Content uploaded by Gary W Lewandowski Jr.
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gary W Lewandowski Jr. on Jun 29, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Gary W Lewandowski Jr.
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gary W Lewandowski Jr. on Jun 29, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Gary W Lewandowski Jr.
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gary W Lewandowski Jr. on Jun 29, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Role of Self-concept Clarity in
Relationship Quality
GARY W. LEWANDOWSKI, JR.
NATALIE NARDONE
ALANNA J. RAINES
Monmouth University, West Long Branch, New Jersey, USA
Previous research has linked self-concept clarity to positive outcomes (Campbell
et al., 1996), but has not systematically explored its potential positive association
with relationship quality. The current set of studies hypothesizes that self-concept
clarity will positively correlate with relationship satisfaction and commitment, and
that inclusion of other in the self and self-esteem will mediate the association.
Study 1 examined correlations between self-report measures from 199 under-
graduates, while Study 2 randomly assigned 78 undergraduates to either engage in a
self-concept clarity or self-concept confusion manipulation. As hypothesized, in both
studies, higher self-concept clarity was associated with higher relationship
satisfaction and commitment. Inclusion of other in the self and self-esteem mediated
the association between self-concept clarity and relationship quality measures (the
only exception was for self-esteem and commitment in Study 1). These results
demonstrate how a person’s self-concept relates to romantic relationship quality.
Keywords: Self-concept clarity; Self-esteem; Inclusion of other in self; Individual
differences; Relationship satisfaction; Commitment.
A study of exceedingly happy people revealed that all but one of the happiest 10% were
currently involved in a romantic relationship (Diener & Seligman, 2002). Clearly,
romantic relationships are an important part of our lives. Similarly, one’s self-concept
(i.e., the totality of beliefs one has and can describe about one’s self) permeates nearly
all of life’s experience (Leary & Tangney, 2003). Thus, it seems natural to examine
the confluence of these concepts (Aron, 2003). It is important to explore a variety of
factors that may influence relationship quality because they may consequently help
improve relationships. Self-concept clarity is a construct that has remained largely
unexplored in the context of romantic relationships. Self-concept clarity involves a
person’s maintenance of a distinct, cohesive, and consistent conception of their
characteristics (Campbell, 1990). The purpose of this paper is to determine the
potential influence of self-concept clarity on relationship satisfaction and commitment.
Received 5 June 2008; accepted 9 July 2009; first published online 31 October 2009.
This research was supported, in part, with funding from the Anthony Marchionne Foundation Small
Grants Program.
We would to thank the following individuals for their help on this project: Rebecca Hampson,
Annette Resenhoeft, Dani Sahner, Tara Scarponi, and Mike Zdunek.
Correspondence should be addressed to: Gary W. Lewandowski Jr., Department of Psychology,
Monmouth University, West Long Branch, NJ 07764, USA. E-mail: glewando@monmouth.edu
Self and Identity, 9: 416–433, 2010
http://www.psypress.com/sai
ISSN: 1529-8868 print/1529-8876 online
DOI: 10.1080/15298860903332191
Ó2009 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
Relationship Satisfaction and Commitment
One of the most common methods of measuring relationship quality is the
investment model, which involves the related constructs of satisfaction, investment,
quality of alternatives, and commitment (Rusbult, 1983). These constructs correlate
with one another, but are distinct (Le & Agnew, 2003). Satisfaction involves an
individual’s evaluation of the relationship as a whole, the perceived positive or
negative affect that one experiences within the relationship, and overall how the
relationship gratifies the individual’s overall needs (Agnew, Van Lange, Rusbult, &
Langston, 1998; Rusbult, Johnson, & Morrow, 1986). In contrast, commitment
involves an affective attachment to one’s partner, a conative motivation to persist,
and a cognitive decision to remain within the relationship (Arriaga & Agnew, 2001).
Commitment also has been characterized as a long-term orientation and a perceived
obligation toward the relationship (Adams & Jones, 1997).
A wide variety of variables, including remaining within the relationship (Rusbult,
1983), trust (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998), relationship closeness (Miller, 1997),
partner forgiveness (McCullough et al., 1998), and pro-relationship behaviors, such
as accommodation and willingness to sacrifice for the partner (Wieselquist, Rusbult,
Foster, & Agnew, 1999) have been associated with satisfaction and commitment.
Predictors related to the self have been associated with satisfaction and commit-
ment. Most notably, this has been in the context of the overlap between romantic
relationship partners’ self-concepts. One way this occurs is through cognitive inter-
dependence, whereby mental representations of partners become integrated into
their sense of self (Agnew et al., 1998). As partners’ cognitive interdependence
increases and they regard their partners as part of themselves, commitment increases
(Agnew et al., 1998). Cognitive interdependence has also been associated with the
experience of more positive emotions within the relationship (Van Lange & Rusbult,
1995).
One of the primary means of measuring cognitive interdependence is through
inclusion of other in the self. This is a form of relationship closeness that focuses on
the extent to which one’s self-concept is interconnected or overlaps one’s partner’s
self-concept (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992). In cases of high inclusion of other in the
self, the overlap is so great that partners have a difficult time distinguishing between
their own traits and their partner’s traits (Mashek, Aron, & Boncimino, 2003). This
process results in the incorporation of a relationship partner’s characteristics within
one’s sense of self, thereby enhancing the self (Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991).
These changes to the self, known as self-expansion, produce gains in abilities,
resources, and perspectives that increase feelings of competency and self-efficacy
(Aron & Aron, 1996). Due to this process, inclusion of other in the self should have
positive implications for relationships. In fact, research has established that inclusion
of other in the self positively correlates with relationship satisfaction (Agnew et al.,
1998; Aron & Aron, 1996), commitment (Agnew et al., 1998), and relationship
longevity (Aron et al., 1992).
Self-concept Clarity
Previous research has established that the self-concept plays a role in the perception
of relationship quality (Aron & Aron, 1996). Measures of the self-concept remain
largely unexplored in the context of relationship quality. One such difference, self-
concept clarity, involves the level of clarity, consistency, stability, and confidence in
Self-concept Clarity and Relationship Quality 417
one’s self-concept (Campbell et al., 1996). Individuals with high self-concept clarity
have more consistent self-beliefs, are less likely to change their self-descriptions over
time or endorse mutually exclusive self-descriptive traits such as careless and careful
(Campbell, 1990).
Not surprisingly, self-concept clarity has benefits for psychological adjustment.
Differentiation of the self (i.e., low self-concept clarity), coincides with maladjust-
ment in the form of low self-esteem, high neuroticism and depression (Donahue,
Robins, Roberts, & John, 1993). Self-concept clarity also negatively correlates with
depression and anxiety (Bigler, Neimeyer, & Brown, 2001). Research that links an
individual’s self-concept clarity with romantic relationships is sparse. However, one
study examined how clearly a person viewed their partner’s self-concept and found
that greater clarity of the partner’s self predicted greater relationship quality
(Gurung, Sarason, & Sarason, 2001). Although not the focus of their study, these
researchers also found that self-concept clarity was positively correlated with dyadic
adjustment, a measure that focuses on satisfaction. Unfortunately, the reasons
for the association, and any potential association with commitment were left
unexamined.
Self-concept clarity’s positive influence on relationships is not automatically
evident since some research finds that self-concept clarity can relate to negative
personal outcomes. A longitudinal study found that individuals high in self-concept
clarity were more likely to be perfectionists who had inflexible and specific
requirements for the self (Campbell & Di Paula, 2002). Perfectionism has been
associated with increased stress, depression, unrealistically high self-standards, and
self-punishment when one has not achieved goals (Hewitt & Flett, 1993). This may
be especially problematic due to perfectionism’s negative correlation with dyadic
adjustment (Flett, Hewitt, Shapiro, & Rayman, 2003).
The structure or clarity of the self-concept can be independent of the content of
the self-concept, which may explain why high self-concept clarity is not a guarantee
of positive outcomes (Campbell, Assanand, & Di Paula, 2000). Whereas self-concept
clarity involves the cognitive component of the self, self-esteem focuses on self-views
based upon evaluations of the self (Rosenberg, 1965). For example, individuals could
hold very clear and highly articulated negative self-beliefs, or very unclear and
poorly articulated positive self-beliefs. Instead, self-concept clarity may produce
positive outcomes independent of self-evaluations.
The association between self-concept clarity and self-esteem has been well
established (Baumgardner, 1990; Bigler et al., 2001; Campbell, 1990; Campbell &
Lavallee, 1993; Campbell et al., 1996). Specifically, those with high self-concept
clarity derive a positive attitude toward the self from highly articulated beliefs
about the self (Campbell & Lavallee, 1993; Campbell et al., 1996). Empirical results
show that those with low self-esteem are less certain when describing their own
attributes (Baumgardner, 1990), less confident in their self-descriptions (Campbell,
1990), and have less stability in their ratings over time (Baumgardner, 1990;
Campbell, 1990).
Thus, the psychological benefit of self-concept clarity may lie within its
well-established relation to self-esteem. In fact, self-esteem positively correlates
with psychological well-being (e.g., Diener, 1984; Sedikides, Rudich, Gregg,
Kumashiro, & Rusbult, 2004), and with relationship satisfaction (e.g., Hansson,
Jones, & Carpenter, 1984; Rosenberg, 1965). In the context of relationships, there is
a strong positive correlation between self-esteem and relationship satisfaction
(Hendrick, Hendrick, & Adler, 1988). Further, low self-esteem coincides with
418 G. W. Lewandowski et al.
lower overall marital happiness (Hawkins & Booth, 2005), and a greater likelihood
of sabotaging one’s own relationship (Murray, Holmes, Griffin, Bellavia, & Rose,
2001).
The Present Study
A great deal of past research has focused on the predictors of relationship quality.
Some research has examined the role of the self in relationship satisfaction and
commitment as it relates to self-esteem (e.g., Hendrick et al., 1988), and cognitive
closeness (e.g., Agnew et al., 1998) in determining relationship quality. However, the
influence of self-concept clarity on relationships quality has been largely unexplored.
Specifically, we are not aware of any other study that focuses on one’s own self-
concept clarity in the context of relationship quality, nor could we identify any
study that examined self-concept clarity as it related to inclusion of other in the
self. We address the dearth of research in this area by examining the role of self-
concept clarity in relationship satisfaction and commitment through their direct
association, as well as the potentially mediating roles of self-esteem and inclusion of
other in the self.
Self-concept Clarity and Relationship Outcomes
The established role of the self-concept in romantic relationships suggests that
the self-concept could contribute to relationship quality (Aron & Aron, 1996).
Specifically, a construct such as self-concept clarity that involves stability of the
self-concept should benefit relationships. In light of this, we predicted that self-
concept clarity would positively correlate with relationship satisfaction and
commitment.
Mediation of Self-concept Clarity’s Association with Satisfaction and Commitment
In addition to predicting the association of self-concept clarity with relationship
satisfaction and commitment, we also suggested several mediators of the path.
Inclusion of other in the self. A person with high self-concept clarity should
experience greater relationship satisfaction and commitment, in part, because of
inclusion of other in the self. Individuals with greater self-concept clarity who hold a
clear and consistent view of the self should be more stable and should present the
self more clearly to others; characteristics that have been associated with lower levels
of neuroticism (Campbell et al., 1996). Further, research also suggests that partners
who are less neurotic (i.e., more stable) are more desirable (Figueredo, Sefcek, &
Nelson, 2006).
Inclusion of the other in the self is a largely dyadic process in which inclusion is
greater with a desirable partner (Aron & Aron, 1996). Higher self-concept clarity
may relate to greater inclusion of other in the self because a person with a clear and
consistent self-view can more judiciously seek out aspects of the partner to add to
their sense of self. By holding a clear view of the self, the high self-concept clarity
individual can avoid the situation where greater inclusion of other in the self
may result in loss of identity or loss of freedom (Mashek & Sherman, 2004). Instead
of threatening the self, self-expansion can occur whereby the included elements
can augment the self by increasing the individual’s sense of efficacy and ultimately
Self-concept Clarity and Relationship Quality 419
promoting relationship quality (Aron & Aron, 1996). We hypothesized that
self-concept clarity would positively correlate with inclusion of other in the
self and that inclusion of other in the self would mediate the association
between self-concept clarity and relationship satisfaction, as well as the association
between self-concept clarity and commitment.
Self-esteem. Until now, self-concept clarity has not been linked to relationship
quality. Past research has established a link between self-concept clarity and self-
esteem (e.g., Baumgardner, 1990), and has linked self-esteem with relationship
quality (e.g., Hansson et al., 1984). However, greater self-concept clarity may not
independently promote relationship satisfaction and commitment. For example,
regardless of how confidently they are held, if a person has negative self-esteem
relationship quality may suffer. For example, those with low self-esteem have a
tendency to undermine their relationship by misperceiving their partner’s love
(Murray et al., 2001). Thus, those who hold clear and certain views of the self should
have higher relationship satisfaction and commitment to the extent that the self-
views are positive. We hypothesized that self-concept clarity would positively
correlate with self-esteem and that self-esteem would mediate the association
between self-concept clarity and relationship satisfaction, as well as the association
between self-concept clarity and commitment.
Study 1
Method
Participants
Participants in this study consisted of a convenience sample of 199 undergraduates
(47 males, 147 females, 5 non-response) from the Psychology Department’s online
participant pool at a small private university in the Northeastern United States.
Ages ranged from 18 to 30 (M¼18.96). We did not collect information on year in
school. Of those indicating ethnicity, 88.4% were Caucasian, 1.0% Asian American,
2.5% African American, 5.0% Hispanic American, and 3.0% Other. Participants
were required to be in a current relationship, varying from dating exclusively
(88.9%), dating casually (9.0%), and engaged (2.0%). Mean relationship length was
approximately 19 months (range ¼1–81 months). Participants received course credit
for taking part in the study.
Measures
Groups of 4–8 participants completed a questionnaire packet that asked
about individual differences, their relationship, as well as a short demographic
questionnaire (gender, age, ethnicity, current relationship status, and relationship
length).
Self-concept clarity. A 12-item scale developed by Campbell et al. (1996) was
used measure the clarity and cohesiveness of the characteristics within the self-
concept. Self-concept clarity was measured on a scale of: strongly disagree (1),
disagree (2), neither agree nor disagree (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5). Example
items included, ‘‘In general, I have a clear sense of who I am and what I am,’’ and
‘‘I seldom experience conflict between the different aspects of my personality.’’
Cronbach’s alpha ¼.86.
420 G. W. Lewandowski et al.
Self-esteem. This 10-item scale assesses participants’ global self esteem, or
satisfaction with the self (Rosenberg, 1965). Participants responded on a 4-point
scale: strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), agree (3), and strongly agree (4). Example
items included, ‘‘On the whole I am satisfied with myself,’’ and ‘‘I feel I’m a person of
worth, at least on an equal plane with others.’’ Cronbach’s alpha ¼.88.
Inclusion of other in self (IOS). This scale measures the cognitive overlap
between an individual and their partner (Aron et al., 1992). A series of increasingly
overlapping circles from two separate circles to two circles that overlap almost
completely captures this phenomenon. Participants were instructed to circle the
scenario that best described their relationship. In a sample in romantic relationships,
Aron et al. (1992) reported alternate-form reliability of .95 and test-reliability over
2 weeks of .85. The scale has demonstrated predictive and construct validity as a
general measure of closeness and has been widely used in relationship research.
Relationship satisfaction. This measure assesses participants’ perception of their
relationship (Rusbult et al., 1998). Example items included, ‘‘I feel satisfied with our
relationship’’, ‘‘My relationship is close to ideal’’, and ‘‘Our relationship makes me
very happy.’’ Participants were asked to: ‘‘Indicate how you feel for each item’’ on a
scale of 0 through 8, 0 being ‘‘do not agree at all’’ and 8 being ‘‘agree completely.’’
Cronbach’s alpha ¼.92.
Commitment. This measure assesses participants’ sense that the relationship will
continue indefinitely (Rusbult et al., 1998). Example items included, ‘‘I want our
relationship to last for a very long time’’, ‘‘I want our relationship to last forever’’,
and ‘‘I am committed to maintaining my relationship with my partner.’’ Participants
were asked to: ‘‘Indicate how you feel for each item’’ on a scale of 0 through 8, 0
being ‘‘do not agree at all’’ and 8 being ‘‘agree completely.’’ Cronbach’s alpha ¼.92.
Results and Discussion
Self-concept Clarity, Satisfaction, and Commitment
Means, standard deviations, and correlations among key variables are shown in
Table 1. As shown in the table, our hypotheses regarding self-concept clarity were
supported. There was a positive correlation between self-concept clarity and the
proposed mediators: self-esteem and IOS. As hypothesized, there was a significant
association between self-concept clarity and relationship satisfaction and commit-
ment such that those with high self-concept clarity were more likely to report higher
levels of relationship satisfaction and commitment. In addition, the proposed
mediators, inclusion of other in the self and self-esteem were significantly positively
correlated with satisfaction and commitment.
Mediation of Self-concept Clarity’s Association with Satisfaction and Commitment
In order to test whether we had met the conditions for mediation as delineated by
Baron and Kenny (1986), we conducted a series of three mediation analyses to
determine if the relation of self-concept clarity to relationship satisfaction and
commitment was mediated by inclusion of other in the self and self-esteem. As seen
in Table 1, those with high self-concept clarity are more likely to report greater
relationship satisfaction and commitment. Further, self-concept clarity was
Self-concept Clarity and Relationship Quality 421
significantly associated with the hypothesized mediators. These steps were consistent
through each of the following mediation analyses.
Inclusion of other in the self. As seen in Figure 1, the beta between inclusion of
other in the self and relationship satisfaction was .41, t(194) ¼6.36, p5.001,
sr
2
¼.42. The beta for self-concept clarity in this regression was reduced to .21, and
remained significant, t(194) ¼3.26, p¼.001, sr
2
¼.23. This supports the hypothesis
that inclusion of other in the self mediates self-concept clarity’s effect on relationship
satisfaction.
A parallel analysis with commitment revealed that the beta between inclusion of
other in the self and commitment was .51, t(194) ¼8.38, p5.001, sr
2
¼.52. The beta
for self-concept clarity in this regression was reduced to .12, and remained
TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Key Variables (Study 1)
12345
1. Self-concept
clarity
3.51 (0.68)
2. Inclusion of
other in self
.17* 4.86 (1.57)
3. Self-esteem .62** .17* 3.31 (0.48)
4. Satisfaction .28** .44** .32** 6.28 (1.49)
5. Commitment .21** .53** .19** .64** 6.67 (1.63)
Notes:N¼198–99. Higher scores indicate a greater magnitude of each variable. Means and
standard deviations appear on the diagonal. *p5.05; **p5.01.
FIGURE 1 Mediation of self-concept clarity’s association with satisfaction and
commitment by inclusion of other in the self (Study 1). Reported values are
standardized betas. The betas in parentheses represent the direct effects of self-
concept clarity on satisfaction (or commitment). The betas not in parentheses
represent the association between self-concept clarity and satisfaction (or commit-
ment) controlling for the mediator. *p5.05; **p5.01; ***p5.001.
422 G. W. Lewandowski et al.
significant, t(194) ¼1.96, p¼.052, sr
2
¼.14. This supports the hypothesis that
inclusion of other in the self mediates self-concept clarity’s effect on commitment.
Self-esteem. As seen in Figure 2, the beta between self-esteem and relationship
satisfaction was .24, t(195) ¼2.76, p¼.01, sr
2
¼.19. The beta for self-concept clarity
in this regression was reduced to .13, and was not significant, t(194) ¼1.50, p¼.14,
sr
2
¼.11. This supports the hypothesis that self-esteem mediates self-concept clarity’s
effect on relationship satisfaction.
A parallel analysis with commitment revealed that, contrary to the hypothesis, the
beta between self-esteem and commitment was .11, t(195) ¼1.20, p¼.23, sr
2
¼.09.
The beta for self-concept clarity in this regression was .14, and was not significant,
t(195) ¼1.57, p¼.12, sr
2
¼.11. This fails to support the hypothesis that self-esteem
mediates self-concept clarity’s effect on commitment.
Study 2
In Study 2, we sought to replicate the basic results from Study 1; that self-concept
clarity relates to relationship satisfaction and commitment. We hoped to extend
these findings by experimentally manipulating participants’ self-concept clarity to
determine its influence on satisfaction and commitment.
Method
Participants
Participants in this study consisted of a convenience sample of 78 undergraduates
(21 males, 57 females) from an upper level psychology course at a large public
FIGURE 2 Mediation of self-concept clarity’s association with satisfaction and
commitment by self-esteem (Study 1). Reported values are standardized betas. The
betas in parentheses represent the direct effects of self-concept clarity on satisfaction
(or commitment). The betas not in parentheses represent the association between
self-concept clarity and satisfaction (or commitment) controlling for the mediator.
*p5.05; **p5.01; ***p5.001.
Self-concept Clarity and Relationship Quality 423
university in the Northeastern United States. Ages ranged from 18 to 36 (M¼21.69).
Of the sample, 2.5% were college freshman, 11.4% were sophomores, 55.7% were
college juniors, college seniors comprised 22.8%, and 6.3% were in their fifth year of
college. Of those indicating ethnicity, 51.9% were Caucasian, 25.3% were Asian,
5.1% were Hispanic or Latino, 3.8% were African American, and 12.7% were
Other. All participants were in a current romantic relationship. Most of the sample
were dating exclusively (83.6%), 8.9% were dating casually, 2.5% were engaged,
1.3% were married, and 2.5% indicated Other. Mean relationship length was
approximately 25 months (range ¼1–76).
Measures
Participants completed a questionnaire packet that included a self-concept
questionnaire (Setterlund & Niedenthal, 1993), measures of relationship satisfaction
and commitment, self-concept clarity, self-esteem, and inclusion of other in the self.
Participants also completed a short demographic questionnaire parallel to Study 1.
Self-concept questionnaire. Participants rated 30 personality traits based on how
much each trait was descriptive of the self (Setterlund & Niedenthal, 1993).
Participants made ratings on a 7-point Likert scale (1 ¼does not describe,
7¼describes very well). Example traits included, ‘‘open-minded,’’ ‘‘friendly,’’
‘‘logical,’’ and ‘‘insecure.’’
Relationship satisfaction. This was identical to the measure used in Study 1
(Rusbult et al., 1998). Alpha in current study ¼.92.
Relationship commitment. This was identical to the measure used in Study 1
(Rusbult et al., 1998). Alpha in current study ¼.83.
Self-concept clarity. This was identical to the measure used in Study 1 (Campbell
et al., 1996). Alpha in current study ¼.97.
Self-esteem. This was identical to the measure used in Study 1 (Rosenberg,
1965). Alpha in current study ¼.92.
Inclusion of other in self. This was identical to the measure used in Study 1 (Aron
et al., 1992).
Design and Procedure
Participants in a large lecture hall class engaged in a randomly assigned self-concept
manipulation, and the completed follow-up measures. The self-concept manipula-
tion followed the procedure described by Setterlund and Niedenthal (1993). At the
beginning of class, participants completed the self-concept questionnaire. Afterward,
a research assistant placed trait adjectives in the Part 2 questionnaire packet labeled
Condition 1 (self-concept confusion) or Condition 2 (self-concept clarity) and
returned the packets to the participants. Participants in the self-concept confusion
condition received three adjectives in Part 2 that that they indicated were not
descriptive of them in Part 1. Participants in the self-concept clarity condition
received three adjectives in Part 2 that they indicated were very descriptive of them in
Part 1. At the end of class (approximately 2 hours later), all participants described
three times when they displayed behaviors relevant to each of the adjectives in
424 G. W. Lewandowski et al.
their packet. For example, in the self-concept clarity condition, if a participant
indicated that they were highly open-minded, they described three times they acted
open-minded. Upon completion of the self-concept clarity manipulation, partici-
pants completed measures of satisfaction, commitment, self-esteem, and inclusion of
other in the self.
Results and Discussion
Manipulation Check
To determine the self-concept manipulation’s efficacy in creating differences in self-
concept clarity, we conducted a t-test for independent means comparing the self-
concept confusion and self-concept clarity confusion conditions on a follow-up
measure of self-concept clarity. Means and standard deviations for the two
experimental conditions were: self-concept confusion (M¼2.71, SD ¼1.07), self-
concept clarity (M¼4.01, SD ¼0.87). The analysis was significant and had a
moderate effect size; t(76) ¼5.89, p5.001, effect size (Z
p2
)¼.31, such that those in
clarity condition reported higher self-concept clarity compared to those in the
confusion condition.
Self-concept Clarity, Satisfaction, and Commitment
Means, standard deviations, and correlations for key variables are shown in Table 2.
Satisfaction. We conducted a regression analysis in which the dependent vari-
able was relationship satisfaction and the independent variable was experimental
condition (dummy coded with 1 ¼clarity and 0 ¼confusion). The regression yielded
a beta of .32, t(76) ¼9.85, p5.001, effect size (Z
p2
)¼.32, indicating that those
with high self-concept clarity are more likely to report greater relationship
satisfaction. Relationship satisfaction was higher for the self-concept clarity
condition (M¼5.94, SD ¼0.96), than for the self-concept confusion condition
(M¼5.13, SD ¼1.44).
Commitment. We conducted a regression analysis in which the dependent
variable was relationship commitment, and the independent variable experimental
condition. The results yielded a beta of .28, t(76) ¼9.96, p5.001, effect size
TABLE 2 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Key Variables (Study 2)
12345
1. Self-concept
clarity
1.51 (0.50)
2. Inclusion of
other in self
.23* 4.85 (1.35)
3. Self-esteem .39*** .22* 3.16 (0.71)
4. Satisfaction .32** .45*** .66*** 5.52 (1.29)
5. Commitment .41*** .41*** .53*** .85*** 5.75 (1.35)
Notes:N¼78. Higher scores indicate a greater magnitude of each variable. Means and
standard deviations appear on the diagonal. Self-concept clarity in this study represents the
experimental condition of self-concept clarity vs. confusion. *p5.05; **p5.01; ***p5.001.
Self-concept Clarity and Relationship Quality 425
(Z
p2
)¼.28, indicating that those with high self-concept clarity are more likely to
report greater relationship commitment. Relationship commitment was higher for
the self-concept clarity condition (M¼6.15, SD ¼0.89), than for the self-concept
confusion condition (M¼5.38, SD ¼1.61).
Mediation of Self-concept Clarity’s Association with Satisfaction and Commitment
In order to test whether we had met the conditions for mediation as delineated by
Baron and Kenny (1986), we conducted a series of three mediation analyses to
determine if the relation of experimental condition (self-concept clarity vs. self-
concept confusion) to relationship satisfaction and commitment was mediated by
inclusion of other in the self and self-esteem. As seen in Table 2, those with high self-
concept clarity are more likely to report greater relationship satisfaction and
commitment. Further, self-concept clarity was significantly associated with the
hypothesized mediators. These steps were consistent through each of the following
mediation analyses.
Inclusion of other in self. As seen in Figure 3, the beta between inclusion of
other in the self and relationship satisfaction was .40, t(75) ¼3.91, p¼.00, sr
2
¼.15.
The beta for self-concept clarity in this regression was reduced to .23, and
remained significant, t(75) ¼2.22, p¼.03, sr
2
¼.05. This supports the hypothesis
that inclusion of other in the self mediates self-concept clarity’s effect on relation-
ship satisfaction.
A parallel analysis with commitment revealed that the beta between inclusion of
other in the self and relationship commitment was .36, t(75) ¼3.42, p5.001,
sr
2
¼.12. The beta for self-concept clarity in this regression was reduced to .20, and
was no longer significant, t(75) ¼1.91, p¼.06, sr
2
¼.03. This supports the hypothesis
FIGURE 3 Mediation of self-concept clarity’s association with satisfaction and
commitment by inclusion of other in the self (Study 2). Reported values are
standardized betas. The betas in parentheses represent the direct effects of self-
concept clarity on satisfaction (or commitment). The betas not in parentheses
represent the association between self-concept clarity and satisfaction (or commit-
ment) controlling for the mediator. *p5.05; **p5.01; ***p5.001.
426 G. W. Lewandowski et al.
that inclusion of other in the self mediates self-concept clarity’s effect on relationship
commitment.
Self-esteem. As seen in Figure 4, the beta between self-esteem and relationship
satisfaction was .63, t(75) ¼6.74, p5.001, sr
2
¼.34. The beta for self-concept clarity
in this regression was reduced to .07, and was no longer significant, t(75) ¼0.78,
p¼.24, sr
2
¼.004. This supports the hypothesis that self-esteem mediates self-
concept clarity’s effect on relationship satisfaction.
A parallel analysis with commitment revealed that the beta between self-esteem
and relationship commitment was .49, t(75) ¼4.64, p5.001, sr
2
¼.20. The beta for
self-concept clarity in this regression was reduced to .09, and was no longer
significant, t(75) ¼0.88, p¼.38, sr
2
¼.006. This mediation supports the hypothesis
that self-esteem mediates self-concept clarity’s effect on relationship commitment.
General Discussion
The purpose of this set of studies was to examine the role of self-concept clarity in
relationship satisfaction and commitment through their direct associations, as well as
the potential mediating roles of self-esteem and inclusion of other in the self.
As hypothesized, in Study 1 self-concept clarity was positively correlated with
relationship satisfaction and commitment. In Study 2, those who engaged in a self-
concept clarity manipulation subsequently reported higher relationship satisfaction
and commitment compared to those in the self-concept confusion condition.
Inclusion of other in the self and self-esteem (the only exception was for self-esteem
and commitment in Study 1) mediated the association between self-concept clarity
and relationship quality measures. Taken together, these findings suggest that a
person’s self-concept clarity positively influences relationship satisfaction and
commitment.
FIGURE 4 Mediation of self-concept clarity’s association with satisfaction and
commitment by self-esteem (Study 2). Reported values are standardized betas. The
betas in parentheses represent the direct effects of self-concept clarity on satisfaction
(or commitment). The betas not in parentheses represent the association between
self-concept clarity and satisfaction (or commitment) controlling for the mediator.
*p5.05; **p5.01; ***p5.001.
Self-concept Clarity and Relationship Quality 427
Self-concept Clarity, Satisfaction, and Commitment
Previous research has established that individuals’ self-concepts change due to
the relationships that they form with close others (Aron, Paris, & Aron, 1995;
Leary & Baumeister, 2000). The present findings suggest that individual differences
(Study 1) and manipulated states (Study 2) in self-concept clarity influence
relationship satisfaction and commitment. Though not the focus of the study,
research has identified a positive correlation between self-concept clarity and dyadic
adjustment (Gurung et al., 2001). The present findings replicate those results for
relationship satisfaction in a new measure, and extend the results by establishing a
positive correlation between self-concept clarity and commitment.
Study 1, however, cannot rule out the possibility that greater relationship
satisfaction and commitment promote greater self-concept clarity. Study 2’s
experimental manipulation of self-concept clarity and its subsequent influence on
relationship satisfaction and commitment helped establish the directionality of the
association. Self-concept clarity benefits may be due to an added sense of stability in
the relationship. Previous research suggested that greater clarity about a partner’s
self-concept benefits relationships (Gurung et al., 2001). In the present context,
greater self-concept clarity should make it easier for one’s partner to have greater
clarity about the self, resulting in greater stability and relationship quality. For
example, individuals with low self-concept clarity, who have uncertainty about
their own traits, may be unable to reliably share information about the self with
their partner. Inconsistency, particularly in the form of self-disclosure, may inhibit
relationship development and lead to lower satisfaction and commitment (Altman &
Taylor, 1973).
The present findings also establish that self-concept clarity has a positive influence
on relationships. This contrasts with previous research that linked self-concept
clarity to perfectionism (Hewitt & Flett, 1993), and perfectionism to less satisfaction
(Flett et al., 2001). However, the present findings regarding the benefits of self-
concept clarity for romantic relationships extend previous research on the general
benefits of self-concept clarity (e.g., Donahue et al., 1993).
Mediation of Self-concept Clarity’s Association with Satisfaction and Commitment
In addition to establishing the basic association between self-concept clarity and
relationship satisfaction and commitment, we also found support for inclusion of
other in the self as a mediator. Both studies supported our hypothesis that higher
self-concept clarity was associated with higher inclusion of other in the self.
This suggests that a person’s ability to clearly describe the self in a consistent and
stable fashion may facilitate inclusion of others in the self. The present findings also
argue against the possibility that those who have lower self-concept clarity would
have higher inclusion of other in the self as a means of counteracting their own
uncertainty regarding the self.
Another possibility is that greater self-concept clarity may promote greater
inclusion of other in the self because a clear self provides a more stable frame of
reference for interacting with and assimilating the external environment. This would
allow individuals with greater self-concept clarity to incorporate aspects of the other
in the self without subsequent self-confusion or loss of identity. While it was not
possible to test this possibility in the present study, future research should explore
this possibility in greater detail.
428 G. W. Lewandowski et al.
Inclusion of other in the self’s role as mediator is not surprising given that it
represents how relationship partners’ self-concepts relate to one another; an
experience that positively correlates with relationship satisfaction and commitment
(Agnew et al., 1998). This is also consistent with previous research showing that
cognitive closeness based on greater clarity of the partner’s self-concept positively
correlated with satisfaction and commitment (Steiner-Pappalardo & Gurung, 2002).
We also expected self-esteem to mediate the association between self-concept
clarity and relationship satisfaction and commitment. In Study 1 and Study 2, self-
esteem fully mediated self-concept clarity’s association with relationship satisfaction.
The nature of the mediation suggests that self-esteem is a more important influence
on relationship satisfaction than self-concept clarity. The evaluative nature of
self-esteem may help explain its importance for relationship satisfaction. Self-esteem
involves a positive or negative assessment of the self. Similarly, relationship satis-
faction involves a positive or negative assessment of the relationship. Some have
suggested that an overall positive view of oneself can lead to a positive view of the
relationship that should increase satisfaction (Gagne & Lydon, 2004). Those
with high self-concept clarity may feel positively about the relationship to the
extent they feel positively about the self. These findings extend past research
suggesting that self-concept clarity coincides with high self-esteem (Baumgardner,
1990) and that high self-esteem coincides with relationship satisfaction (Hendrick
et al., 1988).
Self-esteem’s hypothesized mediation of the link between self-concept clarity and
commitment was supported in Study 2, but not in Study 1. The different results may
be due to differences in the nature of self-esteem (trait vs. state) between the studies.
Study 1 measured trait self-esteem using an individual-difference measure that
asked participants to generalize from many different experiences. In Study 2, the
manipulation was focused on the participant’s present state, rather than generalized
feelings. This may have increased the salience of the participant’s self-esteem,
resulting in a greater influence on commitment. In fact, the correlation between self-
esteem and commitment in Study 1 was (r¼.19, p5.01) while in Study 2 it was
(r¼.53, p5.001).
On the other hand, the positive feelings associated with high self-esteem could
lead to more commitment as a means of promoting additional positive feelings
through the relationship (Stafford, 2003). This seems especially likely following the
Study 2 manipulation where participants listed and reflected upon mostly positive
traits (all but two of the traits were positive) that were either descriptive or not
descriptive of the self (Setterlund & Niedenthal, 1993). As a result, we cannot rule
out the possibility that the procedure may have manipulated self-esteem along with
concept clarity. However, the established connection between self-concept clarity
and self-esteem suggests the inherent difficulty in clearly distinguishing the two
constructs (e.g., Baumgardner, 1990; Campbell, 1990). Future research should focus
on self-concept clarity manipulations that are more independent from self-esteem.
Strength and Limitations
The main strength of this set of studies was the novel approach to understanding
relationship satisfaction and commitment by incorporating individual differences
and manipulated states related to the self-concept. To our knowledge, this is the
first set of studies to systematically examine how a person’s own self-concept clarity
relates to their romantic relationship. In addition, this research helps elucidate
Self-concept Clarity and Relationship Quality 429
the role of self-concept clarity by examining potential mediators. Although the list
of potential mediators is numerous, and we by no means consider our examina-
tion exhaustive, our study tests two mediators that come from strong theoretical
backgrounds.
A few limitations of the study should also be noted. First, the use of a college
sample may not allow the results to generalize to married relationships. In fact,
the additional investments (e.g., combined finances, children, etc.) associated with
marriage should increase commitment (Rusbult, 1983) and could reduce the influence
of self-concept clarity, relative to the findings from the present sample. In addition,
early in relationships the self-concept undergoes many changes due to the relation-
ship’s novelty (Aron et al., 1991). However, more established married couples may
experience fewer reasons for self change, making the stability of the self-concept less
important. Second, the present samples were predominantly female. Although there
were more females, we did have a sizable amount of males (n¼70 across two studies).
Further, this distribution is comparable to previously published work in this area
(e.g., Agnew et al., 1998; Campbell et al., 1996). Finally, although fairly common in
research on relationship satisfaction and commitment (e.g., Agnew et al., 1998), and
in previous research dealing with self-concept clarity (e.g., Campbell et al., 1996), the
studies rely on self-report to measure relationship quality, self-esteem, and self-
concept clarity (in Study 1). It is possible that participant’s provided a biased view of
their self-concept and relationship. However, other research suggests that self-report
is common in personality work (Jones & Nisbett, 1987) partly because the participant
is in a privileged position to know about their own self-concept (Hofstee, 1994).
Future Directions and Implications
These studies represent an important first step toward understanding the role of self-
concept clarity in romantic relationships making it incumbent upon future research
to untangle the mechanisms through which self-concept clarity benefits relationships.
For example, Study 1’s findings suggest the possibility that those with greater self-
concept clarity do a better job of selecting relationship partners, and that this skilled
selection may lead to greater relationship quality. In both studies, it is also possible
that the accuracy of self-concept information may moderate self-concept clarity’s
benefits such that high self-concept clarity is most helpful when it is accurate. For
example, holding a very clear, but unfounded, view of the self would seem to inhibit
the quality of one’s relationships.
This present set of studies represents the first known link between self-concept
clarity and inclusion of other in the self and, based on the present results, bears
further examination. For example, inclusion of other in the self is generally
considered a positive experience leading to gains in the self (Aron et al., 1992). For
those with high self-concept clarity this seems likely. However, for those with low
self-concept clarity, the process of inclusion of other in the self may result in taking
on too many of the partner’s qualities, and ultimately may result in a loss of one’s
own self.
The positive influence of self-concept clarity on romantic relationships has
potential implications for therapeutic contexts. For those experiencing low relation-
ship satisfaction and commitment, therapists could use techniques to help clients
improve self-concept clarity perhaps through introspection (Hixon & Swann,
1993), or through an exploration of other sources of self-knowledge (Sedikides &
Skowronski, 1995).
430 G. W. Lewandowski et al.
Conclusion
The purpose of these studies was to explore how self-concept clarity influences
relationship satisfaction and commitment. Results indicate that greater self-concept
clarity coincides with greater relationship satisfaction and commitment. Also,
consistent with predictions, these associations were mediated by inclusion of other in
the self, and, in the case of relationship satisfaction, self-esteem. These results
demonstrate how a person’s self-concept clarity plays a role in the quality of their
romantic relationship.
References
Adams, J. M., & Jones, W. H. (1997). The conceptualization of marital commitment: An
integrative analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,72, 1177–1196.
Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., & Langston, C. A. (1998). Cognitive
interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,74, 939–954.
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal
relationships. New York: Holt.
Aron, A. (2003). Self and close relationships. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.),
Handbook of self and identity (pp. 442–461). New York: Guilford Press.
Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (1996). Love and the expansion of the self: The state of the model.
Personal Relationships,3, 45–58.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the
structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,63,
596–612.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other
in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,60, 241–253.
Aron, A., Paris, M., & Aron, E. N. (1995). Falling in love: Prospective studies of self-concept
change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,69, 1102–1112.
Arriaga, X. B., & Agnew, C. R. (2001). Being committed: Affective, cognitive, and conative
components of relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,27,
1190–1203.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,51, 1173–1182.
Baumgardner, A. H. (1990). To know oneself is to like oneself: Self-certainty and self-affect.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,58, 1062–1072.
Bigler, M., Neimeyer, G., & Brown, E. (2001). The divided self revisited: Effects of self-
concept clarity and self-concept differentiation on psychological adjustment. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology,20, 396–415.
Campbell, J. D. (1990). Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,59, 538–549.
Campbell, J. D., Assanand, S., & Di Paula, A. (2000). Structural features of the self-concept
and adjustment. In A. Tesser, R. Felson, & J. Suls (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on
self and identity (pp. 67–87). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Campbell, J. D., & Di Paula, A. (2002). Perfectionistic self-beliefs: Their relation to
personality and goal pursuit. In G. L. Gordon & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism:
Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 181–198). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Campbell, J. D., & Lavallee, L. F. (1993). Who am I? The role of self-concept confusion in
understanding the behavior of people with low self-esteem. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.),
Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard (pp. 3–20). New York: Plenum Press.
Self-concept Clarity and Relationship Quality 431
Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L. F., & Lehmann, D. R.
(1996). Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates and cultural boundaries.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,70, 141–156.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin,95, 542–575.
Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science,13, 81–84.
Donahue, E. M., Robins, R. W., Roberts, B. W., & John, O. P. (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,
834–846.
Figueredo, A. J., Sefcek, J. A., & Nelson, D. (2006). The ideal romantic partner personality.
Personality and Individual Differences,41, 431–441.
Flett, G. L., Hewitt, P. L., Shapiro, B., & Rayman, J. (2003). Perfectionism, beliefs, and
adjustment in dating relationships. In N. J. Pallone (Ed.), Love, romance, sexual
attraction: Research perspectives from current psychology (pp. 31–60). New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Gagne, F., & Lydon, J. (2004). Bias and accuracy in close relationships: An integrative review.
Personality and Social Psychology Review,8, 322–338.
Gurung, R. A. R., Sarason, B. R., & Sarason, I. G. (2001). Predicting relationship quality and
emotional reactions to stress from significant-other-concept clarity. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin,27, 1267–1276.
Hansson, R. O., Jones, W. H., & Carpenter, B. N. (1984). Relational competence and social
support. Review of Personality and Social Psychology,5, 265–284.
Hawkins, D. N., & Booth, A. (2005). Unhappily ever after: Effects of long-term, low-quality
marriages on well-being. Social Forces,84, 451–471.
Hendrick, S. S., Hendrick, C., & Adler, N. L. (1988). Romantic relationships: Love,
satisfaction, and staying together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,54, 980–
988.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1993). Dimensions of perfectionism, daily stress, and depression:
A test of the specific vulnerability hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,102,
58–65.
Hixon, J. G., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (1993). When does introspection bear fruit? Self-reflection,
self-insight, and interpersonal choices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,64,
35–43.
Hofstee, W. K. B. (1994). Who should own the definition of personality? European Journal of
Personality,8, 149–162.
Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1987). The actor and observer: Divergent perceptions of the
causes of behavior. In E. E. Jones, D. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Vallins, &
B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 79–94). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis
of the investment model. Personal Relationships,10, 37–57.
Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer
theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–62). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Leary, M. R., & Tangney, J. P. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of self and identity. New York:
Guilford Press.
Mashek, D. J., Aron, A., & Boncimino, M. (2003). Confusions of self with close others.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,9, 382–392.
Mashek, D. J., & Sherman, M. (2004). Desiring less closeness with intimate others. In D.
Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 343–356). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
McCullough, M., Rachal, K., Sandage, S., Worthington, E., Brown, S., & Hight, T. (1998).
Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships II: Theoretical elaboration and measure-
ment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,75, 1586–1603.
432 G. W. Lewandowski et al.
Miller, R. S. (1997). Inattentive and contented: Relationship commitment and attention to
alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,73, 758–766.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Griffin, D. W., Bellavia, G. M., & Rose, P. (2001). The
mismeasure of love: How self-doubt contaminates relationship beliefs. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin,27, 423–436.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and
deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,45, 101–117.
Rusbult, C. E., Johnson, D. J., & Morrow, G. D. (1986). Predicting satisfaction and
commitment in adult romantic involvements: An assessment of the generalizability of the
investment model. Social Psychology Quarterly,49, 81–89.
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring
commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal
Relationships,5, 357–391.
Sedikides, C., Rudich, E. A., Gregg, A. P., Kumashiro, M., & Rusbult, C. (2004). Are normal
narcissists psychologically healthy? Self-esteem matters. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,87, 400–416.
Sedikides, C., & Skowronski, J. J. (1995). On the sources of self-knowledge: The perceived
primacy of self-reflection. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,14, 244–270.
Setterlund, M. B., & Niedenthal, P. M. (1993). ‘‘Who am I? Why am I here?’’ Self-esteem,
self-clarity, and prototype matching. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,65,
769–780.
Stafford, L. (2003). Maintaining romantic relationships: A summary and analysis of one
research program. In D. J. Canary & M. Dainton (Eds.), Maintaining relationships
through communication: Relational, contextual, and cultural variations (pp. 58–59).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Steiner-Pappalardo, N. L., & Gurung, R. A. R. (2002). The femininity effect: Relationship
quality, sex, gender, attachment, and significant-other concepts. Personal Relationships,9,
313–325.
Van Lange, P. A. M., & Rusbult, C. E. (1995). My relationship is better than—and not as bad
as—yours is: The perception of superiority in close relationships. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin,21, 32–44.
Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C. E., Foster, C. A., & Agnew, C. R. (1999). Commitment, pro-
relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,77, 942–966.
Self-concept Clarity and Relationship Quality 433
Copyright of Self & Identity is the property of Psychology Press (UK) and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
