Content uploaded by Brent A Mattingly
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Brent A Mattingly on Oct 10, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
JenniferLodi-Smith
KennethG.DeMarree Editors
Self-Concept
Clarity
Perspectives on Assessment, Research,
and Applications
107© Springer International Publishing AG 2017
J. Lodi-Smith, K. G. DeMarree (eds.), Self-Concept Clarity,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71547-6_6
Chapter 6
Self-Concept Clarity andRomantic
Relationships
KevinP.McIntyre, BrentA.Mattingly, andGaryW.Lewandowski Jr.
Abstract This chapter reviews the empirical evidence examining the link between
self-concept clarity and close romantic relationships. Overall, increased self-con-
cept clarity among partners predicts a variety of positive relationship outcomes,
including relationship quality (e.g., satisfaction and commitment), investment, and
self-other correspondence that may facilitate relationship functioning. Moreover,
relationship dissolution leads to the reduction of self-concept clarity (i.e., self-con-
cept confusion) and subsequent emotional distress. We also review the literature
examining the mediating variables in the association between self-concept clarity
and romantic relationships, including psychological well-being, self-esteem, iden-
tity construction, and prototype matching. Finally, we examine the moderating role
that self-concept clarity plays in romantic relationships, specically related to rela-
tionship-induced self-concept change (e.g., self-expansion). This review suggests
that self-concept clarity is a valuable construct, which is ripe for future research on
the dynamic interplay of self-concept and romantic relationships.
Keywords Romantic relationships · Self-concept clarity · Satisfaction · Commitment ·
Self-expansion · Investment · Self-concept change · Self-esteem · Identity · Self-other ·
Signicant-other clarity · Prototype matching
Mental representations of the self-concept are complex and multifaceted (Markus &
Kunda, 1986; McConnell, 2011), and there are diverse and disparate areas within
social psychology that explore the ways in which other people can inuence the
self-concept. Social identity theory, for example, proposes that individuals derive
part of their sense of self-esteem from their group memberships and group
K. P. McIntyre (*)
Trinity University, San Antonio, TX, USA
e-mail: kmcintyr@trinity.edu
B. A. Mattingly
Ursinus College, Collegeville, PA, USA
G. W. Lewandowski Jr.
Monmouth University, West Long Branch, NJ, USA
lodismij@canisius.edu
108
achievements (Abrams & Hogg, 1988). Social comparison theory further states that
individuals can learn about and change their self-perceptions by comparing their
traits and abilities to those of other people (Festinger, 1954). Importantly, self-
conceptions are intricately intertwined with the development and maintenance of
close relationships (Aron, Lewandowski, Mashek, & Aron, 2013; Mattingly,
McIntyre, & Selterman, in press). Aspects of the self can affect relationship out-
comes, just as relationships can affect dimensions of the self. In this chapter, we
examine the links between self-concept clarity and romantic relationships. Just as
with other dimensions of the self (e.g., self-esteem, self-perceptions), we address
the ways in which self-concept clarity affects relationship processes and how rela-
tionships can alter self-concept clarity.
We organize the chapter into two parts. In Part I, we examine rst-generation
questions, which address the basic issue of whether or not there is an association
between the focal constructs (see Higgins, 1999). For example, these questions
include: Is there an association? What is the nature of the association? In Part II, we
explore second-generation questions, which address more complex issues of
processes and boundary conditions (Higgins, 1999). These questions include: Why
is there an association? When (and for whom) is there an association? In this
section, we focus particularly on the mediators that may underlie the self-concept
clarity-romantic relationship association, as well as the possibility that self-concept
clarity serves an important role as a moderator between relationship functioning and
relational outcomes. In arranging the chapter in this way, we synthesize the
developing literature on the interplay between romantic relationships and self-
concept clarity and identify new avenues for future research.
Part I: First-Generation Questions: Exploring theAssociation
BetweenSelf-Concept Clarity andRomantic Relationship
Processes
Perhaps surprisingly, there is scant prior research addressing the basic association
between self-concept clarity (i.e., whether a person views the contents of their self-
concepts in a clear and condent manner and maintains self-beliefs that are internally
consistent and stable across time; Campbell etal., 1996, see the introduction of this
volume for an overview) and involvement in romantic relationships. The evidence
that exists, however, supports the notion that self-concept clarity and romantic
relationship involvement, functioning, and maintenance, broadly construed, are
positively associated. In particular, individuals in more committed romantic
relationships (e.g., marriage) tend to have greater self-concept clarity than those in
less committed relationships (e.g., dating relationships; Mattingly, McIntyre, &
Lewandowski, 2016). Relationship length, moreover, is signicantly correlated
with self-concept clarity, such that those who have been with their partner for longer
K. P. McIntyre et al.
lodismij@canisius.edu
109
report higher self-concept clarity (Mattingly etal., 2016).1 Additional research
reveals that individuals who report greater importance of their relationship in their
lives have higher self-concept clarity and also perceive their partners to have higher
self-concept clarity (Gurung, Sarason, & Sarason, 2001). Lodi-Smith and Roberts
(2010) also report that self-concept clarity is weakly (but signicantly) correlated
with relationship investment, such that greater levels of self-concept clarity are
associated with higher relationship investment.
Beyond the associations between self-concept clarity and relationship involve-
ment, there is emerging evidence that self-concept clarity is associated with rela-
tionship functioning, as past research also reveals that having high self-concept
clarity promotes better relationship quality. Specically, self-concept clarity
positively correlates with both relationship satisfaction and commitment
(Lewandowski, Nardone, & Raines, 2010), as well as dyadic adjustment (Gurung
etal., 2001). The importance of clarity in relationship quality is bolstered by the
nding that how clearly a person views his or her partner’s self-concept, also known
as signicant-other-concept clarity, can also have an impact on relationship quality
(Gurung etal., 2001). Specically, partners who hold more clearly and condently
dened views of their partner’s self-concept report greater relationship satisfaction,
less conict, and greater inclusion of partner in self. Interestingly, signicant-other
clarity is only moderately correlated with self-concept clarity (Gurung etal., 2001),
suggesting that dyadic aspects of clarity are also important for understanding
relational functioning.
Moreover, individuals in romantic relationships form more accurate expecta-
tions for their partners’ behaviors when their partners have high self-concept
clarity (Lewandowski & Nardone, 2012). Partners who have high self-concept
clarity should be more consistent in their thoughts, opinions, and behaviors
(Campbell etal., 1996), and this consistency with self-views is important for
relationship satisfaction and longevity, possibly due to the negative effects of
emotional unpredictability on relationship functioning (Fisher & McNulty, 2008).
Simply put, partners who have higher self-concept clarity may behave more con-
sistently and thus make it easier for others to form expectations and predict their
behavior.
In a test of this hypothesis, Lewandowski and Nardone (2012, Study 1) recruited
college students (the target) and their closest friend to answer questions about the
target’s personality. Results revealed that a close friend’s personality ratings of the
target were more similar to the target’s own ratings when the target had higher self-
concept clarity. Greater self-concept clarity coincided with greater accuracy and
agreement between close friends. Furthermore, this level of agreement was not due
1 It is worth noting that these associations may be attributable to age effects (e.g., Lodi-Smith &
Roberts, 2010; Lodi-Smith etal., 2017), considering that involvement in long-term committed
relationships is correlated with age. Indeed, the associations between relationship involvement and
self-concept clarity are signicantly weakened when controlling for age.
6 Self-Concept Clarity andRomantic Relationships
lodismij@canisius.edu
110
to how well the friends knew each other. Rather, it seems that having higher
self- concept clarity makes it easier for close others to know each other and make
accurate assessments of their personalities.
A second study (Lewandowski & Nardone, 2012, Study 2) replicated these nd-
ings, again showing that those with higher self-concept clarity were more likely to
have friends who agreed with their own self-descriptions, and this association was
not due to how well these individuals knew each other. Importantly, it added to
Study 1 by nding that friends of targets with high self-concept clarity also had
more agreement for behavioral descriptions of personality (e.g., “can’t take
criticism,” “always wants to be the center of attention”), effectively showing that
friends are conrming or verifying how the target sees their self. This agreement is
benecial partly because it allows each person to verify one another’s self-concepts,
and self-verication is important to relationship stability (Swann, Chang-Schneider,
& Angulo, 2008) but also because it allows for partners to better identify each
other’s personality traits, which may be helpful for dyadic-level relationship
functioning. For example, high self-concept clarity may allow couples to better
facilitate movement toward the ideal self (in line with the Michelangelo phenomenon;
DiDonato & Krueger, 2010), may better promote dyadic goal setting, pursuit, and
outcomes (Finkel, Fitzsimons, & vanDellen, 2015), and may better allocate
cognitive resources in line with research on transactive memory (Wegner, Guiliano,
& Hertel, 1985).
Finally, a third study (Lewandowski & Nardone, 2012, Study 3) used an objec-
tive behavioral task and revealed that participants with high self-concept clarity
demonstrate greater agreement between predicted and actual behavior. Specically,
individuals high in self-concept clarity were better at predicting their own
performance on an unfamiliar task. The ability to accurately predict behaviors and
reactions may be benecial in a variety of relationship situations and contexts, such
as knowing how a partner will react to relationship transitions (e.g., moving in
together, getting married), as well as relationship conicts (see Gurung etal., 2001).
Overall, the ndings from Lewandowski and Nardone (2012) suggest that higher
self-concept clarity individuals may be at an advantage in developing relationships
because they allow their partners to form more accurate assessments of their
personalities, better expectations for their behavior, and an increased ability to
anticipate how they may react to future situations.
As much as an individual’s self-concept clarity can inuence a romantic relation-
ship (via increased accuracy of partner perceptions and relationship quality), it is
also clear that relationship experiences impact self-concept clarity. Research by
Luchies and colleagues (2010), for example, suggests that forgiving a partner’s
transgression has the potential to both increase and decrease an individual’s level of
self-concept clarity. Specically, forgiving a partner’s transgressions when a partner
has made amends for their actions increases an individual’s own self-concept clarity;
however, forgiving a partner’s transgressions in the absence of conciliatory behavior
decreases self-concept clarity (Luchies, Finkel, McNulty, & Kumashiro, 2010).
Thus, continuing on in a relationship following a partner’s betrayal can undermine
K. P. McIntyre et al.
lodismij@canisius.edu
111
a person’s self-concept clarity, especially if a partner has not apologized or shown
remorse for their actions and thereby calls into question a person’s value within the
relationship.
Interpersonal rejection can also reduce state self-concept clarity (Ayduk, Gyurak,
& Luerssen, 2009), presumably because individuals possess a positive self-image
(e.g., Taylor & Brown, 1988) that includes being accepted by others (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995), and interpersonal rejection provides feedback that this self-knowledge
may be invalid. In a study examining the impact of rejection on self-concept clarity
(Ayduk etal., 2009), participants experienced rejection via an email sent from a
confederate who indicated that they did not wish to interact with the participant.
Those in a control condition did not get an opportunity to interact either, but this
time, the lost opportunity was due to a computer failure. Although the experience of
rejection itself did not signicantly impact the participant’s state self-concept
clarity, participants who were particularly sensitive to rejection reported signicantly
lower state self-concept clarity in the rejection condition compared to those in the
control condition (Ayduk etal., 2009). A follow-up study with couples examined
the impact of rejection in the form of interpersonal conict on self-concept clarity,
and again, results indicated that those with greater rejection sensitivity also reported
lower self-concept clarity. This was especially true when high rejection sensitivity
individuals reported experiencing conict in their relationship the previous day
(Ayduk etal., 2009). Future research should explore whether rejection from close
others has more of a detrimental impact on self-concept clarity than rejection from
less close others (e.g., acquaintances).
Rejection may compromise self-concept clarity in large part because it threatens
key roles that comprise the self-concept (e.g., caregiver). Changes to key roles,
including both the loss of existing roles (e.g., losing a friendship) and the addition
of new roles (e.g., becoming a parent), may affect self-concept clarity. In a study
testing this idea, Light and Visser (2013) analyzed a nationally representative
sample of over 3000 individuals who answered questions about their role transitions
(exits and entries) during the past year, along with their self-concept clarity. Results
show that although role entries did not signicantly inuence self-concept clarity,
experiencing role exits was associated with reduced self-concept clarity. Follow-up
analyses suggest that decreased self-concept clarity may be due to reduced stability
in behavior routines and greater social isolation.
A particularly serious role exit involves the loss or dissolution of a close relation-
ship entirely. The impact of relationships on the self-concept more generally is well
documented (Aron, 2003), as is the negative impact of relationship dissolution on
the self-concept (Lewandowski, Aron, Bassis, & Kunak, 2006). Importantly, the
experience of romantic relationship loss also undermines self-concept clarity, with
less clarity associated with experiencing greater emotional distress following
breakup (Slotter, Gardner, & Finkel, 2010). These effects of relationship loss on
self-concept clarity extend beyond romantic relationships and also occur when indi-
viduals think about losing membership in a group (Slotter & Emery, this volume;
Slotter, Winger, & Soto, 2015).
6 Self-Concept Clarity andRomantic Relationships
lodismij@canisius.edu
112
Summary
In addressing rst-generation questions, the empirical evidence reviewed here
suggests that there is a link between self-concept clarity and relationship-related
variables, such that increased self-concept clarity among partners predicts positive
relationship outcomes. Self-concept clarity is positively associated with relation-
ship investment, quality, and ability to form accurate expectations of a partner.
Moreover, the evidence also supports the notion that relationships can affect self-
concept clarity. Interpersonal rejection and the dissolution of a relationship can
indeed undermine a person’s self-concept clarity. We next turn our attention to
second- generation questions.
Part II: Second-Generation Questions: Understanding
theAssociation BetweenSelf-Concept Clarity andRomantic
Relationship Processes
Why Is There anAssociation?
We next explore three possible reasons why the association between self-concept
clarity and relationship functioning exists, that is, potential mediators and
mechanisms that further explain this association. In particular, we examine the roles
that personal well-being, identity construction, and prototype matching play in
linking self-concept clarity to romantic relationship functioning. Although there are
undoubtedly additional possible mediators (e.g., self-regulation (e.g., Fitzsimons &
Finkel, 2011), conict management (e.g., Bechtoldt, De Dreu, Nijstad, & Zapf,
2010), we focus on these specic variables due to their emphasis within the existing
literature.
Psychological Well-Being and Self-Esteem One reason that self-concept clarity
may be associated with enhanced relationship functioning is that high self-concept
clarity is associated with better psychological adjustment and well-being (Campbell,
Assanand, & DiPaula, 2003), and well-being is associated with desirable relation-
ship outcomes (Kamp Dush, Taylor, & Kroeger, 2008). In particular, previous work
reveals that self-concept clarity is positively associated with self-esteem (Bigler,
Neimeyer, & Brown, 2001; Blazek & Besta, 2012, Campbell, 1990; Campbell &
Lavallee, 1993; Campbell etal., 1996; Campbell etal., 2003), positive affect (Bigler
etal., 2001), and meaning in life (Bigler etal., 2001; Blazek & Besta, 2012).
Conversely, studies link low self-concept clarity with reduced personal well-being
including increased depression and loneliness (Richman etal., 2016), insecure
attachment (Wu, 2009), and increased neuroticism and anxiety (Bigler etal., 2001).
Additionally, self-concept clarity mediates the relationship between stress and sub-
jective well-being (Ritchie, Sedikides, Wildschut, Arndt, & Gidron, 2011), such that
K. P. McIntyre et al.
lodismij@canisius.edu
113
when individuals encounter stressors, they also experience a temporary reduction in
self-concept clarity which contributes to a reduction in well-being. One reason for
this may be that individuals encountering stressors, especially those due to interper-
sonal conicts, may benet from high self-concept clarity in that it enables them to
engage in more proactive problem-solving strategies (Bechtoldt etal., 2010).
Given the impact of self-concept clarity on well-being, one possibility is that
self-esteem serves as a mediator of the link between self-concept clarity and rela-
tionship quality. Although self-concept clarity is distinct from self-esteem, concep-
tually, in that self-concept clarity captures a structural aspect of the self, whereas
self-esteem captures an evaluative aspect of the self (Campbell etal., 2003), it is
nevertheless possible that the importance of self-concept clarity for relationship
quality is primarily due to the links between these structural and evaluative compo-
nents. Self-esteem is an important predictor of relationship satisfaction (e.g.,
Hansson, Jones, & Carpenter, 1984; Hendrick, Hendrick, & Adler, 1988) and over-
all marital happiness (Hawkins & Booth, 2005), so it stands to reason that the asso-
ciation between self-concept clarity and relationship quality may be partly due to
the role that self-esteem plays in enhancing or undermining partners’ evaluations of
each other and themselves. Consistent with this notion, experimental manipulations
of self-concept clarity result in increased relationship quality, and this association is
mediated by self-esteem (Lewandowski etal., 2010). Thus, this evidence suggests
that individuals with high self-concept clarity may positively evaluate their relation-
ships to the extent they are experiencing high self-esteem at the time.
Relationships as Identity Construction When examining the question of why
there is an association between self-concept clarity and relationship outcomes, it is
also important to recognize the central role that relationships play in shaping indi-
viduals’ self-concepts. Individuals’ identities are continually changing (McConnell,
2011; Roberts & Caspi, 2003), and romantic relationships have a particularly potent
impact on identity development (Agnew, Van Lange, Rusbult, & Langston, 1998;
Aron, Ketay, Riela, & Aron, 2008; Collins, Welsh, & Furman, 2009). Consistent
with this, relationship experiences affect a wide variety of self and identity percep-
tions, including attachment orientation (Arriaga, Kumashiro, Finkel, VanderDrift, &
Luchies, 2014), self-esteem (Aron, Paris, & Aron, 1995), sexual identity develop-
ment (Furman & Collins, 2008), and self-efcacy (Mattingly & Lewandowski,
2013). Given that individuals’ identities are not static, it is not surprising that their
levels of self-concept clarity are uid as well. For example, cross-sectional research
reveals that self-concept clarity differs across the lifespan in a curvilinear fashion.
As individuals transition from young adulthood to middle age, they typically experi-
ence increases in self-concept clarity, whereas when individuals transition to older
adulthood, they typically experience decreases in self-concept clarity (Lodi-Smith
& Roberts, 2010). More recent longitudinal research provides further evidence for
this curvilinear relationship (Lodi-Smith, Cologgi, Spain, & Roberts, 2017). Self-
concept clarity can also uctuate as a result of life experiences (Nezlek & Plesco,
2001), especially when those experiences call into question a person’s identity. For
example, research reveals that losing a job that is central to a person’s sense of self
6 Self-Concept Clarity andRomantic Relationships
lodismij@canisius.edu
114
(i.e., a highly self-expanding job) can reduce a person’s self-concept clarity
(McIntyre, Mattingly, Lewandowski, & Simpson, 2014).
Importantly, an individual’s level of self-concept clarity may affect his or her
choices and behaviors within a relationship in ways that ultimately undermine the
relationship. One way this can occur is if individuals low in self-concept clarity
avoid engaging in self-expanding experiences with their partner. The self-expansion
model (Aron etal., 2013) states that individuals experience a cognitive reorganization
of the self-concept when couples engage in novel and challenging experiences
together (e.g., Aron, Norman, & Aron, 2001; Aron, Norman, Aron, McKenna, &
Heyman, 2000) or when they include aspects of their partner into their own self-
concept (e.g., Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991). These self-expanding experiences
allow romantic partners to gain new perspectives, traits, resources, and abilities,
each of which may contribute to the construction of an individual’s self-concept,
and self-expansion within a relationship is associated with greater satisfaction and
commitment (Aron etal., 2013; Mattingly, Lewandowski, & McIntyre, 2014).
However, the prospect of relationship-induced self-change may threaten the lim-
ited sense of self that people with low self-concept clarity have, such that they may
try to avoid self-expansion within their relationship. In support of this notion,
research reveals that individuals who are low in self-concept clarity have a reduced
interest in self-expansion activities, due to the threat to the limited self-concept
clarity that they already have (Emery, Walsh, & Slotter, 2015). As a consequence of
avoiding engaging in self-expanding experiences with their partners, individuals
low in self-concept clarity may prevent their relationships from benetting from
potential self-expansion opportunities (see Aron etal., 2013). Over time, the lack of
expansion may contribute to a sense of relationship boredom (Reissman, Aron, &
Bergen, 1993) and ultimately dissolution (Le, Dove, Agnew, Korn, & Musto, 2010).
Thus, low self-concept clarity may negatively impact relationship functioning by
impairing otherwise benecial identity construction behaviors.
Although low self-concept clarity may inhibit interest in self-expansion, low
self-concept clarity individuals may still use their relationships as an opportunity to
construct their public identities. People frequently engage in impression management
via their relationships, choosing which aspects of their relationship to disclose
publicly (Loving & Agnew, 2001), as well as the extent to which they publicize their
relationships on social media (Emery, Muise, Dix, & Le, 2014). Although, in
general, low self-concept clarity is associated with more effortful self-presentation
(Duffy, 2014), romantic relationships may facilitate these impression management
efforts. Specically, individuals who are lower in self-concept clarity tend to have
higher levels of relationship visibility on social media, such as Facebook, perhaps
as a means of shaping their public identity and enhancing their self-esteem or as an
attempt to become more clear and condent in their relationship beliefs (Emery
etal., 2014).
Another aspect of identity construction that may have particular implications for
romantic relationships is sexual identity. As individuals form new relationships,
they may explore new aspects of their sexual identity, which may contribute to their
K. P. McIntyre et al.
lodismij@canisius.edu
115
overall sense of self-concept clarity if those aspects match or conict with the other
components of their identity. In support of this possibility, research reveals that self-
concept clarity is positively associated with sexual well-being, and this association
is mediated by the extent to which a person has a clear and integrated sexual identity
(Hucker, Mussap, & McCabe, 2010). Similarly, research reveals that sexual identity
confusion is associated with low self-concept clarity (Talley & Stevens, 2017) and
contributes to self-stigma among gays and lesbians (Feinstein, Davila, & Yoneda,
2012), as well as evidence that greater sexual identity clarity is associated with
fewer anxiety and depression symptoms (Talley & Stevens, 2017). Future research
should examine whether the sexual identity confusion associated with low self-
concept clarity mediates the association between clarity and relationship quality.
Prototype Matching Self-concept clarity may also lead to longer-lasting and
higher-quality relationships because having greater clarity helps people choose
among various potential partners that enable self-consistency, a phenomenon called
prototype matching (Niedenthal, Cantor, & Kihlstrom, 1985; Setterlund &
Niedenthal, 1993). Prototype matching describes the decision-making strategy
whereby individuals make choices with the intent of maximizing the match between
the self-concept and the prototypical person or situation. For example, a student
may choose to pursue a particular major because she believes she matches the
prototypical student in that major (see Cheryan & Plaut, 2010). In the context of
close relationships, prototype matching involves individuals selecting relationship
partners based on maximizing self-to-partner similarity. For example, a person may
choose to date a particular partner because they match in key personality dimensions.
Moreover, when evaluating their relationships, prototype matching may involve
evaluating the match between individuals’ actual relationships and the prototypical
relationship (Hassebrauck & Aron, 2001).
An individual’s satisfaction with their decisions (e.g., whom to date) thus
depends partly on the accuracy and clarity of self-knowledge (see also Schlegel,
Hicks, Davis, Hirsch, & Smith, 2013; Showers, Ditzfeld, & Zeigler-Hill, 2015). To
the degree that individuals have high self-concept clarity, they should be better able
to use the match-to-prototype strategies as a basis for decision-making. In a test of
this hypothesis, Setterlund and Niedenthal (1993) manipulated self-clarity by asking
participants to either describe three times that they acted in self-consistent ways
(self-clarity prime) or self-inconsistent ways (self-confusion prime). Results
revealed that participants in the self-clarity prime condition were more likely to use
prototype matching with respect to making consumer decisions.
In line with these ndings, we suggest that individuals with high self-concept
clarity may be better able to choose among potential partners in such a way that
maximizes relationship satisfaction (e.g., Luo & Klohnen, 2005). Although more
research is needed to directly test the role of self-concept clarity in making
relationship choices, Hassebrauck and Aron (2001) found that individuals use
prototype matching when evaluating their current relationships, so it seems
reasonable that self-concept clarity and prototype matching would play a role in
partner selection as well.
6 Self-Concept Clarity andRomantic Relationships
lodismij@canisius.edu
116
When (Or forWhom) Is There anAssociation?
Although there are many potential answers to the question of why self-concept clar-
ity is associated with relationship functioning, we think that the three mechanisms
described above (well-being, identity construction, and prototype matching) are
likely contributors. Assuredly, more research is needed to examine each of these
mediators, both in isolation and in comparison with one another. We next turn our
attention to the question of When (or for whom) is there an effect? That is, we
explore the possibility that self-concept clarity plays a moderating role in romantic
relationships. Specically, we propose that the benets and consequences of various
relational processes may be dependent upon (i.e., moderated by) individuals’ self-
concept clarity.
In particular, we suggest that self-concept clarity is likely to moderate relational
processes when individuals’ self-concepts change as a result of romantic
relationships. Specically, according to the two-dimensional model of relationship-
induced self-concept change (TDM; Mattingly etal., 2014; McIntyre, Mattingly, &
Lewandowski, 2015), relationships can alter individuals’ self-concepts across two
primary dimensions (see Fig.6.1).
The rst dimension, illustrated by the horizontal axis in Fig.6.1, is the direction
of self-concept change, such that relationships may lead individuals to gain or lose
self-concept content. The second dimension, illustrated by the vertical axis, is the
valence of self-concept content, which is the subjective positivity or negativity of
the modied self-concept content. In general, when these two dimensions interact to
create self-concept improvement– via self-expansion (addition of positive self-
concept content) or self-pruning (loss of negative self-concept content)– individuals
experience positive relational outcomes, whereas when the self-concept degrades–
via self-contraction (loss of positive self-concept content) or self-adulteration
(addition of negative self-concept content)– individuals experience negative
relational outcomes (Mattingly etal., 2014; McIntyre etal., 2015). Notably, the
direct associations between self-concept clarity and relationship-induced self-
concept change in intact relationships are inconsistent (e.g., Aron etal., 1991;
Bobrowski, Mattingly, Lewandowski, & DeMarree, 2016; Emery etal., 2015;
Nardone, 2012). However, there is evidence that associations between self-concept
clarity and relationship-induced self-concept change are more robust in the context
of relationship dissolution (see Lewandowski etal., 2006, and Slotter etal., 2010),
which suggests self-concept clarity may instead play a moderating role.
There are several ways in which self-concept clarity might moderate the manner
in which relationship-induced self-concept change affects relationship functioning.
Having a clear self-concept may cause relationship-induced self-concept changes to
become more salient and consequently may amplify the outcomes of these changes.
For example, self-expansion is robustly positively associated with relationship qual-
ity and maintenance behaviors (e.g., Aron etal., 1995; Aron etal., 2000; Graham,
2008; McIntyre etal., 2015). Individuals with clear (vs. unclear) self- concepts may
be better able at identifying the improvements to the self-concept and the resulting
K. P. McIntyre et al.
lodismij@canisius.edu
117
relational benets, as evidenced by research showing that individuals with high self-
concept clarity desire future self-expansion (Emery etal., 2015). Additionally,
research on the Michelangelo phenomenon reveals that individuals can help their
partners work toward their ideal selves through a process of interpersonal afrma-
tion (e.g., Drigotas, Rusbult, Wieselquist, & Whitton, 1999; Rusbult, Finkel, &
Kumashiro, 2009). When partners facilitate this ideal-self movement, individuals
experience greater personal and relational well-being (Drigotas etal., 1999). Implicit
in these ndings is the notion that individuals have a clear sense of their ideal selves.
In fact, self-concept clarity is directly associated with individuals’ ability to recog-
nize movement toward their ideal self (DiDonato & Krueger, 2010), and greater
self-concept clarity is associated with smaller perceived discrepancies between the
actual and ideal selves (Demarree & Rios, 2014), as well as discrepancies between
self-views and perceptions of others’ views about the self (Campbell etal., 2003).
Thus, the benets of the Michelangelo phenomenon may change, to some degree,
based upon individuals’ self-concept clarity.
However, an individual’s greater sensitivity to self-concept change may come at
a cost. Being more attuned to self-concept degradation could lead individuals to be
more vulnerable to the corresponding negative relational and intrapersonal out-
comes (Mattingly etal., 2014; McIntyre etal., 2015). For example, imagine Sally
begins a romantic relationship with Tom, who is somewhat messy. As their relation-
ship develops, Sally may begin to take on aspects of Tom’s messiness. If Sally has
high self-concept clarity, she may be quicker to detect this undesired acquisition of
Tom’s bad habit, therefore creating a potential source of conict between her and
Tom, which may ultimately negatively affect their relationship quality. Accordingly,
in one study examining how self-concept clarity moderated the association between
loss of self-concept content and psychological adjustment, individuals with high
Fig. 6.1 Two-dimensional model of relationship-induced self-concept change
6 Self-Concept Clarity andRomantic Relationships
lodismij@canisius.edu
118
self-concept clarity experienced stronger responses to self-concept loss than those
low in self-concept clarity (Mattingly, Straughn, & McIntyre, 2016). Specically,
the positive association between self-pruning (loss of negative self-concept content)
and psychological adjustment was stronger for those high (vs. low) in self-concept
clarity (indicating amplication of positive outcomes); however, the negative
association between self-contraction (loss of positive self-concept content) and
adjustment was also stronger for those high (vs. low) in self-concept clarity
(indicating amplication of negative outcomes).
Alternatively, there is evidence that self-concept clarity may broadly protect
individuals from negative outcomes (e.g., Bechtoldt etal., 2010; Richman etal.,
2016). Consequently, high self-concept clarity may buffer against the potentially
negative effects of relationship-induced self-concept degradation. For example,
even though Sally may take on aspects of Tom’s messiness, because she already has
a clear sense of who she is, this acquisition of a bad habit may be less detrimental to
her identity (and thus is less of a source of potential conict with Tom) because she
has ample contradictory self-knowledge on which to base her identity (cf. Eisenstadt,
Hicks, McIntyre, Rivers, & Cahill, 2006; see also Gardner & Garr-Schultz, this
volume for detailed discussion of how individuals navigate collective identity
clarity). This is consistent with previous research that has found that though the loss
of positive self-concept content sometimes results in negative relational outcomes,
there are times in which these negative outcomes can be avoided (e.g., Impett,
Gable, & Peplau, 2005).
Yet another possibility is that individuals low in self-concept clarity may actually
benet the most from relationship-induced self-concept improvement in that they
potentially have more to gain from self-concept change than those high in clarity.
For example, self-expansion occurs when individuals cognitively reorganize their
self-concepts to include new or augment existing resources, identities, capabilities,
and perspectives (Aron etal., 2013). Though individuals high in self-concept clarity
would benet from self-expansion (as the self-concept is improving nonetheless),
those low in self-concept clarity– who may have difculty identifying existing
positive self-concept content– may be particularly benetted, as the potential
novelty of self-concept improvement would be especially salient. In support of this
possibility, a recent study examining how self-concept clarity moderates the links
between self-concept improvement processes (i.e., self-expansion and self-pruning)
and relationship quality revealed that the association between relationship-induced
self-concept change and relationship satisfaction was stronger for those low (vs.
high) in self-concept clarity (Mattingly & McIntyre, 2016). Though both self-
expansion and self-pruning were associated with greater relationship satisfaction
for individuals high in self-concept clarity, these associations were signicantly
stronger for individuals low in self-concept clarity.
Though the literature is still in its infancy, there is emerging support for the
hypothesis that the consequences of relationship-induced self-concept change may
be further dependent upon self-concept clarity. Specically, individuals high in self-
concept clarity may be more sensitive to their self-concept changes, and to the
degree that romantic partners are the source of these changes, relationships may
K. P. McIntyre et al.
lodismij@canisius.edu
119
benet or suffer as a consequence. However, high self-concept clarity may protect
individuals from relationship distress. Certainly, additional research examining the
moderating role of self-concept clarity in relational processes is needed.
Conclusions andFuture Directions
This chapter sought to provide answers to rst- and second-generation questions
concerning the link between self-concept clarity and romantic relationship
functioning. Overall, the empirical literature reveals that self-concept clarity is
positively associated with desirable relationship outcomes. Specically, the
literature shows that self-concept clarity is associated with relationship quality and
allows individuals to hold more accurate expectations for their partners’ behaviors,
and loss of a relationship can undermine a person’s self-concept clarity. The
literature also suggests several reasons why self-concept clarity is associated with
relationship outcomes: self-concept clarity enhances personal well-being,
relationships shape identity, and self-concept clarity allows individuals to make
better relationship choices via prototype matching. Finally, we found evidence to
support the notion that self-concept clarity serves a moderating role in relationship
processes, especially in the context of broader relationship-induced changes to the
self-concept.
Future research should examine the role of self-concept clarity at different stages
of relationship development, especially relationship initiation. Although research
has examined the role of self-concept clarity during a relationship (e.g., Lewandowski
etal., 2010; Luchies etal., 2010) and following breakup (Lewandowski etal., 2006;
Slotter etal., 2010), very little work has examined the impact of self-concept clarity
prior to (and during) relationship formation. Yet, there are several possible ways that
self-concept clarity might impact relationship initiation. One possibility is that
when individuals have a clear sense of self, they may feel more comfortable in
sharing aspects of the self with potential relationship partners, as well as relationship
expectations (e.g., exclusivity, responsiveness), which may facilitate relationship
development. Prior research highlights the important role that self-disclosure plays
in relationship initiation (Aron, Melinat, Aron, Vallone, & Bator, 1997; Collins &
Miller, 1994; Sprecher, Treger, Wondra, Hilaire, & Wallpe, 2013), and research also
reveals that being the recipient of self-disclosure increases liking to a greater degree
than being the giver of self-disclosure (Sprecher etal., 2013). So, for individuals to
get potential partners to like them, they should provide some information about
themselves. Of course, this presumes that individuals have a clear and coherent self-
concept that they are able to share during getting acquainted interactions. An
individual low in self-concept clarity may avoid self-disclosure in general or may
unintentionally disclose incorrect or inconsistent information (e.g., that she/he has
a great sense of humor, when in actuality she/he does not) that the partner later
discovers to be untrue; consequently, this disclosure of inaccurate information could
potentially undermine trust and hinder post-initiation relationship development.
6 Self-Concept Clarity andRomantic Relationships
lodismij@canisius.edu
120
Although we are unaware of any research examining the association between self-
concept clarity and self-disclosure in a romantic context, previous research by
Valkenburg and Peter (2008) found a positive correlation between self-concept
clarity and self-disclosure during adolescents’ online communications, indicating
that individuals with clear self-concepts were more likely to self-disclose when
communicating with others.
Another possible way that self-concept clarity could affect relationship initiation
is by shaping individuals’ beliefs about relationships. For example, work on implicit
theories of relationships (Knee, 1998; Knee, Patrick, & Lonsbary, 2003) reveals that
most people ascribe to either romantic destiny beliefs or romantic growth beliefs.
Destiny beliefs are based on the notion that romantic partners are either destined to
be together or they are not. Relationship conicts are therefore signals that the
couple is not meant to be together and are predictive of dissolution (Knee, 1998).
Growth beliefs, conversely, are based on the idea that individuals become more
compatible over time and that relationship conicts cannot only be overcome but
may even strengthen a relationship (Knee, 1998). Given the increased tendency for
people high in self-concept clarity to use prototype matching (Setterlund &
Niedenthal, 1993), people high in self-concept clarity may have a clearer
understanding of what they are looking for in a potential partner. Thus, they may
have a greater tendency to hold destiny beliefs, relative to those who are low in self-
concept clarity. If this is the case, then high self-concept clarity may further benet
individuals holding destiny beliefs in that self-concept clarity is also associated with
more adaptive conict styles, and conict is particularly problematic for individuals
holding destiny, as opposed to growth, beliefs (Bechtoldt etal., 2010).
Finally, the literature examining the association between self-concept clarity and
relationship-related variables would benet by examining more diverse samples.
The vast majority of research reviewed here uses samples from “WEIRD” cultures
(i.e., western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic; Henrich, Heine, &
Norenzayan, 2010). As such, we do not know whether the current patterns of results
will generalize across cultures or across age cohorts. The possibility remains that
such perspectives would impact both the rst- and second-generation questions
addressed in this chapter.
Although the extant literature provides a great deal of insight into the link
between self-concept clarity and romantic relationships, there is still much to learn.
We hope that the present chapter helps spur future research in this interesting and
important area.
References
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M.A. (1988). Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in social
identity and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 317–334.
Agnew, C.R., Van Lange, P.A. M., Rusbult, C.E., & Langston, C.A. (1998). Cognitive inter-
dependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 939–954.
K. P. McIntyre et al.
lodismij@canisius.edu
121
Aron, A. (2003). Self and close relationships. In M.R. Leary & J.P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of
self and identity (pp.442–461). NewYork, NY: Guilford Press.
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., Ketay, S., Riela, S., & Aron, E.N. (2008). How close others construct and reconstruct
who we are and how we feel about ourselves. In J.V. Wood, A.Tesser, & J.G. Holmes (Eds.),
The self and social relationships (pp.209–229). NewYork, NY: Psychology Press.
Aron, A., Lewandowski, G.W., Jr., Mashek, D., & Aron, E.N. (2013). The self-expansion model
of motivation and cognition in close relationships. In J.A. Simpson & L.Campbell (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of close relationships. NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press.
Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E.N., Vallone, R.D., & Bator, R.J. (1997). The experimental genera-
tion of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary ndings. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 363–377.
Aron, A., Norman, C.C., & Aron, E. (2001). Shared self-expanding activities as a means of main-
taining and enhancing close romantic relationships. In J.Harvey & A.Wenzel (Eds.), Close
romantic relationships: Maintenance and enhancement (pp.47–66). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Aron, A., Norman, C.C., Aron, E.N., McKenna, C., & Heyman, R.E. (2000). Couples’ shared
participation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 273–284.
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., Kumashiro, M., Finkel, E.J., VanderDrift, L.E., & Luchies, L.B. (2014). Filling
the void: Bolstering attachment security in committed relationships. Social Psychological and
Personality Science, 5, 398–406.
Ayduk, Ö., Gyurak, A., & Luerssen, A. (2009). Rejection sensitivity moderates the impact of rejec-
tion on self-concept clarity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1467–1478.
Baumeister, R.F., & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments
as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Bechtoldt, M.N., De Dreu, C.K. W., Nijstad, B.A., & Zapf, D. (2010). Self-concept clarity and
the management of social conict. Journal of Personality, 78, 539–574.
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.
Błażek, M., & Besta, T. (2012). Self-concept clarity and religious orientations: Prediction of pur-
pose in life and self-esteem. Journal of Religion and Health, 51, 947–960.
Bobrowski, M., Mattingly, B.A., Lewandowski, G.W, Jr., & DeMarree, K. (2016, February).
Expanding the self without compromising clarity. Presented at the 2016 Society for Personality
and Social Psychology Conference, San Diego, CA.
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., & DiPaula, A. (2003). The structure of the self-concept and its rela-
tion to psychological adjustment. Journal of Personality, 71, 115–140.
Campbell, J.D., & Lavallee, L.F. (1993). Who am I? The role of self-concept confusion in under-
standing the behavior of people with low self-esteem. In R.F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self- esteem:
The puzzle of low self-regard (pp.3–20). NewYork, NY: Plenum Press.
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.
Cheryan, S., & Plaut, V.C. (2010). Explaining underrepresentation: A theory of precluded interest.
Sex Roles, 63, 475–488.
Collins, N.L., & Miller, L.C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review.
Psychological Bulletin, 116, 457–475.
6 Self-Concept Clarity andRomantic Relationships
lodismij@canisius.edu
122
Collins, W.A., Welsh, D.P., & Furman, W. (2009). Adolescent romantic relationships. Annual
Review of Psychology, 60, 631–652.
DeMarree, K. G., & Rios, K. (2014). Understanding the relationship between self-esteem and
self-clarity: The role of desired self-esteem. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50,
202–209.
DiDonato, T.E., & Krueger, J.I. (2010). Interpersonal afrmation and self-authenticity: A test of
Rogers’s self-growth hypothesis. Self and Identity, 9, 322–336.
Drigotas, S.M., Rusbult, C.E., Wiselquist, J., & Whitton, S.W. (1999). Close partner as sculp-
tor of the ideal self: Behavioral afrmation and the Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 293–323.
Duffy, C.W. (2014). Why self-concept confusion erodes well-being: The role of self-presentational
and social processes (Doctoral dissertation). Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Eisenstadt, D., Hicks, J.L., McIntyre, K.P., Rivers, J.A., & Cahill, M. (2006). Two paths of
defense: Specic vs. compensatory reactions to self-threat. Self and Identity, 5, 35–50.
Emery, L.F., Muise, A., Dix, E.L., & Le, B. (2014). Can you tell that I’m in a relationship?
Attachment and relationship visibility on Facebook. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 40, 1466–1479.
Emery, L.F., Walsh, C., & Slotter, E.B. (2015). Knowing who you are and adding to it: Reduced
self-concept clarity predicts reduced self-expansion. Social Psychological and Personality
Science, 6, 259–266.
Feinstein, B.A., Davila, J., & Yoneda, A. (2012). Self-concept and self-stigma in lesbians and gay
men. Psychology & Sexuality, 3, 161–177.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.
Finkel, E. J., Fitzsimons, G. M., & vanDellen, M. R. (2015). Self-regulation as a transactive pro-
cess: Reconceptualizing the unit of analysis for goal setting, pursuit, and outcomes. In K. D.
Vohs & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (3rd ed., pp. 264–282). New
York, NY: Guilford.
Fisher, T.D., & McNulty, J.K. (2008). Neuroticism and marital satisfaction: The mediating role
played by the sexual relationship. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 112–122.
Fitzsimons, G.M., & Finkel, E.J. (2011). The effects of self-regulation on social relationships.
In K.D. Vohs & R.F. Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and
applications (2nd ed., pp.407–421). NewYork, NY: Guilford Press.
Furman, W., & Collins, W.A. (2008). Adolescent romantic relationships and experiences. In
K.H. Rubin, W.Bukowski, & B.Laursen (Eds.), Peer interactions, relationships, and groups
(pp.341–360). NewYork, NY: Guilford.
Graham, J.M. (2008). Self-expansion and ow in couples’ momentary experiences: An experience
sampling study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 679–694.
Gurung, R.A. R., Sarason, B.R., & Sarason, I.G. (2001). Predicting relationship quality and
emotional reactions to stress from signicant-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 sup-
port. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 265–284.
Hassebrauck, M., & Aron, A. (2001). Prototype matching in close relationships. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1111–1122.
Hawkins, D.N., & Booth, A. (2005). Unhappily ever after: Effects of long-term, low-quality mar-
riages 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.
Henrich, J., Heine, S., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466, 29.
Higgins, E.T. (1999). When do self-discrepancies have specic relations to emotions? The second-
generation question of Tangney, Niedenthal, Covert, and Barlow (1998). Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 77, 1313–1317.
Hucker, A., Mussap, A.J., & McCabe, M.M. (2010). Self-concept clarity and women's sexual
well-being. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 19, 67–77.
K. P. McIntyre et al.
lodismij@canisius.edu
123
Impett, E.A., Gable, S.L., & Peplau, L.A. (2005). Giving up and giving in: The costs and benets
of daily sacrice in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89,
327–344.
Kamp Dush, C.M., Taylor, M.G., & Kroeger, R.A. (2008). Marital happiness and psychological
wellbeing across the life course. Family Relations, 57, 211–226.
Knee, C.R. (1998). Implicit theories of relationships: Assessment and prediction of romantic rela-
tionship initiation, coping, and longevity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,
360–370.
Knee, C.R., Patrick, H., & Lonsbary, C. (2003). Implicit theories of relationships: Orientations
toward evaluation and cultivation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 41–55.
Le, B., Dove, N.L., Agnew, C.R., Korn, M.S., & Musto, A.A. (2010). Predicting nonmarital
relationship dissolution: A meta-analytic synthesis. Personal Relationships, 17, 377–390.
Lewandowski, G.J., Aron, A., Bassis, S., & Kunak, J.(2006). Losing a self-expanding relation-
ship: Implications for the self-concept. Personal Relationships, 13, 317–331.
Lewandowski, G.J., & Nardone, N. (2012). Self-concept clarity's role in self–other agreement and
the accuracy of behavioral prediction. Self and Identity, 11, 71–89.
Lewandowski, G.J., Nardone, N., & Raines, A.J. (2010). The role of self-concept clarity in rela-
tionship quality. Self and Identity, 9, 416–433.
Light, A.E., & Visser, P.S. (2013). The ins and outs of the self: Contrasting role exits and role
entries as predictors of self-concept clarity. Self and Identity, 12, 291–306.
Lodi-Smith, J., Cologgi, K., Spain, S. M., & Roberts, B. W. (2017). Development of identity clarity
and content in adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 755–768.
Lodi-Smith, J., & Roberts, B.W. (2010). Getting to know me: Social role experiences and age
differences in self-concept clarity during adulthood. Journal of Personality, 78, 1383–1410.
Loving, T.J., & Agnew, C.R. (2001). Socially desirable responding in close relationships: A dual-
component approach and measure. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 551–573.
Luchies, L.B., Finkel, E.J., McNulty, J.K., & Kumashiro, M. (2010). The doormat effect:
When forgiving erodes self-respect and self-concept clarity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 98, 734–749.
Luo, S., & Klohnen, E.C. (2005). Assortative mating and marital quality in newlyweds: A couple-
centered approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 304–326.
Markus, H., & Kunda, Z. (1986). Stability and malleability of the self-concept. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 858–866.
Mattingly, B.A., & Lewandowski, G.W., Jr. (2013). An expanded self is a more capable self: The
association between self-concept size and self-efcacy. Self and Identity, 12, 621–634.
Mattingly, B.A., Lewandowski, G.W., Jr., & McIntyre, K.P. (2014). “You make me a better/
worse person”: A two-dimensional model of relationship self-change. Personal Relationships,
21, 176–190.
Mattingly, B.A., & McIntyre, K.P. (2016). Relationship-induced self-concept change, self-
concept clarity, and relationship quality. Unpublished raw data.
Mattingly, B.A., McIntyre, K.P., & Lewandowski, G.W., Jr. (2016). Self-concept clarity and
relationship status. Unpublished raw data.
Mattingly, B.A., McIntyre, K.P., & Selterman, D. (in press). Individual differences and romantic
relationships: Bidirectional inuences on self and relational processes. SAGE Handbook of
Personality and Individual Differences.
Mattingly, B.A., Straughn, S., & McIntyre, K.P. (2016). Relationship-induced self-concept
change, self-concept clarity, and psychological adjustment. Unpublished raw data.
McConnell, A.R. (2011). The multiple self-aspects framework: Self-concept representation and its
implications. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 3–27. Slotter, E.B.
McIntyre, K.P., Mattingly, B.A., & Lewandowski, G.W., Jr. (2015). When “we” changes “me”:
The two-dimensional model of relational self-change and relationship outcomes. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 857–878.
McIntyre, K.P., Mattingly, B.A., Lewandowski, G.W., Jr., & Simpson, A. (2014). Workplace self-
expansion: Implications for job satisfaction, commitment, self-concept clarity, and self-esteem
among the employed and unemployed. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36, 59–69.
6 Self-Concept Clarity andRomantic Relationships
lodismij@canisius.edu
124
Nardone, N. (2012). Self-expansion and self-concept clarity: The effect of expanding and rediscov-
ery activities on perceptions of the self and relationships (Doctoral dissertation). Stony Brook
University, Stony Brook, NY.
Nezlek, J.B., & Plesko, R.M. (2001). Day-to-day relationships among self-concept clarity, self-
esteem, daily events, and mood. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 201–211.
Niedenthal, P.M., Cantor, N., & Kihlstrom, J.F. (1985). Prototype-matching: A strategy for social
decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 575–584.
Reissman, C., Aron, A., & Bergen, M.R. (1993). Shared activities and marital satisfaction: Causal
direction and self-expansion versus boredom. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
10, 243–254.
Richman, S.B., Pond, R.S., Jr., Dewall, C.N., Kumashiro, M., Slotter, E.B., & Luchies, L.B.
(2016). An unclear self leads to poor mental health: Self-concept confusion mediates the asso-
ciation of loneliness with depression. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 35, 525–550.
Ritchie, T.D., Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., Arndt, J., & Gidron, Y. (2011). Self-concept clarity
mediates the relation between stress and subjective well-being. Self and Identity, 10, 493–508.
Roberts, B.W., & Caspi, A. (2003). The cumulative continuity model of personality development:
Striking a balance between continuity and change in personality traits across the life course. In
U.Staudinger & U.Lindenberger (Eds.), Understanding human development: Lifespan psy-
chology in exchange with other disciplines (pp.183–214). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Rusbult, C.E., Finkel, E.J., & Kumashiro, M. (2009). The Michelangelo phenomenon. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 305–309.
Schlegel, R.J., Hicks, J.A., Davis, W.E., Hirsch, K.A., & Smith, C.M. (2013). The dynamic inter-
play between perceived true self-knowledge and decision satisfaction. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 104, 542–558.
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.
Showers, C.J., Ditzfeld, C.P., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2015). Self-concept structure and the quality of
self-knowledge. Journal of Personality, 83, 535–551.
Slotter, E.B., & Emery, L.F. (this volume).
Slotter, E.B., Gardner, W.L., & Finkel, E.J. (2010). Who am I without you? The inuence of
romantic breakup on the self-concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 147–160.
Slotter, E.B., Winger, L., & Soto, N. (2015). Lost without each other: The inuence of group
identity loss on the self-concept. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 19, 15–30.
Sprecher, S., Treger, S., Wondra, J.D., Hilaire, N., & Wallpe, K. (2013). Taking turns: Reciprocal
self-disclosure promotes liking in initial interactions. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 49, 860–866.
Swann, W.B., Chang-Schneider, C., & Angulo, S. (2008). Self-verication in relationships as an
adaptive process. In J.V. Wood, A.Tesser, J.G. Holmes, J.V. Wood, A.Tesser, & J.G. Holmes
(Eds.), The self and social relationships (pp.49–72). NewYork, NY: Psychology Press.
Talley, A. E., & Stevens, J. E. (2017). Sexual orientation self-concept ambiguity: Scale adaptation
and validation. Assessment, 24, 632–645.
Taylor, S.E., & Brown, J.D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective
on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210.
Valkenburg, P.M., & Peter, J.(2008). Adolescents' identity experiments on the internet conse-
quences for social competence and self-concept unity. Communication Research, 35, 208–231.
Wegner, D.M., Guiliano, T., & Hertel, P.T. (1985). Cognitive interdependence in close rela-
tionships. In W.J. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp.253–276).
NewYork, NY: Springer.
Wu, C.H. (2009). The relationship between attachment style and self-concept clarity: The media-
tion effect of self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 42–46.
K. P. McIntyre et al.
lodismij@canisius.edu
