Communion Correlated with Pure Ask and Pure SE

_____ Pure ASK Pure SE

Communion Self-rated .37*** -.01 Friend-rated .42*** -.33**

Agency Self-rated .07 .39*** Friend-rated - .10 .31* Note. Ns range from 60 to 81. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001. ACCURATE SELF-KNOWLEDGE AND SELF-ESTEEM 51

Figure 1. Regression of Emotional Well-Being on Self-Esteem at three levels of Accurate Self- Knowledge (i.e., +1sd, mean, -1sd). Simple slopes are displayed.

Load more

  51

Copy Link