See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/14014155

Models of the self: Self-construals and gender

Article in Psychological Bulletin · August 1997

DOI: 10.1037//0033-2909.122.1.5 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
1,798 5,578

2 authors:

Susan E. Cross Laura Madson

Iowa State University New Mexico State University
86 PUBLICATIONS 8,007 CITATIONS 34 PUBLICATIONS 2,350 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Laura Madson on 21 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Psychological Bulletin Copyright 1997 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
1997, \bl. 122, No. 1,5-37 0033-2909/97/S3.00

Models of the Self: Self-Construals and Gender

Susan E. Cross and Laura Madson

Iowa State University of Science and Technology

The authors first describe individual differences in the structure of the self. In the independent self-
construal, representations of others are separate from the self. In the interdependent self-construal,
others are considered part of the self (H. Markus & S. Kitayama, 1991). In general, men in the
United States are thought to construct and maintain an independent self-construal, whereas women
are thought to construct and maintain an interdependent self-construal. The authors review the
psychological literature to demonstrate that many gender differences in cognition, motivation, emo-
tion, and social behavior may be explained in terms of men's and women's different self-construals.
Recognition of the interdependent self-construal as a possible alternative conception of the self may
stimulate new investigations into the ways the self influences a person's thinking, feeling, and
behaving.

Many international travelers acquire new and different per- Cross, 1995; Rhee, Uleman, Lee, & Roman, 1995; Triandis,
spectives on their home country as a result of their journeys. Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988).
Likewise, cross-cultural comparisons can shed new light on An expanded view of the self may also help explain a wide
prevailing psychological theories, assumptions, beliefs, and range of psychological phenomena within U.S. society. The
practices in a particular society. For example, cross-cultural United States is a very diverse society, with representatives from
comparisons show that the nature and structure of the self is a multitude of cultures. Consequently, the view of the self in
more variable than assumed in contemporary U.S. psychological psychological theory that is based on Western European perspec-
research. Several investigators (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; tives of the person—as individualistic, autonomous, and inde-
Shweder & Boume, 1984; Triandis, 1989) have argued that pendent of others and social influences—may not adequately
individuals in other societies, particularly East Asian societies, describe the self-views of many individuals whose origins lie
construct a self that is much more interdependent or relational in non-Western cultures. In addition, this individualistic view
than the self constructed by members of individualistic societies, of the self may be more descriptive of men in U.S. society than
such as in the United States. In East Asian cultures, self-defini- of women in U.S. society (Gilligan, 1982; Jordan & Surrey,
tion is to a large degree based on one's relationships and group 1986). The social, institutional, and cultural environment of
memberships and on the importance of one's pursuit of harmony the United States promotes development of independence and
with others; this has been termed the interdependent self- autonomy in men and interdependence and relatedness in women
construal by Markus and Kitayama. In contrast, in many West- (Bakan, 1966; Maccoby, 1990; Markus, Mullally, & Kitayama,
ern societies, self-definition is based on one's unique abilities in press; Markus & Oyserman, 1989). As cross-cultural research
or attributes and on the importance of one distinguishing himself suggests, these life experiences may result in an emphasis on
or herself from others; Markus and Kitayama labeled this model the independent self-construal by most men and an emphasis on
the interdependent self-construal by most women.
of the self the independent self-construal. A growing body of
Although the nature of the self-system and gender differences
research attests to the value of this expanded view of the self
in psychological processes and behavior have individually re-
for investigators seeking to understand a wide range of cross-
ceived considerable attention by researchers and theorists, only
cultural differences in cognition, emotion, and motivation (e.g.,
in the past decade have psychologists begun to seriously explore
the relation between the two. In an eloquent argument for this
task, Carolyn Sherif (1982) proposed that the concept of the
self-system is needed to interpret gender differences in personal-
Susan E. Cross and Laura Madson, Department of Psychology, Iowa
State University of Science and Technology. ity, development, and behavior and to understand the interaction
Laura Madson is now at the Department of Psychology, New Mexico between individuals and their social world. When the self-system
State University. is ignored, she maintained, many findings of gender differences
Portions of this work were supported by a Spencer postdoctoral fel- in behavior ' 'go into a ragbag where the individual is fragmented
lowship. We thank Pam Bacon, Sylvia Beyer, Carolyn Cutrona, Meg into an assortment of interpersonal attitudes, motives, and attri-
Gerrard, Hazel Markus, Stephanie Rude, and Gary Wells for their helpful butions" (p. 382).' In this article, we seek to demonstrate the
comments on this article. Cheryl Mcllhon, Jodee Rauch, and Karen Hays
were invaluable assistants in the literature review process.
1
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Susan New theoretical developments since the publication of Sherif's state-
E. Cross, Department of Psychology, Iowa State University of Science ments much reduce the size of the "ragbag" (e.g., social role theory;
and Technology, W112 Lagomarcino, Ames, Iowa 50011. Electronic Eagly, 1987). We address social role theory and other explanations of
mail may be sent via Internet to [email protected]. gender differences in Other Explanations of Gender-Related Behaviors.
 CROSS AND MADSON

value of these new theoretical developments concerning the self self as agent or regulator is impaired, individuals may engage
and to heed Sherif 's suggestion by using them to integrate a in self-defeating behaviors, such as substance abuse or medical
variety of gender differences from the psychological literature. noncompliance (Baumeister, in press). In contrast, active self-
In the following sections, we briefly review the role of the regulation is necessary for a person's completion of plans and
self in behavior and describe these divergent self-construals. goals, such as finishing a degree, losing weight, or changing an
We then summarize the evidence for gender differences in the old habit.
structure of the self-construal. In the remainder of this article, In summary, the self organizes and directs a wide variety of
we show how these divergent models of the self may explain psychological and social phenomena; the self regulates inten-
many gender differences in cognition, motivation, emotion, and tional behavior and permits the person to function effectively
social relationships. in his or her social world (Banaji & Prentice, 1994; Baumeister,
in press; Markus & Wurf, 1987). However, the self is not only
an important influence on social behavior but also largely a
Why Consider the Self?
social product. The self continually and dynamically takes form
In the last 2 decades, progress in psychological theory and through one's interactions with close others and the social world
methodology has resulted in an increased recognition of the self (Cooley, 1902; Damon & Hart, 1988; Mead, 1934; M. Rosen-
as a powerful regulator of many aspects of human behavior. berg, 1981). In homes, schools, marketplaces, and other social
The self directs perception, memory, and inference concerning environments, individuals are told who they are, who they
both oneself and others. When an ability or characteristic is should be, and how to create an identity. Individuals actively
especially important or central to an individual's self-definition, construct a self as they participate in their social environments;
the person is likely to pay close attention to information relevant the self, in turn, facilitates engagement in and adaptation to
to the domain, to remember the information better than non- these environments. In short, the self negotiates the interaction
self-relevant information, and to resist or ignore inconsistent between the person and society. However, viewpoints about the
feedback regarding the ability or characteristic (for reviews, nature of the self vary substantially around the world, resulting
see S. T Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Greenwald & Pratkanis, 1984; in very different models of the self. To understand potential
Kihlstrom & Cantor, 1984; and Kihlstrom & Klein, 1994). In variations in the self-system and their consequences, psycholo-
addition, individuals perceive others through the lens of their gists have turned their attention to the indigenous psychologies
self-views (Carpenter, 1988; Dunning & Hayes, 1996; Markus, of the self in non-Western societies.
Smith, & Moreland, 1985).
In addition to directing information processing, individuals1
Variation in the Self-System
self-views are also inextricably woven together with the individ-
ual's emotional experiences. For example, the clarity, complex- The self is a dynamic cultural creation; individuals' self-
ity, and organization of the self-system affect emotions and views, emotions, and motivations take shape and form within a
affective responses to situations (J. D. Campbell, 1990; Linville, framework provided by cultural values, ideals, structures, and
1985, 1987; Pelham, 1991; Showers, 1992). People may en- practices. In some African cultures, selfhood is defined by one's
hance self-esteem by viewing their strengths and abilities as standing in the family or clan hierarchy (Markus et al., in press).
rare and unique, while viewing their faults and weaknesses as In many East Asian cultures, the self is framed in terms of one's
commonly shared by others (J. D. Campbell, 1986; Goethals, important roles and responsibilities to others. In much of the
Messick, & Allison, 1991; Marks, 1984). Individuals' possible United States, an individual is seen as separate from and prior to
selves, defined as hopes or fears for oneself in the future, shape society. These variations in views of the self result in important
emotional responses to current life events (Markus & Nurius, differences in psychological phenomena that are mediated or
1986). Similarly, discrepancies between persons' beliefs about organized by the self (Cousins, 1989; Markus & Kitayama,
themselves currently and their beliefs about what they should 1991; Shweder & Bourne, 1984; Triandis, 1989).
be or would like to be often result in depression or anxiety
(Higgins, 1987).
Independent and Interdependent Self-Construals
The self is also the source of human agency and volition.
Indeed, self-control, responsibility, and intentionality presup- Among psychologists, there is a growing concern that much
pose a self (see Baumeister, in press, for a review). Persons of the research in the United States on the self has been guided
often think or act to enhance their self-evaluations (Greenwald, by Western, individualistic assumptions of personhood and iden-
1980; Steele, 1988; Tesser, 1988). For example, students may tity. In much of Western culture, the individual is seen as ' 'an
compare their adjustment to college with peers who are worse independent, self-contained autonomous entity who (a) com-
off to feel better about themselves (Gibbons & McCoy, 1991). prises a unique configuration of internal attributes (e.g., traits,
At other times, verification or confirmation of important self- abilities, morals, and values), and (b) behaves primarily as a
views motivates individuals' interpretations of events or their consequence of these internal attributes" (Markus & Kitayama,
behavioral strategies (Lecky, 1945; Swann, 1983,1990; Swann, 1991, p. 224). This cultural ideology results in the development
Stein-Seroussi, & Giesler, 1992). Behaviors such as helping of an independent self-construal, in which representations of
other people, selecting a vocation, running for public office, and the self are bounded and distinguished from representations of
a whole host of other social behaviors are motivated by the others or social contexts (Geertz, 1973).
desire to verify or enhance oneself, to achieve a sense of control, In this construal, the central principle directing the develop-
or to accomplish a particular desired self. When the role of the ment of the self is self as ' 'separated from others.'' The primary
 MODELS OF THE SELF

components of this self-construal are one's internal traits, skills, of close others, in contrast to the wariness of another's influence
and attributes; group memberships, roles, and relationships are which is characteristic of the independent self-construal (Mar-
less important for self-definition (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; kus & Kitayama, 1994). For individuals with an interdependent
Triandis, 1989). The principal goals for individuals with an self-construal, obligations to others and responsiveness to the
independent self-construal are to maintain a sense of autonomy needs of others shape moral decisions and social interactions
and to "be true to one's own internal structures of preferences, (Jordan, 1991;Lyons, 1983;Surrey, 1991). The goals and needs
rights, convictions, and goals" (Markus & Kitayama, 1994, of family and close others are often as important as one's own
p. 569). Fulfilling these goals, in turn, enhances self-esteem. goals and needs. The depiction of the individual as "a single
Consequently, thoughts and actions that highlight one's unique- thread in a richly textured fabric of relationships" (Kondo,
ness or specialness, behaviors that cause one to stand out from 1990, p. 33) succinctly captures the relation between self and
others, and the development of skills or attributes that few others other for individuals with an interdependent self-construal.
share serve as means to enhance self-esteem and self-evaluation
(Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Weisz, Rothbaum, & Blackburn, Origins of Variation in Self-Construals
1984). Because one's attributes, beliefs, and wishes are highly
accessible in information processing, the person develops sensi- Although Western cultures, particularly the United States',
tivity to stimuli relevant to these characteristics and finely tuned tend to emphasize individualism and the priority of personal
strategies for their expression (Markus, 1977). freedom over social obligations, U.S. society is far from mono-
Although individuals with an independent self-construal cer- lithic in this view of the relation of self and others. The individu-
tainly desire relationships, their relationships often reflect indi- alist ideal is not shared by many members of nondominant
vidualistic goals. Relationships with others may serve as mirrors minority groups, who tend to take a collectivist or interdependent
for the individual's comparison of the self with others, as back- stance toward the relation between the person and society (e.g.,
drops for the self-enhancing display of abilities or attributes, or Hispanics, Asian Americans, and African Americans; R. L.
as a means to demonstrate uniqueness by an assertion of domi- Allen, Dawson, & Brown, 1989; Marin & Triandis, 1985;
nance over others (Maccoby, 1990; Markus & Cross, 1990; McCombs, 1985; see also Lykes, 1985). In addition, there is a
Tesser, 1988; Wills, 1981). For these persons, individual rights, long history of collective religious groups in the United States
goals, and wishes are the primary basis for moral choices. The that value cooperation, sharing, and responsibility for others
goals and needs of society, family members, or others are sec- (Oved, 1988). In one of the few documented studies of a com-
ondary or subordinate to the individual's (Bellah, Madsen, Sulli- munal religious group, Kaplan and Plant (1956, cited in Oved,
van, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985; J. G. Miller, 1984; Shweder & 1988) related that the Hutterites of South Dakota are less com-
Bourne, 1984). petitive, envious, and violent than are members of the general
Many cultures, however, emphasize the interrelatedness of population. Members of these communal groups are likely to
the person and society; relationships and social groups pattern value an interdependent view of the person and to construct
one's identity. In these cultures, self-representations are woven social norms, roles, and self-views that reflect this relational
together with representations of "close others" (e.g., one's perspective.
spouse or best friend) and social contexts, resulting in an inter- Similarly, others have argued that the independent self-
dependent self-construal (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). The cen- construal describes the self-views of men in U.S. culture better
tral principle that guides the development of this construal is than that of many U.S. women (Gilligan, 1982; Jordon & Sur-
self as "connected to others." Consequently, the boundaries rey, 1986; Sampson, 1988; Stewart & Lykes, 1985). Multiple
between the self and others are open, porous, or flexible; repre- social influences promote independent ways of thinking, feeling,
sentations of significant relationships and social contexts consti- and behaving for men and relational ways of thinking, feeling,
tute a significant portion of the self space. The principal goals and behaving for women. For example, parents discuss emotion
of individuals with an interdependent self-construal are to de- more with their preschool daughters than with their preschool
velop self-defining relationships and to maintain connectedness sons, so they may differentially emphasize the importance of
with close others. Therefore, self-esteem or self-enhancement sensitivity to the feelings of others to their daughters and sons
derive from thoughts and feelings that emphasize one's connect- (Dunn, Bretherton, & Munn, 1987; Fivush, 1992). From about
edness to others, from behaviors or skills that help the person Age 3, boys and girls interact in increasingly gender-segregated
fit in or harmonize with close others, and from vicarious partici- groups. These groups take on distinctive norms and characteris-
pation in the joys and successes of self-defining others (Mar- tics: Boys' groups are characterized by competitiveness, rough-
kus & Kitayama, 1991; J. B. Miller, 1986). Because the interde- and-tumble play, and demonstrations of dominance; girls'
pendent self-construal includes representations of close others, groups are characterized by intimate friendships, cooperation,
these representations are highly accessible in the act of thinking and efforts to maintain social relationships (Maccoby, 1990).2
and in social interaction. Consequently, the individual develops In later childhood, parents' beliefs about gender roles influence
an ability to take the perspective of close others and to fit his their choice of household tasks for their children: Girls are more
or her behaviors to serve the needs of important relationship often assigned to child care than are boys, whereas boys are
partners (Jordon & Surrey, 1986).
For the person with an interdependent self-construal, relation- 2
As Maccoby has argued, the behavior patterns learned in these early
ships are viewed as integral parts of the person's very being. peer groups may form the basis of adult behavior. We hypothesize that
Indeed, one's thoughts, feelings, and wishes may be interpreted these early experiences will exert long-lasting influences because they
and understood in light of the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors guide the early development of the self.
 CROSS AND MADSON

more often assigned to tasks that take them out of the house roles. These relationships are also chosen from a universe of
and allow them more freedom and independence (for reviews, possibilities; no single relationship is inherently self-defining.
see Goodnow, 1988; L. W. Hoffman, 1991; and Huston, 1983). In short, the interdependent self-construal found among U.S.
After childhood, women and men continue to participate in adults is given its unique form by the individualistic environment
culture in very different ways; gendered social roles, experi- in which it develops.
ences, and occupations continue to reinforce the different skills In summary, individuals may differ markedly in the degree
and abilities developed by women and men. For example, to which others are incorporated into their self-system. Given
women in U.S. society are more likely to be responsible for that the self influences cognition, motivation, emotion, and
raising children and more often found in caregiving positions behavior (Banaji & Prentice, 1994; Baumeister, in press;
than are men. Women, therefore, tend to develop nurturance Greenwald & Pratkanis, 1984; Markus & Wurf, 1987), this
and relatedness to a greater degree than do men (Chodorow, recognition of variation in self-construals provides an argument
1978; Eagly, 1987). Women provide more social support to for the reconsideration of many psychological concepts, theo-
others than do men and are more often viewed as responsible ries, and assumptions. Unfortunately, relatively few investigators
for maintaining relationships (Wellman, 1992; Wethington, have attempted to operationalize these different self-construals
McLeod, & Kessler, 1987). In other words, men and women and to examine the consequences of them. As a result, we turned
live within contexts of independence or interdependence, respec- to the literature on gender differences in behavior as a source
tively. Consequently, their goals, activities, plans, interactions, of data for testing our hypotheses on the ways these divergent
values, and self-systems are continually shaped by these con- self-construals may influence psychological phenomena. Our
texts. Our goal is not to thoroughly review the gendered develop- goal in the following sections is to demonstrate that many of
ment of men and women nor to take a stand on a particular the observed differences in women's and men's behavior may
developmental theory but to draw attention to the many social be explained by individual differences in the self-construal
factors that may channel the creation and maintenance of diver- (Markus & Oyserman, 1989; Surrey, 1991). Furthermore, we
gent self-con struals by men and women. Although there is cer- draw on these hypothesized differences to predict how and when
tainly great variation within the genders in the degree to which men and women may differ with respect to other, unexplored
self-construals reflect gender stereotypes and gendered social behaviors. Our purpose in this analysis is not to exhaustively
roles, we assume that women are more likely than men to de- review the literature on gender differences but rather to demon-
velop an interdependent self-construal, whereas men are more strate the usefulness of the interdependent and independent mod-
likely than women to develop an independent self-construal. els of the self to explain a broad range of human behavior in
(For additional reviews of the literature on gender-typed social- U.S. society.
ization of men and women and the social construction of the
self, see Block, 1979, 1984; Damon & Hart, 1988; Eagly, 1987;
Consequences of Gendered Self-Construals
Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974, 1987; Markus & Oyserman, 1989;
and Oyserman & Packer, 1996.) Cognition
Although we have chosen to use the terms for these two self-
representations that are used in cross-cultural research (mostly Cognition and the self are inseparably linked, and these link-
not to clutter the literature with new terms), our point is not to ages take two primary forms. First, the content of the self-
suggest that U.S. women are like Asian people (Kashima et al., concept includes representations of an individual's thoughts and
1995). Rather, we seek to build on the work of cross-cultural beliefs about himself or herself as an object (James, 1890/
psychologists who question the assumption that all people con- 1983; M. Rosenberg, 1965). Second, the self actively influences
struct an independent self-construal. Like them, we focus on information processing (Kihlstrom & Cantor, 1984; Markus,
the importance of others in the self-construals of many people, 1983; Markus & Wurf, 1987). In the following, we explore
particularly women. However, culture delimits the expression ways that variation in the self-construal may be revealed in
of this other-oriented self-construal. For U.S. adults, individual- both the content of self-representations and cognitive processes
ism and dualism frame views of the person and society. Conse- related to the self, such as attention and memory.
quently, a sense of relatedness to others may be volitional and
based on personal choice (albeit one that is socially encouraged Self-Representations
and rewarded for women). In contrast, in East Asian cultures,
collectivism and monism (or a wholistic worldview) frame Long before an individual comes to label himself or herself
views of the person and society. In these cultures, interpersonal with specific attributes or characteristics (e.g.,' 'I am outgoing"
responsiveness is often obligatory, and care for others is based or "I am good with people"), his or her self-construal has been
on a moral code rather than personal discretion (e.g., among shaped and formed through gendered social interactions, gender-
the Hindu Indians, as described by J. G. Miller, 1994). typed social roles, and gender-related expectations (Damon &
Triandis (1989) has also argued that group memberships are Hart, 1988; Eagly, 1987; M. Rosenberg, 1981). Consequently,
relatively unimportant to U.S. adults as compared with members specific self-representations reflect the core principles that un-
of East Asian cultures, who tend to define themselves in terms derlie the self-construal (i.e., autonomy from or relatedness to
of important in-groups. Consequently, for U.S. adults, a self- others). Specific self-representations may include attributes that
construal based on relationships with others may be more likely correspond to the behavioral consequences of the self-construal,
to focus on individual relationships (e.g., with one's spouse, such as "caring" for the interdependent self-construal and "in-
close friends, siblings) than on group memberships or social dividualistic" for the independent self-construal. In addition,
 MODELS OF THE SELF

for individuals with an interdependent self-construal, other ele- cial dominance and toughness as more important than did girls
ments of the self-concept may represent specific relationships (see also Eccles et al., 1989). In a study of the importance of
or roles, such as "my relationship with my mother" or "my adult roles to identity, Thoits (1992) found that women ranked
relationship with my partner." Certainly the person with an relationship-oriented aspects of their identity (e.g., spouse,
independent self-construal values relationships, but these roles friend, son or daughter) as more important to them than did
and relationships are likely to be partitioned from independence- men.
oriented self-representations. In summary, there is substantial evidence that U.S. women
Given our assumptions about the gendered patterning of the are more likely than U.S. men to describe themselves in terms
self-construal, do men and women differ in the extent to which of relatedness to others, whereas men are more likely than
interdependence- versus independence-related attributes are in- women to describe themselves in terms of independence from
cluded in their self-representations? More than 2-decades worth others. The question remains, however, as to the source of these
of research suggests that the answer is "yes." In 1974, Maccoby differences. Although the evidence is mute as to the origins
and Jacklin reported that social characteristics are more im- of gender differences in self-representations, we suggest that
portant aspects of self-definition for women than men, and little gendered social roles, expectations, and other experiences result
evidence acquired since then challenges this conclusion. For in different self-construals. These divergent self-construals, in
example, McGuire and McGuire (1982), who used an open- turn, give rise to dissimilar self-representations among women
ended format with schoolchildren Ages 7-17, reported that and men.
girls' self-conceptions were more social than boys' self-concep-
tions. Girls freely described themselves in terms of other people
Information Processing
50% more often than did boys. In addition, girls' spontaneous
self-descriptions included more references than boys' to signifi- Variation in the core structure of the self not only influences
cant others, whereas boys' spontaneous self-descriptions included self-representations but also has a pervasive and systematic ef-
more references than girls' to people in general. In a study that fect on how stimuli are perceived and processed. Important self-
used the autophotographic method, men and women compiled a representations function as "lenses" for the perception and in-
set of pictures that described themselves (Clancy & Dollinger, terpretation of social information and social interactions
1993). Women included more pictures of themselves with others (Greenwald & Pratkanis, 1984; Kihlstrom & Cantor, 1984; Mar-
and more pictures of family members than did men. Men, how- kus & Wurf, 1987). As a result, individuals with an independent
ever, included more pictures of themselves alone than did women. self-construal are expected to attend closely to information that
Women are also more likely to describe themselves in terms highlights their uniqueness or individuality; to encode and orga-
of connectedness to others, whereas men are more likely to nize information with regard to their interests, skills, and attri-
describe themselves in terms of separateness from others butes; and to have superior memory for information relevant to
(Lyons, 1983; see also Mackie, 1983; Pratt, Prancer, Huns- themselves. In contrast, individuals with an interdependent self-
berger, & Manchester, 1990; and Stem, 1990). Similarly, women construal are expected to attend closely to information concern-
are more likely than men to include relationships in their de- ing relationships, to encode and organize information in terms
scriptions of their ideal self and their undesired self (Boggi- of relationships, and to have superior memory for information
ano & Barrett, 1991; Bybee, Click, & Zigler, 1990; Ogilvie & relevant to self-denning relationships. In the following, we illus-
Clark, 1992). When asked to rate themselves on experimenter- trate these hypothesized consequences of the self-construal by
selected attributes, men are more likely to evaluate themselves reviewing evidence of gender differences in attention and
positively on dimensions related to independence (e.g., power memory.
and self-sufficiency), whereas women are more likely to evalu- Attention. Although gender differences in attention-related
ate themselves positively on dimensions related to interdepen- processes have received very little attention, research by Ickes,
dence (e.g., likability or sociability; Gate & Sugawara, 1986; Robertson, Tooke, and Teng (1986) shows that women paid more
Marsh, Parker, & Barnes, 1985; F. R. Rosenberg & Simmons, attention to partners in an interaction than did men. In this study,
1975; Simmons & Rosenberg, 1975; Stake, 1992; Zuckerman, pairs of unacquainted participants (both same-gender and oppo-
1985; for reviews see Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974; Simmons, site-gender pairs) were left alone in a small room, arranged with
1987; andWylie, 1974). a couch, a coffee table, and bookshelves. For 5 min, their interac-
Self-representations differ not only in their content or the tions were surreptitiously taped. After the 5-min interaction, parti-
degree to which they are evaluated as self-descriptive but also cipants were asked to watch the tape and record their thoughts
in their importance or centrality. Very important or central self- and feelings. These were coded into several categories, including
representations are more likely to influence information pro- thoughts and feelings about the self and the partner and metapers-
cessing and behavior than are less central or less important self- pectives (thoughts about what the partner was thinking or feel-
views (Markus, 1977; Markus & Wurf, 1987; Pelham & Swann, ing). Trained observers also coded the tapes for behaviors that
1989). Given differences in self-construals, we expect that men indicated attention to the partner and engagement in the interac-
and women will rate the importance of interdependent or inde- tion, such as verbalizations, gazes, positive affect, body orienta-
pendent self-views differently. For example, Morris Rosenberg tion, and interpersonal distance. Women in this study reported a
(1989), in his extensive study of adolescents' self-concepts, greater number of direct thoughts about their partner and more
reported that girls rated "self-values" related to interpersonal positive thoughts and feelings about their partner than did men.
harmony and sensitivity as more important than did boys. In Women's behaviors also corresponded with their self-reports:
contrast, boys rated characteristics and behaviors related to so- They were more likely than men to verbally reinforce their partner,
10 CROSS AND MADSON

to gaze at their partner, and to direct their body toward and to high self-esteem recalled significantly more words that had been
sit close to their partner. evaluated for relevance to a close friend than did other partici-
Not only may individuals with an interdependent self- pants. The usual self-reference effect (i.e., better memory for
construal pay close attention to others in their social world, but words encoded with respect to the self than for words encoded
they may also be more likely to consider their partner's perspec- with respect to others) was demonstrated by men with high self-
tive in the interaction. This perspective taking allows the individ- esteem. Josephs et al. argued that
ual to anticipate the needs or reactions of the partner and to
women [with high self-esteem] have highly elaborated structures of
adapt his or her behavior to the partner to ensure a smooth and
knowledge about important others a n d . . . the information encoded
harmonious interaction. In studies that used self-report data,
with respect to these others can be used to produce a rich, highly
women in fact reported a greater inclination to take the perspec- memorable encoding of the stimulus words in these conditions,
tive of another person than did men (M. H. Davis, 1980; M. H. (p. 396)
Davis & Franzoi, 1991). In addition, women in the Ickes et al.
(1986) study were more likely than men to report metaperspec- In short, one consequence of the interdependent self-construal
tives. In a later study, Ickes, Tooke, Stinson, Baker, and Bisson- is the development of well-articulated representations of close
nette (1988) found that, in a similar dyadic interaction, women's others, which facilitate information processing.
reports of their own thoughts about their partner's thoughts The consequences of social interaction are also potentially
and feelings converged with their partner's actual feelings and more self-relevant for individuals with an interdependent self-
thoughts to a greater extent than did men's reports. From the construal than for those with an independent self-construal.
perspective of the interdependent self-construal, this suggests Therefore, their memory for people and relational events should
that women were actively working to ' 'read the mind'' of their be more accurate than the memory of individuals with an inde-
partner to adjust their own behavior accordingly. pendent self-construal. For example, a meta-analytic review
Memory. Individuals typically have better memory for infor- shows that women had better memory for faces than did men
mation about themselves than for information about others, as (d = -.34; Hall, 1984; see also Clifford & Bull, 1978; and
demonstrated in studies of self-referential memory (Green- Shapiro & Penrod, 1986, for reviews). This gender difference
wald & Banaji, 1989; Klein & Kihlstrom, 1986; Kuiper & Rog- in memory for faces can be found in children as young as 4
ers, 1979; Rogers, 1981; Rogers, Kuiper, & Kirker, 1977). In years old (Feldstein, 1976). Similarly, women remember more
these studies, participants were presented with a list of words details about another person briefly encountered on the street
and were asked to judge each word on one of several dimensions. than do men (Yarmey, 1993) and remember more of their high
For example, participants were asked to evaluate a semantic school classmates' names and faces, even after many years (Bah-
dimension of the word (e.g., "How specific is the word?"), a rick, Bahrick, & Wittlinger, 1975). Wives reported more vivid
structural dimension (e.g., "How long is the word?"), or the and detailed memory for relationship events (e.g., a vacation,
word's application to the self or a stranger. This task was fol- argument, or first date) than did husbands, as indicated by both
lowed by an unexpected free-recall test. These studies show that self-ratings and observer ratings (M. Ross & Holmberg, 1992).
participants had better memory for information encoded with In addition, female counselors remember more facts about a
respect to the self than for information encoded in the other client than do male counselors (Buczek, 1981). In contrast,
conditions (see Higgins & Bargh, 1987; Kihlstrom & Klein, individuals with an independent self-construal are more likely
1994; and Klein, Loftus, & Burton, 1989, for reviews). Re- to remember information that is removed from a social or rela-
searchers have argued that these results are a consequence of tional context, such as dates of historical events. Consistent with
deeper processing for self-relevant information (Greenwald & this hypothesis, a study of men and women shows that men
Pratkanis, 1984; Rogers, 1981) and of the highly organized and remembered historical events more accurately than did women
interconnected linkages in self-representations (Kihlstrom et al., (Storandt, Grant, & Gordon, 1978).
1988; Klein & Kihlstrom, 1986; Klein & Loftus, 1988). Predictions of encoding and organization of information.
However, the process of self-referential encoding may differ Other aspects of information processing, such as encoding and
for individuals with an interdependent self-construal. If repre- organization, are also tied to the self (Markus et al., 1985).
sentations of close others are central components of the self, Individuals with an interdependent self-construal should be more
then the encoding of information with respect to close others likely than those with an independent self-construal to encode
should also enhance memory. In a test of this hypothesis, Jo- relational or contextual data along with abstract information for
sephs, Markus, and Tafarodi (1992) first assumed that self- a target person. In a study of person perception, Sedikides,
esteem and self-construals are related. They argued that esteem Olsen, and Reis (1993) found that individuals spontaneously
derives from "succeeding at what is valued in a given social- encoded and organized information about target persons in terms
cultural niche" (p. 392; see also Solomon, Greenberg, & Pysz- of marital relationships. They concluded that relationships serve
cynski, 1991). Therefore, given gender norms in U.S. society, as natural categories for the organization of information about
men's high self-esteem could be associated with an independent others (see also A. Fiske, 1992). Although neither the Sedikides
self-construal, whereas women's high self-esteem could be as- et al. study nor any other relevant studies of encoding and orga-
sociated with an interdependent self-construal. They predicted nization that we could locate tested for gender differences, we
an interaction between gender and self-esteem in the likelihood anticipate that women will be more likely than men to encode
of a person remembering information encoded with respect to and organize information in terms of relationships. In addition,
the self or a close other. there are indications that men are more sensitive to information
Indeed, Josephs et al. (1992, Study 2) found that women with regarding social dominance or hierarchy (e.g., Maccoby, 1990;
 MODELS OF THE SELF 11

Sidanius Pratto, & Bobo, 1994), which suggests that these may relationships between self-esteem and prosocial and affiliation
be the dimensions used by individuals with an independent self- motives for women but not men. In an experience-sampling
construal to encode and organize information. study in which adolescents recorded their interactions and feel-
In summary, as we predicted based on independent and inter- ings at random intervals during the day, girls who valued affilia-
dependent models of the self, women tend to describe them- tion (and presumably had an interdependent self-construal) re-
selves in more relational terms than do men. They also think ported that they felt better about themselves when they were
more about others, pay closer attention to others and to relation- with others than did boys or girls who did not value affiliation
ships, and remember more about close others than do men. (Wong & Csikszentmihalyi, 1991).
We also predicted that divergent self-construals may produce Threats to self-esteem or self-evaluation should also depend
significant individual variation in other cognitive processes, such on the nature of the self-construal. For individuals with an inde-
as encoding and organization of information. When well-elabo- pendent self-construal, the loss of a sense of autonomy or inabil-
rated schemas for oneself and close others are knit together, both ity to express one's inner characteristics and attributes could
the content and the processes of thinking about the self and threaten self-esteem. In contrast, for individuals with an interde-
others may reflect the interdependent nature of the self- pendent self-construal, conflict in or damage to significant rela-
construal. tionships and roles could threaten self-esteem. For example, low
serf-esteem is related to stress in relationships for girls and
women (Moran&Eckenrode, 1991;Zuckerman, 1989). Women
Self-Related Motivations
also reported that their not being forgiven by a friend they had
In much contemporary psychology, the self is viewed as the hurt would have a greater effect on their self-esteem than did
motivator of many aspects of behavior. For example, 3-decades men (Hodgins, Liebeskind, & Schwartz, 1996). Josephs et al.
worth of research in Western cultures shows that the motive to (1992, Study 3) found that women with high self-esteem (who
enhance or promote oneself underlies much of human activity. were thought to have constructed an interdependent self-
William James (1890/1983) first described these motives as construal) engaged in compensatory bolstering (i.e., self-
"self-seeking" or "self-love"; almost 100 years later, enhancement after a threat) when they received negative feed-
Greenwald (1980) coined the term ' 'beneffectance'' to refer to back about their interpersonal abilities and sensitivity to others
the tendencies to view oneself and one's actions in a positive but not when they received negative feedback about indepen-
light and to seek after positive, self-enhancing feedback. In these dence-related attributes and abilities. In contrast, men with high
and most other formulations developed in Western cultures, the self-esteem (who were thought to have constructed an indepen-
basis of self-enhancement, self-esteem, or self-evaluation is the dent self-eonstrual) engaged in compensatory bolstering in the
demonstration of one's uniqueness and individuality. To stand opposite condition—when they received negative feedback
out, be better than most others on self-defining dimensions, and about independence-related attributes and abilities. Josephs et
maintain a positive successes to aspirations ratio (James, 1890/ al. concluded that women's self-esteem, at least in part, derives
1983) are in general seen as means to reinforce a positive view from their ability to maintain relationships with others, whereas
of the self and to bolster self-esteem (Blaine & Crocker, 1993; men's self-esteem, in part, derives from the ability to maintain
Harter, 1993; lesser, 1988). independence from others. When negative feedback threatens
This emphasis on individual uniqueness and autonomy as these central views of the self, individuals engage in compensa-
the basis of self-esteem is founded on the assumption of an tory bolstering to enhance self-esteem.
independent self-construal. For the person with an interdepen- In addition, women's feelings about themselves appear to be
dent self-construal, however, self-enhancement may be ap- quite responsive to the feedback of others (Schwalbe & Staples,
proached very differently. For these persons, positive feelings 1991). In several laboratory studies, Roberts and Nolen-Hoek-
about the self should in some part derive from the development sema (1989, 1994) found that women felt better about them-
and maintainence of close relationships and from participation selves when they received positive feedback from an evaluator
in the well-being of close others. Assuming, again, that men and worse when they received negative feedback. Men's self-
and women in U.S. culture fashion different self-construals in evaluations, however, showed little influence of others' evalua-
response to different cultural norms and values, we expect that tions. In fact, men tended to self-enhance even in the face of
the sources of self-esteem will vary between the genders. Conse- negative feedback, which may have been a defensive means to
quently, we hypothesize that men and women use different strate- protect important self-defining abilities from threat.
gies to maintain and enhance self-esteem or self-evaluation. In summary, self-esteem may have different origins, de-
pending on one's self-construal. However, this hypothesis is
challenged by Leary, Tambor, Terdal, and Downs (1995) who
Sources of Self-Esteem
posited that self-esteem reflects a person's perception of social
Although the bases or origins of self-esteem have only more inclusion or exclusion, regardless of gender or other individual
recently been explored, some researchers have reported gender differences. Their research shows that college students' self-
differences in the factors that predict a sense of self-worth. In esteem dropped when they were excluded (or believed they
one study of the predictors of self-esteem, a measure similar to would be excluded) from groups.3 We do not question that
interdependence predicts self-esteem 2 years later for women
but not men (Stein, Newcomb, & Bentler, 1992). In contrast,
3
a measure similar to independence predicts later self-esteem In fact, Leary et al.'s Study 3 reveals a stronger effect for women
for men but not women. Feather (1991) also found positive than men.
12 CROSS AND MADSON

there is a basic human need to belong that transcends individual Tobin-Richards, 1982; Ilardi & Bridges, 1988; Stipek & Gralin-
differences in the self (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). However, ski, 1991; see Lenney, 1977; and Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974, for
the role of belongingness in self-esteem may differ, depending reviews).
on one's self-construal. With regard to the interdependent self- These gender differences in self-promoting behaviors may
construal, the role of social inclusion in self-esteem maintenance be a consequence of differences in esteem-related motivations,
is fairly straightforward: To be a part of close relationships and which arise from different self-construals. If women tend to
belong to social groups enhances one's sense of relatedness and create an interdependent self-construal, then they may tend to
connectedness, which in turn enhances self-esteem. But how present their abilities and accomplishments modestly when the
does social inclusion or exclusion influence self-esteem for the possibility of hurting another's feelings exists. Indeed, Heath-
person with an independent self-construal? Perhaps relation- erington et al. (1993) found that women college students were
ships and group memberships serve a different function for more modest than men college students in a situation in which
the person with an independent self-construal. For example, they revealed their expected grade point average (GPA) to a
individuals with an independent self-construal may use relation- low-performing student. In anonymous or public situations with-
ships and membership in social groups as a source of social out explicit comparison with others, there were no gender differ-
comparison information. One's unique attributes and distin- ences in self-reported GPA. The motivational origins of this
guishing characteristics become apparent in the presence of oth- gender difference in modesty or self-aggrandizement are aptly
ers. In addition, some self-defining characteristics or attributes summarized by Goethals et al. (1991) in their description of
may best be demonstrated in social groups (e.g., leadership or gender differences in the false uniqueness bias. They suggested
a sense of humor). In other words, for the individual with an that
independent self-construal, membership in social groups can
women who perform well and perceive their peers as doing likewise
facilitate the expression and enhancement of individuating char-
feel good about themselves. In contrast,. . . the key to men's self-
acteristics, promoting a sense of uniqueness and individuality.
esteem is their perception that few of their peers perform desirable
behaviors. The less positively men view their peers, the higher their
Strategies for Self-Enhancement self-esteem, (pp. 170-171)

If the sources of self-esteem differ for individuals with inde- We propose that these gender differences in esteem-related moti-
pendent or interdependent self-construals, we expect that the vations and behaviors originate in divergent self-construals.
strategies or processes used to maintain or enhance self-esteem Individuals may also enhance the self by comparing them-
will also differ. Individuals with an independent self-construal selves with worse-off others (Festinger, 1954; Gibbons & Ger-
may maintain a positive view of themselves by attending to and rard, 1991; Wills, 1981; J. B. Wood & Taylor, 1991). Most
displaying those attributes that they believe are especially self- theories of social comparison assume that to perform better than
defining and by viewing themselves as generally superior to others has unmitigated positive consequences for individuals.
others on these attributes. In contrast, individuals with an inter- However, this effect may be moderated by the self-construal.
dependent self-construal may maintain a positive view of them- For individuals with an independent self-construal, to perform
selves by attending to the ways that they are similar to close better than others highlights their uniqueness and superiority to
others and by protecting the feelings of close others. others, resulting in enhanced self-appraisal and positive affect.
One way to enhance the self for individuals with an indepen- For individuals with an interdependent self-construal, to perform
dent self-construal is to exaggerate one's abilities or strengths better than others, particularly close others, may be a double-
so that one appears superior to others. In fact, boys are more edged sword. If the better performing individual is attuned to
likely to boast about their abilities than are girls (Maccoby & the thoughts and feelings of others, then he or she may recognize
Jacklin, 1974). In a classroom setting, Frey and Ruble (1987) that this comparison can create feelings of envy, anger, or shame
found that girls made fewer spontaneous self-congratulatory in those who have not performed as well (Brickman & Bulman,
comments than boys. Interviews with these students also show 1977). Consequently, the person with an interdependent self-
that, although self-congratulatory comments were positively as- construal may attempt to minimize or reduce comparisons on
sociated with good performance among boys, there was no rela- dimensions that may prove upsetting or threatening to the self-
tion between performance and positive statements about the self esteem of a close other. Similarly, when a close other performs
among girls. Instead, girls were more likely than boys to make well, the person with an interdependent self-construal can partic-
positive comments about other children's performance. ipate in the friend's feelings of success and pleasure. For these
This gender difference in the tendency to exaggerate one's individuals, positive self-evaluations and positive affect may be
abilities is also well documented in adults. For example, men influenced by both their reactions to their own performance and
are more likely than women to overestimate the degree to which an empathic experience of the reactions of close others.
their own characteristics or abilities are unique or unshared In light of these divergent self-construals, self-related motiva-
by others, a phenomenon termed the "false uniqueness bias" tional theories require re-examination. For example, lessor's
(Goethals et al., 1991; Josephs et al., 1992; see also Felson, (1988) theory of self-evaluation maintenance (SEM) hinges on
1981; Gabriel, Critelli, & Ee, 1994; Marks, 1984; and McFar- the assumption that to perform better than others results in
land & Miller, 1990). Other studies show that men tend to positive affect and self-evaluation, especially if the target of the
overestimate their abilities relative to objective performances, comparison is a close other and the domain of the comparison is
whereas women's estimates of their abilities tend to be more self-defining to the person engaged in the comparison. However,
realistic or modest (e.g., Beyer, 1990; Gitelson, Petersen, & when a close other outperforms the individual in a self-defining
 MODELS OF THE SELF 13

domain, SEM theory predicts that the person will compare his women who perceived their investments and outcomes in their
or her less than stellar performance to the other's success and relationship to be similar to their friends'. Buunk and Van-
will feel threatened as a result. Based on this model, positive Yperen speculated that women discuss relationship issues more
self-evaluation may be protected by the distancing of oneself often than men and that, as a result, women who see themselves
from others who are more capable in self-defining domains or as advantaged relative to their friends feel guilty. From the per-
by a reduction in the importance of the domain. However, the spective of independent versus interdependent self-construals,
former strategy—the distancing of oneself from others—may women feel better when social comparisons highlight their simi-
not be effective for individuals with an interdependent self- larity to close others. In this case, similarity may be a basis for
construal. Rather than reducing the threat caused by a person the maintainence of close relationships and for the forging of
being outperformed by a close other, this strategy may only strong, self-enhancing bonds of communality with close others.
compound the sense of threat and lowered self-evaluation by Men may be more likely to look for contrasts between them-
jeopardizing a close relationship. selves and similar others in social comparisons. As a result,
Given our assumptions about gender and self-construals, we men may feel better when these comparisons highlight their
expect SEM effects to be stronger with men than women. In- uniqueness or superiority on a dimension. (For discussion of
deed, several gender differences in these studies support this gender differences in equity and reward distributions, see
hypothesis (Tesser, 1988; Tesser &Paulhus, 1983). For example, Kahn & Gaeddert, 1985; Major & Adams, 1983; and Watts,
boys are more likely than girls to become friends with children Meese, & Vallacher, 1982.)
who perform more poorly than themselves on important tasks In summary, the sources of self-esteem and the strategies and
(Tesser, Campbell, & Smith, 1984). Similarly, boys are more processes used to enhance self-esteem or self-evaluation may
likely than girls to distance themselves from siblings who per- differ for individuals with different self-construals. If one de-
form better than themselves in school, athletics, or other activi- fines oneself in terms of uniqueness, autonomy, and differentia-
ties (Tesser, 1980). Concern for others' feelings is also evident tion from others (as in the independent self-construal), then
in college-aged women's predictions regarding the performance experiences that demonstrate one's superiority or "specialness''
of close others. Contrary to the SEM prediction that one should relative to others may be self-enhancing. For these individuals,
denigrate the performance of close others to enhance the self, contrasts with others that make the individuals look good are
women estimate that friends will perform better than themselves the basis for positive self-evaluation and self-esteem. However,
on tasks (Tesser, Pilkington, & Mclntosh, 1989). In fact, in these contrasts may threaten close relationships for individuals
research on the consequences of variation in the self-construal, with an interdependent self-construal and may be avoided. In-
individuals with an interdependent self-construal were less likely stead, these individuals may seek to maintain harmony in close
to denigrate a partner after a threat to their own self-esteem relationships or to verify their beliefs that they are caring, nurtur-
than were individuals with an independent self-construal ing, or relational to enhance their self-esteem.
(Bacon, 1996).
In addition, the SEM effect is at times moderated by self-
Affect
esteem in ways consistent with expected gender differences in
self-construals. Assuming that self-esteem is positively related Differences in emotional experiences are implicit in our de-
to independence in men and interdependence in women (Josephs scription of the role of the self-construal hi motivation. Affirma-
et al., 1992), we expect to find that downward comparisons are tion of one's distinctiveness and separateness may result in posi-
more likely to enhance self-evaluation and affect in men with tive emotions for individuals with an independent self-construal,
high self-esteem than women or men with low self-esteem. In whereas affirmation of one's self-defining relationships may
fact, Tesser and Moore (1990) found that the SEM effect was result in positive emotions for the person with an interdependent
evidenced only among men with high self-esteem and was re- self-construal. In other words, the self-construal mediates the
versed among men with low self-esteem (women were not in- emotional consequences of an individual's experiences.
cluded in this study). Conversely, we expect that women with However, the self potentially plays a much more pervasive role
high self-esteem will be less likely than women with low self- in emotion-related processes than merely to frame the person's
esteem to experience enhanced feelings of self-worth or self- interpretations of situations. The self-construal also frames
evaluation when comparing themselves to a worse-off friend. one's understanding of the implications of emotion. Emotions
Indeed, SEM effects were weaker in women with high self- are not solely responses to situations; their display may channel
esteem as compared with women with low self-esteem in studies social interactions, reveal one's thoughts and reactions, and pro-
reported by lesser and Campbell (1982) and lesser, Millar, and duce harmony or discord in relationships. Consequently, the
Moore (1988, Study 3)." expression of emotion may differ for individuals with different
Further evidence of gender differences in the effects of social self-construals as they pursue divergent goals in social
comparisons comes from research on equity in relationships. situations.
Married or cohabiting men who perceived themselves as better Because the self-construal influences the information that is
off than their peers in their relationship with their partner re- understood to be self-relevant or important, individuals with
ported higher levels of relational satisfaction than did men who different self-construals may also attend to different emotional
saw themselves as similar to their peers (Buunk & VanYperen,
1989; see also Rachlin, 1987). In contrast, married or cohabit-
4
ing women who perceived themselves as better off than their However, other studies by Tesser and colleagues show no moderating
friends experienced similar or lower levels of satisfaction than effect of self-esteem on SEM processes.
14 CROSS AND MADSON

cues. In particular, individuals with an interdependent self- when girls and boys discuss their beliefs about the bases of
construal may be especially sensitive to the social environment emotions, girls mention more interpersonal causes of emotions
and to the responses and experiences of self-defining others. In than do boys (Strayer, 1986). This understanding, when joined
contrast, individuals with an independent self-construal may be with the social forces discussed earlier that encourage girls to
especially tuned to their internal states, attitudes, and wishes. be relational, facilitates girls' development of an interdependent
For these individuals, personal experiences rather than the expe- self-construal. Having constructed an interdependent self-
riences or wishes of others may serve as the referent for emotion. construal, girls and women continue to develop skills and sensi-
In this section, we examine the impact of the self-construal tivities that enable them to foster and maintain close relation-
on the vicarious experience of negative and positive affect, the ships with others. Of course, the degree to which sensitivity
experience of "interpersonal" emotions, and the expression of to emotions is linked to an interdependent self-construal is an
emotion in general. We also explore the relation between the empirical question, but the framing of gender differences, such
self-construal and the perception of emotion cues. We begin by as these, in terms of the self can help generate testable hypothe-
examining the relation between the interdependent self-construal ses about the relation between these complementary processes.
and sensitivity to emotion.
Emotions and Relationship Events
Sensitivity to Emotion and Self-Construal Development This awareness of others' emotions may also influence the
Although we discussed the role of gendered experiences, emotions individuals with interdependent self-construals experi-
expectations, and interactions in the development of the self- ence themselves. In particular, persons with an interdependent
construal earlier, we return to this topic briefly to review evi- self-construal may vicariously experience the distress of close
dence specific to the socialization of emotion. We argue that an others in response to negative events. For example, negative life
interdependent self-construal and early socialization in sensitiv- events experienced by others within one's social network (e.g.,
ity to emotion go hand in hand. Children whose parents fre- family, friends, and neighbors) have a greater impact on women
quently discuss a range of emotions with them, particularly than on men (Kessler & McLeod, 1984). Girls' interpersonal
within the context of social interaction, may learn that recogni- orientation and involvement in problems of significant others
tion, management, and expression of emotions are important in also accounts for a significant proportion of the gender differ-
the development and maintenance of close, harmonious relation- ence in distress among adolescents (Gore, Aseltine, & Colten,
ships with others. For example, the unbridled expression of 1993).
anger may threaten an important relationship, whereas the skill- This sensitivity to relationship events may be one factor that
ful expression of guilt or remorse may help mend a fractured contributes to women's greater likelihood to experience unipolar
friendship. Furthermore, children's expertise with their emotions depression (Kenny, Moilanen, Lomax, & Brabeck, 1993;
may increase after they begin to develop an interdependent self- Moran & Eckenrode, 1991; Nolen-Hoeksema, 1987; see also
construal as emotional skills may be vital to the goals dictated Allgood-Merten, Lewinsohn, & Hops, 1990), particularly be-
by this self-structure. cause an individual has little or no control over network events.
Indeed, a growing body of research suggests girls are social- Research on learned helplessness shows a lack of control over
ized to be more attuned to emotions than are boys. For example, life events can lead to depression (e.g., Radloff, 1975, 1980;
parents discuss emotions more with their daughters than with Radloff & Monroe, 1978; Seligman, 1975).5 In addition, women
their sons (with the important exception of anger) and refer to tend to report experiencing negative affect more intensely than
and label emotions more often with their daughters than with do men (Fujita, Diener, & Sandvik, 1991), such as sadness
their sons (Dunn et al., 1987). Parents also tend to display a (Brody, 1993; Stapley & Haviland, 1989), fear, and nervousness
wider array of emotions to their daughters than to their sons (Brody, Hay, & Vandewater, 1990), perhaps because they vicari-
(e.g., Kuebli & Fivush, 1992; Malatesta, Culver, Tesman, & ously experience the negative life events of close others and
Shepard, 1989). Over time, children's emotional talk appears internalize the distress associated with relationship conflict
to match this pattern. Kuebli, Butler, and Fivush (1995) con- (e.g., Kessler & McLeod, 1984; Robbins & Tanck, 1991).
ducted a longitudinal study with mothers and their preschool Although women's sensitivity to the emotions of close others
children Ages 40, 58, and 70 months. As in previous research, may increase their vulnerability to depression, we want to stress
mothers tended to talk about emotions more and in greater vari- that a person with an interdependent self-construal may experi-
ety with their daughters than with their sons. More interesting, ence greater negative and positive affect. Individuals with an
although no gender differences were apparent at the beginning interdependent self-construal may vicariously experience both
of the study, by the end of the study girls talked about emotions positive and negative network events. In contrast, the razor-sharp
more and in greater variety than did boys (Kuebli et al., 1995). boundaries between the self and relationships with others for
We argue that this change occurs as girls internalize the emo- people with an independent self-construal may keep them com-
tional awareness their parents have emphasized, learning to paratively insulated from the effects of these network events.
value the role of emotions in relationships (e.g., Shields, 1995). As we would expect, women tend to experience both positive
In agreement with this reasoning. Shields argued that the inter-
personal nature of emotions appears more salient to girls (e.g.. 5
There are, of course, multiple theories that address gender differences
Belle, Burr, & Cooney, 1987; Trepanier-Street & Romatowski, in depression. We do not suggest that women's vicarious experiences
1986) and women (e.g., Brabeck & Weisgerber, 1988; of others' emotions is the best or only valid explanation of this
O'Leary & Smith, 1988) than to boys and men. Furthermore, phenomenon.
 MODELS OF THE SELF 15

and negative affect more intensely (J. G. Allen & Haccoun, inconveniencing others. For example, when students were led
1976; Diener, Sandvik, & Larsen, 1985; Fujita et al., 1991; to believe they had committed a gaffe (i.e., spilled soda into
TUrner, 1994; see also Brody, 1993; and W. Wood, Rhodes, & another student's backpack), women were more likely than men
Whelan, 1989) and perceive affiliation as more emotionally sa- to apologize repeatedly for their clumsiness (Gonzales, Peder-
lient than do men (Stapley & Haviland, 1989). son, Manning, & Wetter, 1990). Women were also more likely
Furthermore, because they strive to maintain harmonious, inti- to use statements of chagrin or regret (e.g., "I feel just terrible
mate connections with others, individuals with an interdependent about this!''), presumably because they experienced higher lev-
self-construal may experience greater distress in relationship els of guilt.
conflict than would individuals with an independent self- In summary, gender differences in the structure of the self-
construal. For example, women experience greater psychologi- construal may lead to gender differences in emotional experi-
cal distress than men as a result of negative changes in their ence. Because individuals with an interdependent self-construal
marital relationship (Barnett, Raudenbush, Brennan, Pleck, & are sensitive to the life events of others, they may experience
Marshall, 1995) and are more likely to talk about their relation- both the unpleasant impact of others' negative life events and
ships in an interview than are men (Acitelli, 1992). Women are the pleasure and satisfaction of sharing in the positive emotions
also more likely to mention interpersonal dilemmas, such as and outcomes of others. The quality and health of their relation-
family-related issues, when asked to describe personal problems ships with others may also influence the emotional experiences
(Pratt, Golding, Hunter, & Sampson, 1988; Walker, de Vries, & of individuals with an interdependent self-construal more than
Trevethan, 1987) and are more likely to mention interpersonal those of individuals with an independent self-construal. Individ-
problems as the cause of depressive feelings than are men (Rob- uals with an interdependent self-construal may be especially
bins & Tanck, 1991). Consistent with these attributions, social likely to experience guilt when they do not live up to their
stress is correlated with higher depression and lower self-esteem own standards of interpersonal sensitivity and concern for close
for women but not men (Moran & Eckenrode, 1991). others.
Guilt may be one component of the distress caused by rela-
tionship conflict because of its role in the development and
Emotional Expression
maintenance of close relationships. Specifically, it has been sug-
gested that guilt may promote affiliation (Brody & Hall, 1993), The expression of emotions is a key element of self-presenta-
prevent individuals from engaging in actions that might jeopar- tion in social situations. Because individuals with an indepen-
dize their relationships, and motivate people to minimize the dent self-construal base their self-esteem on their feelings of
interpersonal consequences of injurious behavior (Baumeister, separateness and autonomy, they may be reluctant to express
Reis, & Delespaul, 1995). Guilt may also be implicated in the emotions that indicate interdependence or that threaten their
maintenance of equity in relationships (Baumeister, Stillwell, & sense of self-reliance and autonomy from others (e.g., negative
Heatherton, 1994). For example, the most common causes of emotions such as sadness, fear, and helplessness). In fact, men
self-reported guilt experiences involve the neglect of a partner are less willing to disclose negative emotions, such as depres-
in a close relationship or the failure to live up to one's obliga- sion, anxiety, and fear, than are women (Snell, Miller, Belk,
tions to others (Baumeister, Reis, et al., 1995; Baumeister, Garcia-Falconi, & Hernandez-Sanchez, 1989). Boys also re-
Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1995). ported that they would be unlikely to disclose their sadness
Guilt appears to reinforce the communal norm of attention to others (Fuchs & Thelen, 1988; Zeman & Garber, 1996).
to others' needs (Baumeister, Stillwell, et al., 1995). Because Furthermore, men are less willing than women to express feel-
the fulfilling of relationship responsibilities and attention to ings about a same-gender friend or relationship (Hayes, 1984;
others' needs are normative tasks for individuals with an inter- Rands & Levinger, 1979) and tend to score lower than women
dependent self-construal, we expect them to be more prone on measures of interpersonal trust (Johnson-George & Swap,
to experience guilt than individuals with an independent self- 1982).
construal. In fact, research indicates that women are more prone In contrast, women may not hesitate to disclose their emotions
to experience guilt than are men (Stapley & Haviland, 1989; because to share one's feelings, particularly one's negative emo-
Tangney, 1990; see Baumeister et al., 1994, for a review) and tions, is a particularly effective means to foster intimacy in
that women are more likely than men to experience guilt as a relationships (with the exception of anger, which is discussed
result of violating norms of compassion and interpersonal trust in detail below; Clark & Reis, 1988; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974).
(C. Williams & Bybee, 1994). For example, women are more Compared with men, women reported greater confidence in ex-
likely than men to mention that lying results in guilt feelings pressing fear and sadness (Blier & Blier-Wilson, 1989) and
(Tangney, 1992). Similarly, women who tended to experience tended to share their emotions in general with a broader range
guilt reported an intense concern for others' opinions of them, of people (Rime, Mesquita, Phillipot, & Boca, 1992). Women
which, in turn, influenced their own feelings of self-worth (Fer- are particularly expressive nonverbally. In fact, women tend to
guson & Crowley, 1993). In contrast, men who were prone to be more accurate senders of nonverbal emotions than are men;
experience guilt focused on their own feelings, attitudes, and receivers can decode women's emotions more accurately than
beliefs rather than on how others viewed their behavior (Fergu- men's (Ambady, Hallahan, & Rosenthal, 1995; Buck, Baron, &
son & Crowley, 1993). Barrette, 1982; Buck, Baron, Goodman, & Shapiro, 1980; Hall,
Because of their emphasis on the well-being of others, indi- 1984, 1987; Wagner, Buck, & Winterbotham, 1993).
viduals with an interdependent self-construal are expected to Others have noted that many reported gender differences in
have a greater affective response to inadvertently hurting or emotionality are consistent with prescriptive gender stereotypes,
16 CROSS AND MADSON

which dictate the conditions under which it is acceptable and although girls reported feeling just as angry (Underwood,
unacceptable for men to appear emotional (LaFrance & Banaji, Coie, & Herbsman, 1992). Women asked to evaluate an angry
1992). This is not surprising, however, given that these stereo- incident judged the angry display as having greater relationship
types are often based on observed behavioral differences and personal cost than did men, regardless of the degree of prior
(McCauley, 1995; Swim, 1994). We argue that the "kernel of provocation or the gender of the target (M. A. Davis, LaRosa, &
truth" within the stereotypes (i.e., observed gender differences Foshee, 1992). Women also tend to experience greater conflict
in the expression of emotions) is a function of individual differ- regarding anger than do men, acknowledging that anger can be
ences in the structure of the self-construal. Thus, men may be effective but noting that it can also be distressing and harmful
more hesitant than women to express their emotions in certain to relationships (Egerton, 1988; Malatesta-Magai, Jonas, Shep-
situations, not simply because cultural stereotypes declare it ard, & Culver, 1992). In contrast, men tend to view anger as
inappropriate but primarily because sharing their feelings may independent of a social context, describing it as externally
jeopardize their sense of separateness and autonomy that is caused and uncontrollable (Egerton, 1988).
central to an independent self-construal. Different situations may provoke anger for individuals with
Important exceptions to women's greater experience and ex- an interdependent self-construal than for individuals with an
pression of emotions are anger and similar emotions, such as independent self-construal. For example, C. A. Smith and Laza-
contempt and disgust. In these cases, the gender differences rus (1993) argued that anger is the hostility felt toward others
apparent with respect to other emotions are eliminated or re- when they do not attend to one's needs, goals, desires, or abili-
versed in the favor of men (e.g., Janisse, Edguer, & Dyck, ties. Because persons with an interdependent self-construal are
1986). For example, several researchers found no gender differ- vigilant with respect to their obligations to others, they may
ences in either the frequency or intensity of anger reported by expect close others to reciprocate this level of care and concern,
college students or adults (e.g., D. M. Allen & Haccoun, 1976; becoming frustrated and angry when others do not live up to
Averill, 1983; Burrowes & Halberstadt, 1987; Stoner & Spencer, their expectations. In contrast, we expect individuals with an
1987). With respect to contempt, some researchers found that independent self-construal to be provoked by behaviors that
men reported experiencing more contempt than did women encroach on their autonomy, competence, and freedom.
(e.g., Stapley & Haviland, 1989), whereas other researchers In fact, the limited available research does suggest that gender
found no evidence for gender differences in the intensity of differences in anger-eliciting situations mirror the hypothesized
contempt experiences (e.g., Brody, 1993). More interesting, differences in women's and men's self-construals. For example,
Shields (1995) concluded that, when men are found to have women reported anger and upset when their male relationship
greater nonverbal decoding or encoding skill than women, it is partners behaved in an inconsiderate, neglectful, emotionally
generally specific to anger displays (e.g., Rotter & Rotter, 1988; restrictive, or condescending manner, whereas men reported
Wagner, MacDonald, & Manstead, 1986). anger and upset when their female relationship partners were
Again, this pattern appears to begin in early interactions with possessive and dependent (D. M. Buss, 1989, 1991). In another
parents. Although fathers use more emotion words to tell stories study, women were more likely than men to perceive insensitive
to their daughters than to their sons, they carefully avoid the or condescending behavior from either gender as anger pro-
word disgust with their daughters. Similarly, mothers avoid us- voking (Harris, 1993; see also Van Goozen, Frijda, Kindt, &
ing the term angry when telling a story to their daughters (Greif, Van de Poll, 1994). In an interesting parallel to women's experi-
Alvarez, & Ulman, 1981, cited in Brody & Hall, 1993). An ence of guilt as a result of their own dishonesty, women were
interesting pattern emerges in parents' behavior regarding their more likely to perceive dishonest behavior by other women as
sons' and daughters' experiences with anger and sadness. In anger provoking (Harris, 1993), presumably because they hold
recalling shared memories with their preschool-aged children, other women (who they may assume to have constructed rela-
mothers did not speak about anger with their daughters but spoke tional self-construals and to share their relationship values) to
more about sadness with their daughters than with their sons the same standards of interpersonal integrity to which they hold
(Fivush, 1989). Conversely, mothers spoke about anger more themselves. In contrast to men, women tend not to be angered
with their sons than with their daughters (Fivush, 1991). Just or provoked by assaults against their intellectual competence
as parents and college students tended to be more accepting of (Bettencourt & Miller, 1996; Van Goozen et al., 1994) but tend
boys' anger than girls' anger (Birnbaum & Croll, 1984; see to express disappointment or sadness instead.
also Fivush, 1991), school-aged girls expected their mothers to In summary, individuals with an interdependent self-construal
respond more positively to their expressions of sadness than to appear more willing to express their emotions than individuals
their expressions of anger, whereas school-aged boys expected with an independent self-construal, perhaps because sharing
their parents not to respond positively to their expressions of emotions can facilitate intimate relationships and may threaten
sadness (Fuchs & Thelen, 1988).' Mothers of preschool children the sense of separateness for which individuals with an indepen-
encouraged their daughters to resolve their anger toward close dent self-construal strive. This is not the case, however, with
others by re-establishing the damaged relationship more than expressions of anger. Persons with an interdependent self-
they encouraged their sons (Fivush, 1991).
When individuals with an interdependent self-construal be- 6
The proposed gender differences in the structure of the self-construal
come angry, they may be more hesitant to display their anger suggest that sadness may be encouraged for girls and women as a "safe"
than individuals with an independent self-construal because alternative to anger. Whereas anger has the power to destroy relation-
anger has the power to destroy relationships. Indeed, girls re- ships, expressions of sadness may protect and even foster close connec-
ported masking facial expressions of anger more than did boys, tions by the elicitation of sympathy or compassion from others.
 MODELS OF THE SELF 17

construal hesitate to behave angrily toward others, presumably individual's emotional experiences in a variety of ways. The
because anger can hurt or destroy relationships. interpersonal orieptation of persons with an interdependent self-
construal may make them particularly prone to vicariously expe-
rience the negative and positive affect of close others and to
Perception of Emotion Cues
experience guilt. Similarly, an emphasis on autonomy and sepa-
The differences between individuals with interdependent and rateness may make individuals with an independent self-
independent self-construals that we proposed suggest the in- construal hesitant to disclose many of their emotions to others.
triguing possibility that the structure of the self-construal may Persons with different self-construals may also use different
mediate not only the experience and expression of emotions but cues to identify their emotional states. In other words, the struc-
also the perception of emotions. If individuals with an interde- ture of the self-construal may influence the experience, expres-
pendent self-construal are more sensitive to situational cues, sion, and perception of emotions.
such as the emotions of close others, they may base their emo-
tions on the reactions and experiences of others more than indi-
Relationships
viduals with an independent self-construal.
In fact, gender differences consistent with this prediction are We have argued that differences in the nature and structure
evident in work by Pennebaker and colleagues (see Penne- of the self-construal result in divergent premises about the self
baker & Roberts, 1992, for a review). For example, when parti- and others and the relation between the two: Individuals with
cipants were asked to judge if an auditory or visual signal was an interdependent self-construal seek to maintain a sense of
beeping-flashing in synch with their own heartbeat or blood relatedness and connectedness with close others, whereas indi-
pressure in the absence of external cues, men were more accu- viduals with an independent self-construal seek to maintain a
rate in detecting these physiological processes than were sense of autonomy, uniqueness, and individuality. As a result,
women. Women's accuracy at this task, however, seemed linked differences in self-construals occasion different orientations to-
to the availability of situational cues, such as the presence of ward relationships with others.
others; when both physiological cues and situational cues were For example, the same behavior may have very different im-
available, women and men were equally accurate (Pennebaker & plications for individuals with different self-construals. Whereas
Watson, 1988; Roberts & Pennebaker, 1995). Men's self-reports individuals with an interdependent self-construal may develop
of physiological indices also tended to covary with physiological skills and behaviors that facilitate the development of close
changes to a greater degree than did women's reports (Rob- relationships with others, individuals with an independent self-
erts & Pennebaker, 1995). For example, men's reports of blood construal may perceive the intimacy created by these behaviors
pressure-related symptoms were more consistent with their ac- as a threat to their sense of autonomy. Similarly, individuals
tual changes in blood pressure than were women's (Pennebaker, with interdependent and independent self-construals may differ
Gonder-Frederick, Stewart, Elfman & Skelton, 1982). Roberts in their perceptions of behaviors that jeopardize or destroy rela-
and Pennebaker concluded that women appear to rely on exter- tionships with others. In the following sections, we examine
nal, situational cues to understand their internal states, whereas the impact of divergent self-construals on several relationship-
men appear to rely on internal, physiological cues. relevant behaviors and skills. Specifically, we review evidence of
In response to these gender differences in the use of internal gender differences in self-disclosure, nonverbal communication,
and external emotion cues, Pennebaker and Roberts (1992) ar- and aggression.
gued that it may be necessary to have two theories, one for
women and one for men, to fully describe the strategies humans
Intimate Relationships and Self-Disclosure
use to perceive emotions. In contrast, we speculate that these
gender differences may be a function of the structure of the self- Considering the importance of intimate relationships to indi-
construal rather than a function of gender per se. Because men viduals with an interdependent self-construal, we expect women
tend to construct an independent self-construal, their perception to have more intimate relationships than men. However, the
of emotions may be based largely on internal, physiological data on gender differences in intimacy are actually quite mixed.
cues, such as heart rate and blood pressure; because women tend Although some studies show support for the greater intimacy
to construct an interdependent self-construal, their perception of of women's relationships, particularly in a comparison of wom-
emotions may be based largely on external, situational cues, en's and men's same-gender relationships (Claes, 1992; Clark &
such as the thoughts and emotions of close others (Pennebaker & Reis, 1988; Dindia & Allen, 1992; Hunter & Youniss, 1982;
Roberts, 1992). Of course, this line of reasoning is purely specu- Lempers & Clark-Lempers, 1993; Maccoby, 1990; Reis, 1986;
lative, and it is premature to draw definitive conclusions about Reis, Senchak, & Solomon, 1985; Reisman, 1990; Wheeler,
the role of the self-construal in the perception of emotions. Reis, & Nezlek, 1983), other studies indicate either no gender
However, this analysis does pose a provocative, testable hypothe- differences or greater intimacy of men's relationships (see re-
sis and illustrates the explanatory power of self-construal theory. views by Clark & Reis, 1988; and Hill & Stull, 1987). In
To view gender differences, such as those articulated by Penne- their review, Clark and Reis suggested that a moderator-variable
baker and colleagues, in terms of the self-construal may poten- approach is necessary to resolve these inconsistencies regarding
tially unite many seemingly unrelated findings under one theory, men's and women's intimacy. We argue that many of these
thus facilitating a deeper understanding of the complexity of apparent contradictions can be resolved by a consideration of
human behavior. individual differences in the structure of women's and men's
In summary, the structure of the self-construal affects an self-construals.
18 CROSS AND MADSON

The relation between an interdependent self-construal and "studies that examine intimacy motivation or interest in intimate
intimacy is relatively straightforward. For individuals with an friendship tend to show few sex differences" (p. 636).
interdependent self-construal, close friendships enrich their These findings may seem to fly in the face of our assumptions
sense of self and are necessary for the maintenance of their self- about gender differences in self-construals. Should not men de-
esteem. As such, we expect women to be particularly motivated sire intimate relationships less than women, given the individual-
to develop and maintain intimate relationships with others. The istic focus of the independent self-construal? Perhaps not, partic-
relation between intimacy and an independent self-construal is ularly if intimate is redefined by men to be less threatening to
more complex. Because interdependence is often considered an their pursuit of independence and autonomy. For example, they
integral aspect of close relationships (i.e., where one's behavior may define intimacy in terms of shared activities rather than
is causally determined by the behavior of another; Kelley et al., shared emotional experiences (see also Caldwell & Peplau,
1983), the interdependent nature of close relationships may 1982). These types of close relationships may then primarily
constitute a significant threat to the self-esteem of individuals involve descriptive self-disclosure relevant to the mutual activity.
with an independent self-construal (cf. Josephs et al., 1992). These relatively less emotional interactions may allow individu-
Individuals with an independent self-construal may address als with an independent self-construal to engage in meaningful
this threat by avoiding behaviors that foster intimacy. Specifi- discourse without threatening their sense of autonomy.
cally, they may hesitate to share their feelings and thoughts with In fact, men and women differed in the types of activities they
others. Morton (1978) referred to this type of emotional sharing reported doing with intimate, same-gender friends (Caldwell &
as "evaluative11 self-disclosure, in contrast to "descriptive" Peplau, 1982). Whereas women are more likely to focus on
self-disclosure where one merely shares facts about oneself. talking about personal topics, such as their feelings, relation-
Although all forms of communication play a role in the develop- ships, and problems, men are more likely to engage in or talk
ment of relationships, evaluative self-disclosure is particularly about shared activities or less personal topics, such as sports
central in the development and maintenance of intimate relation- and politics (Aries & Johnson, 1983; Caldwell & Peplau, 1982;
ships. Reis (1990) argued that when one person shares person- Davidson & Duberman, 1982; Fox, Gibbs, & Auerbach, 1985;
ally revealing feelings or information with another, it is the Johnson & Aries, 1983). Women also reported that similarity
beginning of the intimacy process (see also Clark & Reis, 1988; in attitudes and values is an important prerequisite to friendship,
Collins & Miller, 1994; and Reis & Shaver, 1988). Similarly, whereas men reported that similarity in interests and activity
preferences is important (Hill & Stall, 1981; Wright & Craw-
Altman and Taylor's (1973) theory of social penetration pro-
ford, 1971; see also Winstead, 1986). In other words, men
poses that the development of a relationship is closely tied to
reported their same-gender interactions to be more intimate than
changes in communication, with closer, more rewarding relation-
did women; but, when compared with more traditional criteria
ships characterized by more extensive and intimate self-disclo-
of intimacy, men's relationships appeared significantly less inti-
sure. Thus, avoidance of evaluative self-disclosure may be an
mate than did women's relationships.7
effective means by which individuals with an independent self-
By viewing gender differences in terms of individual differ-
construal can avert the self-esteem threat posed by close, inter-
ences in the self-construal, we can also make predictions regard-
dependent relationships.
ing situations where differences between men and women are
Indeed, a considerable body of evidence suggests that men's
most likely to occur. For example, we would expect men to be
disclosures tend to be of a less evaluative or emotional nature
particularly unwilling to engage in intimate self-disclosure with
than are women's disclosures, especially when there is an ex-
others who share their emphasis on separateness and uniqueness.
isting relationship between the one disclosing and the target
Men who derive their self-esteem from feeling and appearing
(Dindia & Allen, 1992; see also Kraft & Vraa, 1975; Papini,
autonomous from others may be particularly conscious of look-
Farmer, Clark, Micka, & Barnett, 1990; Rubin, Hill, Peplau, &
ing self-sufficient and independent in the presence of other men
Dunkel-Schetter, 1980; Snell, Miller, & Belk, 1988). In particu-
who are familiar with the "rules" of behavior dictated by an
lar, men are relatively less willing to disclose their negative
independent self-construal. Thus, pressures to compete and the
emotions, such as depression, sadness, anxiety, anger, and fear, fear of making oneself vulnerable by revealing personal infor-
than are women (Fuchs & Thelen, 1988; Rubin et al., 1980; mation should be greater in men's same-gender interactions than
Snell et al., 1988). Avoidance of evaluative self-disclosure may their cross-gender interactions (see R. A. Lewis, 1978). Conse-
allow men to protect or enhance their sense of autonomy and quently, the appearance of even slight interdependence (e.g.,
separateness because "if men do not disclose personal informa- engagement in emotional self-disclosure) may result in a loss
tion, other people cannot understand, predict, or control their of social status or respect among individuals with an independent
behavior" (Derlega, Durham, Gockel, & Sholis, 1981, p. 445). self-construal.
This is not to suggest that individuals with an independent In contrast, intimacy should be less threatening (and possibly
self-construal do not need or desire intimate relationships. For
example, both men and women reported being interested in and
7
Ironically, men's definition of intimacy may account for reports
motivated to have intimate same-gender friendships, although—
suggesting that male college students are more lonely than female college
as expected, given the proposed gender differences in the self-
students (e.g., Schmidt & Sermat. 1983; Schultt & Moore, 1986; see
construal—more women than men (82 vs. 73%) expressed this
Hendrick, 1988, for a review), particularly in their relationships with
preference (Caldwell & Peplau, 1982). Clark and Reis (1988) friends (Sdimitt & Kurdek, 1985). Schmitt and Kurdek concluded that
concluded that, whereas examinations of current and past inter- male college students may experience loneliness as an absence of mean-
actions tend to reveal greater observed intimacy among women, ing or closeness in their relationships.
 MODELS OF THE SELF 19

reinforced) in the presence of others who have an interdependent adept with respect to nonverbal communication skills, particu-
self-construal. Furthermore, these individuals may also be more larly the expression and decoding of nonverbal cues.
skilled in eliciting self-disclosure from others than are individu- Expressiveness. Traditionally, such nonverbal behaviors as
als with an independent self-construal. Thus, we expect persons gazing, maintaining physical closeness, and touching have been
with an independent self-construal to develop close, emotional viewed primarily as a measure of one's involvement in an inter-
relationships primarily with persons having an interdependent action or relationship (see Brody & Hall, 1993). Such behaviors
self-construal. Indeed, interactions that involve women (both as smiling and maintaining eye contact indicate an interest in
men's interactions with women and women's interactions with and a concern for others that is at the heart of relatedness. Clark
each other) tend to be more meaningful, more intimate, involve and Reis (1988) argued that, because nonverbal channels are
more disclosure, and are more pleasant and satisfying than are prominent in emotional expression (Ekman, 1993; Ekman &
men's interactions with each other (Derlega, Winstead, Wong, & Friesen, 1984; Izard, 1991), they may also be an important
Hunter, 1985; Moskowitz, Suh, & Desaulniers, 1994; Reis, component of evaluative self-disclosure. Thus, nonverbal ex-
1986; Sapadin, 1988). For example, men tend to ignore the pressiveness can facilitate the development of intimacy, both in
affective qualities of their same-gender relationships, whereas the sharing of one's emotional experiences (Clark & Reis, 1988)
they emphasize the affective nature of their relationships with and the elicitation of reciprocal intimacy and expressiveness
women (Bukowski, Nappi, & Hoza, 1987; see also Reis, 1986). from others (DePaulo, 1992). As such, we expect individuals
Men also engage in more intimate self-disclosure with female with an interdependent self-construal to be more nonverbally
partners than male partners (Derlega et al., 1985), perhaps be- expressive than are individuals with an independent self-
cause women elicit more self-disclosure from acquaintances of construal. For example, women smile more than men, particu-
either gender (Shaffer, Pegalis, & Bazzini, 1996; see also L. C. larly when discussing happy topics (Halberstadt, Hayes, & Pike,
Miller, Berg, & Archer, 1983, Experiment 1). In addition, men 1988), and tend to reflect their emotional reactions in their faces
tend to derive greater intimacy and closeness from relationships more clearly than do men (Buck, 1984; Buck, Miller, & Caul,
with women than relationships with men (J. Fischer & Narus, 1974). Women also gaze more, receive more gazes, display
1981; Rose, 1985; D. G. Williams, 1985; see also Schmitt & greater facial expressiveness, and use more expressive hand ges-
Kurdek, 1985). tures; approach and are approached by others more closely; and
Men's willingness to engage in evaluative self-disclosure with display greater involvement, expressiveness, and self-conscious-
women may also serve an instrumental purpose. Derlega et al. ness in their body movements and positions than do men (Hall,
(1985) suggested that men engage in more intimate self-disclo- 1984; Ickes et al., 1988; see also Buck et al., 1980, 1982). In
sure than do women during initial opposite-gender encounters reference to women's nonverbal expressiveness, DePaulo
to initiate and pace the relationship (J. D. Davis, 1978; Stokes, (1992) asserted that, "if women were purposefully trying to
Childs, & Fuehrer, 1981). Their findings suggest that men may convey the impression of being sociable, likable, and interested
use intimate self-disclosure as a tool to elicit intimate self- in the other person, they could hardly do better than this"
disclosure from an attractive woman (see L. C. Miller & Read, (p. 223).
1987, for a discussion of goal-directed self-disclosure). Consis- Decoding accuracy. Nonverbal decoding skills enable indi-
tent with this reasoning, men's self-disclosure to a female part- viduals to sense the emotions and thoughts of others. Such cues
ner was related to their liking of their partner and to perceptions as facial expressions, vocal inflections, and body position can
of their partner's liking of them. These dimensions were unre- often communicate another's feelings just as well as words. In
lated to men's self-disclosures to male partners or women's self- fact, nonverbal channels are often notoriously "leaky," in that
disclosures to opposite-gender partners (Derlega et al., 1985; it is more difficult for a sender to control the content of nonverbal
see also Sattel, 1976). channels than of verbal channels. In other words, individuals
In summary, individuals with an independent self-construal may carefully compose the content of their speech to project a
must manage their relationships very differently than do individ- particular image, only to have their nonverbal behaviors betray
uals with an interdependent self-construal. Although both their true feelings or opinions. Thus, emotions that one would
groups want close relationships, individuals with an independent like to conceal can leak through carefully monitored verbal
self-construal must reconcile this desire with their need to pro- communications by way of nonverbal behaviors (Hall, 1984).
tect their sense of autonomy and separateness. They may resolve Given that individuals with an interdependent self-construal
this conflict by seeking intimacy primarily with persons who strive to be sensitive to the needs and feelings of others, it may
have constructed an interdependent self-construal or, perhaps, by be as important to attend to how others act and speak as to
redefining intimacy as a function of descriptive self-disclosure. what they actually say. In addition, because persons with an
interdependent self-construal appear to discern their own emo-
tions in part by observing the emotions of others (e.g., Penne-
Nonverbal Communication
baker & Roberts, 1992), the ability to sense the feelings of
Nonverbal communication skills also significantly contribute others may assist them with identifying the nature of their own
to the formation and maintenance of close relationships. Nonver- emotional experiences. In short, we expect individuals with an
bal expression of emotions and involvement facilitate the devel- interdependent self-construal to be more accurate in decoding
opment of intimacy; nonverbal decoding skills enable an individ- nonverbal cues than are individuals with an independent self-
ual to sense the feelings and thoughts of others. Because these construal.
are two of the central goals of individuals with an interdependent In fact, Hall's (1984) meta-analytic review of gender differ-
self-construal, we expect these individuals to be particularly ences in nonverbal sensitivity reveals that women are clearly
20 CROSS AND MADSON

superior at accurately decoding nonverbal cues (see also Am- Miller, 1989). Whereas some work focuses on affective reac-
bady et al., 1995; Hall, 1978; Rosenthal & DePaulo, 1979) — tions to the emotions of another (e.g., Batson, 1991; Eisen-
a difference which is evident in children as young as 3 years berg & Strayer, 1987; M. L. Hoffman, 1984; Stotland, 1969),
old (Boyatzis, Chazan, & Ting, 1993). Furthermore, this differ- other research focuses on the cognitive task of the adoption of
ence in men's and women's decoding skills is at least as large another's perspective (e.g., Ickes et al., 1986; Ickes, Stinson,
as gender differences demonstrated in other areas (see Hyde, Bissonette, & Garcia, 1990; Ickes et al., 1988). M. H. Davis
1990). For example, the effect size for gender differences in argued that the distinction can be clarified in terms of process
nonverbal decoding skill (d = —.42; Hall, 1984) is comparable and outcome; to adopt another's cognitive perspective is a pro-
with the effect size for gender differences obtained in meta- cess, whereas the emotional response of the observer is an out-
analytic studies of mathematics performance (d - .20; Hyde, come that results from this and other processes. For example,
Fennema, & Lamon, 1990; see also Feingold, 1988), spatial the ability to accurately decode nonverbal channels is a cognitive
perception (d = .44; Linn & Petersen, 1985), and aggression process that may facilitate affective responses to another's emo-
(d - .29; Eagly & Steffen, 1986). Women may also apply their tions (Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983). Thus, we would expect
nonverbal decoding skills in their relationships more frequently individuals with an interdependent self-construal to be more
than do men. Davidson and Duberman (1982) reported that empathic than individuals with an independent self-construal
82% of the women in their sample said they often understood (for the purposes of this review, empathy is used to refer to
a friend by reading their nonverbal signals, whereas only 28% affective responses to the emotions of others; see also Jordan,
of the men did. More interesting, women are also more accurate Kaplan, Miller, Stivey, & Surrey, 1991; and Jordan & Surrey,
than men in evaluating others' personalities (Ambady et al., 1986). Although women appear superior at decoding nonverbal
1995; Bernieri, Zuckerman, Koestner, & Rosenthal, 1994), pre- cues, the data regarding gender differences in affective re-
sumably due to their sensitivity to affect-laden nonverbal sponding are quite mixed (Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983; M. L.
channels. Hoffman, 1977; Lennon & Eisenberg, 1987). Specifically, large
This is not to suggest that individuals with an independent differences that favor women are evident when self-report mea-
self-construal are completely oblivious to others' nonverbal be- sures of empathy are used, whereas data collected using more
haviors. Rather, we would expect them to attend to different objective measures, such as physiological or unobtrusive obser-
types of nonverbal cues than do individuals with an interdepen- vations of empathy, suggest that women and men are equally
dent self-construal. For example, one function of nonverbal be- empathic (Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983). For example, Eisenberg
haviors is the exertion of social control over others. Such behav- et al. (1989) presented men and women with stimuli designed
iors as a gaze, touch, facial expression, or distance can be used to elicit sympathy and personal distress. In response to these
to accomplish a number of interpersonal goals, including persua- stimuli, women self-reported experiencing more sympathy and
sive communication, deception, and the exercise of power and personal distress than did men and exhibited more negative
dominance over others (Patterson, 1988). Whereas an interde- facial reactions consistent with sympathy, sadness, and distress.
pendent self-construal may motivate individuals to attend to non- However, Eisenberg et al. did not find physiological evidence
verbal cues related to their relationships with others, an indepen- of a gender difference in vicarious emotions.
dent self-construal and the associated tendency to perceive the Taken at face value, these findings suggest that gender differ-
world in a competitive, hierarchical fashion (Maccoby, 1990) ences in self-reported empathy may be largely due to the influ-
may motivate individuals to be sensitive to dominance-submis- ence of gender stereotypes. However, the lack of gender differ-
sion cues. In initial support for this hypothesis, Haviland and ences may be a consequence of the examination of empathic
Malatesta (1981) found that male undergraduate students were responses between unacquainted individuals. Virtually all of
perceptually vigilant for anger displays (presumably a cue to the studies reviewed in Eisenberg and Lennon's (1983) meta-
potential threats to their position in the social hierarchy), analysis of studies of empathy used a picture and story format
whereas female undergraduate students were more vigilant for or a videotaped presentation of a target person. Very few investi-
expressions of distress. gators have examined the display of empathy in vivo or with a
Although it would be premature to conclude definitively that familiar target. We expect persons with an interdependent self-
individual differences in the structure of the self-construal cause construal to be more empathic than persons with an independent
differential sensitivity to various types of nonverbal cues, by self-construal, primarily in situations with close others. Thus,
considering the self-construal we can ask provocative empirical Eisenberg and Lennon's conclusions of few gender differences
questions that may help us better understand the subtleties of in empathy may be largely a function of the methodologies used
human behavior. For example, if women and men attend to in the research.
different types of stimuli, then these findings of women's greater The structure of the self-construal may also affect the way
sensitivity to nonverbal cues may be due, in part, to a method- individuals use empathy-related processes, such as cognitive
ological artifact. If measures of nonverbal decoding sensitivity perspective taking, within relationships. Individuals with an in-
tap cues relevant to emotional involvement in relationships (e.g., terdependent self-construal may view perspective taking as a
smiling, gazing, physical proximity to others) to the exclusion means to encourage connections with and to understand signifi-
of dominance-related cues, then these instruments may overlook cant others. In contrast, individuals with an independent self-
men's decoding ability. construal may use perspective taking to control an interaction
Empathy and perspective taking. Historically, research on by predicting the likely responses of others. For example, Ickes
empathy involves some confusion as to the precise meaning of et al. (1986) concluded that women's tendency to take the per-
the term (M. H. Davis, 1994; Eisenberg, Fabes, Schaller, & spective of their partner was automatic and spontaneous, moti-
 MODELS OF THE SELF 21

vated by the '' satisfaction of sharing thoughts and feelings" (p. deed, girls and women tend to engage in direct aggression less
79) with others. Men, in contrast, adopted the perspective of than do boys and men, particularly aggressive acts that produce
their partner infrequently and for primarily instrumental reasons physical injury (see meta-analytic reviews by Bettencourt &
(e.g., to achieve better expressive control). Furthermore, men Miller, 1996; Eagly & Steffen, 1986; Hyde, 1984; and Knight,
reported a greater percentage of metaperspective thoughts and Fabes, & Higgins, 1996; see also Harris, 1992; and Maccoby &
feelings with a physically attractive female partner than a less Jacklin, 1974).8
attractive partner (Garcia, Stinson, Ickes, Bissonnette, & Briggs, Individuals with an interdependent self-construal may be less
1991), suggesting that men may use perspective taking much likely to engage in direct physical aggression because they antic-
like they use evaluative self-disclosure—as a tool to direct and ipate different consequences of the aggression than do individu-
pace the development of a relationship (Derlega et al., 1985). als with an independent self-construal (e.g., Eagly & Steffen,
In summary, individuals with an interdependent self-construal 1986). Consistent with their overall level of concern for others,
may have more to gain from verbal and nonverbal communica- individuals with an interdependent self-construal may attend
tion skills than do individuals with an independent self- more to the suffering of the target of aggression and be more
construal. Greater nonverbal expressiveness enriches an inter- affected by others' perceptions of the behavior than are individu-
dependent sense of self by facilitating the development of close als with an independent self-construal. For example, girls tend
relationships. In addition, nonverbal decoding skills allow indi- to be more concerned man boys about potential harm to the
viduals with an interdependent self-construal to sense and antici- target of aggression, whereas boys are more concerned with
pate the feelings of close others. Self-disclosure, expressiveness, controlling the target than are girls (Boldizar, Perry, & Perry,
decoding accuracy, and perspective taking may be the ' 'needle 1989; see also Perry, Perry, & Rasmussen, 1986). Boys are also
and thread" used to stitch together warm and supportive more likely to be rewarded by their peers for aggressive behavior
relationships. (Fagot & Hagan, 1985; Harris, 1992), whereas girls expect to
experience greater peer rejection and self-censure. Similarly,
Aggression women are more likely than men to perceive negative interper-
sonal consequences as the worst outcome of aggressive behavior
Individuals with different self-construals may differ in their (Harris, 1992).
evaluation or use of behaviors that threaten existing relation- Women also reported experiencing more anxiety or guilt as a
ships. Because the loss of a relationship may be perceived by result of (physical) aggression against another person (Eagly &
individuals with an interdependent self-construal "as something Steffen, 1986; see also Boldizar et al., 1989; Frodi, Macaulay, &
closer to a total loss of self" (J. B. Miller, 1986, p. 83), they Thome, 1977; Harris, 1994; Perry et al., 1986; and Perry,
may be less willing than individuals with an independent self- Perry, & Weiss, 1989). More interesting, these differences in
construal to engage in behaviors, such as aggression, that can estimated harm and anticipated guilt or anxiety are significant
jeopardize their relationships. predictors of gender differences in aggression, particularly when
Traditionally, aggression has been described as either physical the experimental task did not require aggressive behavior
or verbal. In general, studies demonstrate that boys and men are (Eagly & Steffen, 1986). Indeed, Perry et al. (1989) noted that
more aggressive than girls and women (see the meta-analyses gender differences in aggressive behavior tend to decrease in
by Eagly & Steffen, 1986; and Hyde, 1984). Rather than inter- situations where women are less likely to anticipate guilt, such
pret these findings as evidence of girls' and women's lack of as when the responsibility for aggression can be attributed to
aggressiveness, Crick and Grotpeter (1995) argued that the other people.
forms of aggression assessed in the research (e.g., physical Just as individuals with interdependent and independent self-
aggression) are more salient for men and boys than women and construals expect different consequences of physical aggression,
girls. More recently, another distinction may better characterize they may also differ in their representations of aggression. Spe-
the differences between male and female aggression (Bjork- cifically, individuals with an interdependent self-construal may
qvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992; Lagerspetz, Bjork- perceive direct, physical aggression as a failure to maintain
qvist, & Peltonen, 1988).. Specifically, aggressive behavior can control over their own emotions, needs, and desires in deference
be characterized as direct or indirect aggression. Direct aggres- to the needs and desires of others. In contrast, individuals with
sion is distinguished from indirect aggression by the nature of an independent self-construal may perceive direct aggression as
the aggressor's harmful intentions. In indirect aggression, "the a means to re-establish their position in the social hierarchy.
perpetrator attempts to inflict pain in such a manner that he or Indeed, preliminary evidence suggests women tend to view
she makes it seem as though there has been no intention to hurt physical aggression as a loss of self-control and a failure to
at all" (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, etal., 1992, p. 118). In contrast, adhere to personal standards of behavior (e.g., subduing their
the perpetrator of direct aggression does not attempt to conceal
his or her overt hurtful intentions. Both direct and indirect ag-
8
In more recent meta-analyses, researchers have noted that gender
gression can be manifested in physical or verbal assault. For
differences in aggression vary with a number of factors, including mea-
example, direct aggression can involve strikes or shouts at an-
surement technique (Hyde, 1984), type of aggression, gender of target
other person. Similarly, indirect aggression may also be either
(Eagly & Steffen, 1986), provocation, and perceived danger from retali-
verbal (start a rumor) or physical (set fire to a neighbor's home; ation (Bettencourt & Miller, 1996). However, a re-analysis of Hyde's
A.M. Buss, 1961). meta-analysis tentatively concludes gender differences in aggression ap-
Direct aggression. We expect individuals with an interde- pear to be stable over time and may, contrary to earlier findings (Hyde,
pendent self-construal to shy away from direct aggression. In- 1984), actually increase with age (Knight et al., 1996).
22 CROSS AND MADSON

own needs and desires to attend to the needs and desires of tend to form tighter social networks than do boys (Bjorkqvist,
others). In contrast, men view physical aggression as a means Lagerspetz, et al., 1992; Lagerspetz et al., 1988) and are more
of control over others who have challenged their self-esteem or accurate than boys at classifying others as to their friendship
public integrity (A. Campbell & Muncer, 1987; A. Campbell, patterns (Lagerspetz et al., 1988). In adults, men demonstrate
Muncer, & Coyle, 1992). This interpretation is speculative, of some tendency to use covert forms of aggression, whereas
course, until additional data on gender differences in the repre- women continue to use more indirect strategies than do men
sentation of physical aggression become available. However, to (Bjorkqvist et al., 1994). For example, women use social ma-
frame findings such as these in terms of the self can illustrate nipulation strategies, such as spreading rumors and excluding
the heuristic power of self-construal theory. others, more than do men (Bjorkqvist, Osterman, & Kaukiainen,
Indirect aggression. Given that direct aggression can 1992).
threaten relationships and produce guilt and anxiety, individuals In summary, the structure of the self-construal determines the
with an interdependent self-construal may prefer more subtle or way in which individuals approach and manage their relation-
covert forms of aggression. Specifically, they may shy away ships with others. Whereas close, intimate relationships are con-
from direct aggression in favor of indirect aggression, which sistent with the goals of individuals having an interdependent
can include behaviors such as backbiting, revealing another's self-construal, this kind of connectedness may threaten the au-
secrets to a third party, or excluding an individual from a desired tonomy and separateness of individuals with an independent
group (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, et al., 1992; Bjorkqvist, Oster- self-construal. Consequently, persons with an independent self-
man, & Kaukiainen, 1992; Lagerspetz et al., 1988). To induce construal may define intimacy differently than do persons with
others to feel guilty may also be an indirect means of aggression an interdependent self-construal, such that they can have inti-
against close others (Vangelisti, Daly, & Rudnick, 1991). These mate relationships without jeopardizing their sense of indepen-
indirect techniques are similar to Crick and Grotpeter's (1995) dence and individuality. These different orientations are also
discussion of relational aggression, where the primary goal is evident in behaviors that affect the development and preservation
to harm another person's relationships with his or her peers. of relationships. For example, individuals with an interdepen-
Indirect or relational aggression is particularly well suited to dent self-construal are particularly adept at abilities that facili-
the needs and goals of individuals with an interdependent self- tate the development of intimate relationships with others, such
construal because it can protect existing relationships from the as nonverbal expressiveness and decoding. They may also prefer
target's feelings of resentment, of revenge, or both. The subtlety indirect aggression strategies over more direct types of aggres-
of indirect aggression also makes it far easier than direct aggres- sion because these covert techniques allow them to release ag-
sion to rationalize as legitimate behavior. Furthermore, individu- gressive feelings with less threat to their existing relationships.
als with an interdependent self-construal possess the tight social
networks necessary to use circuitous aggressive techniques
Discussion
(Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, et al., 1992; Lagerspetz et al., 1988).
For example, without these intimate interconnections, strategies We began this review with the assumptions that the self is a
such as to reveal someone's secrets to another or to exclude social product and that, until more recently, significant variation
someone from a group would either be impossible (i.e., without in the structure of the self has been overlooked by psychologists.
intimacy, an individual would not be privy to the private details We also assumed that men and women in the United States
of another's life) or ineffective (i.e., if the target is not connected develop different self-construals. Women tend to develop an
to the group or a sense of connectedness is not important to the interdependent self-construal, whereas men tend to develop an
target's self-concept, then to be excluded will not have an aver- independent self-construal. We then reviewed empirical evi-
sive effect on them; Baumeister, Stillwell, et al., 1995). These dence for these differences in self-construals, which account for
indirect techniques may also enhance one's social network by the many observed gender differences in cognition, motivation,
fostering relationships with third parties (i.e., other backbiters). emotion, and social interaction.
Although very few investigators have directly tested women's Indeed, we found evidence of gender differences in cognitive
aggressive preferences, there is substantial evidence to suggest processes, such as attention, memory, and perspective taking,
that women and girls tend to shy away from direct, physical that mirror the differences expected, given the variation in self-
violence and opt for more indirect types of aggression (Bjork- construals. Men and women also differ in their use of strategies
qvist, 1994; Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, et al., 1992; Bjorkqvist, to maintain or bolster self-esteem or self-evaluation. Women
Osterman, & Lagerspetz, 1994; Eagly & Steffen, 1986; Fesh- often enhance the self by striving to protect or enhance relation-
bach, 1969; Lagerspetz et a]., 1988; but see Brodi et al., 1977; ship partners, whereas men are more likely to overestimate the
andTowson &Zanna, 1982, for a different opinion).'For exam- uniqueness of their own abilities and attributes and to sabotage
ple, in same-gender conflict, adolescent girls tended to use strat- or denigrate a partner to enhance themselves. In addition, we
egies of social alienation and ostracism, such as spreading ru- found predictable gender differences in the expression of emo-
mors or excluding others from social groups, whereas these tion and one's experience of certain negative emotions, such as
strategies were virtually nonexistent in boys' conflicts (Cairns, guilt. Gender differences in behaviors related to the development
Cairns, Neckerman, Ferguson, & Gariepy, 1989; see also and preservation of close relationships, including self-disclo-
McCabe & Lipscomb, 1988).
Girls' use of indirect aggression increases with age (Bjork-
qvist, Lagerspetz, et al., 1992) and is undoubtedly facilitated 9
Indirect aggression among women has also been reported in non-
by the nature of their relationships with others. Specifically, girls Western cultures (Burbank, 1987; Fry, 1990, 1992; Kuschel, 1992).
 MODELS OF THE SELF 23

sure, nonverbal sensitivity, and aggression, are also consistent Gilbert, 1995; Kelley, 1967; Lupfer, Clark, & Hutcherson,
with the differences between individuals with interdependent 1990). More recent theoretical developments may stimulate re-
self-construals and those with independent self-construals pre- newed interest in the psychology of situations. For example,
dicted by these models of the self. Hofstede (1984) has identified power relations as one dimension
of situations that influences behavior in many collectivist cul-
tures. A. Fiske's (1992) analysis of the elementary forms of
Implications for Other Psychological Phenomena
social relations also provides a basis for a theory of situational
We have framed our argument in terms of gender and the self inference. Further investigations into lay theories of how and
for two reasons: (a) to examine the possible consequences and when situations cause behavior is necessary for a complete
explanatory power of individual differences in the structure of theory of attribution.
the self and their role in future theory development and elabora- This conceptualization of models of the self casts a new light
tion and (b) as a means to integrate many disparate findings of on other phenomena that are based on the primacy of the individ-
gender differences in the social psychological literature with a ual, such as behaviors that promote individual gain rather than
simple and coherent construct. Recognition of the interdepen- group gain. In Western societies, research indicates that people
dent self-construal as a possible alternative conception of the tend to reduce individual effort in group settings. This pattern,
self can stimulate new investigations into the ways the self called "social loafing," has been demonstrated with a wide
influences thinking, feeling, and behaving. range of tasks (e.g., physical tasks such as shouting, perceptual
For example, these differences in the self-construal point to tasks such as vigilance assignments, and evaluative tasks such
potential variations in attribution processes. Traditionally, re- as rating the quality of poems) and with a wide variety of
search shows that individuals tend to attribute the behavior of participants (see Karau & Williams, 1993, for a review). How-
others to the others' dispositions (commonly known as the "fun- ever, individuals may be more or less likely to reduce their effort
damental attribution error"; L. D. Ross, 1977) but often attri- in a group task, depending on the nature of their self-construals.
bute their own similar behavior to the situation (known as the The person with an interdependent self-construal may view his
"actor-observer difference"; E. E. Jones & Nisbett, 1972). or her outcomes as inseparable from group outcomes and may
This bent toward the assumption that others' behaviors reflect maintain diligence to promote the group's goals. Based on
internal traits and attributes is a product of a Western cultural Karau and Williams's meta-analytic review, women are less
ideology that emphasizes internal, dispositional (rather than ex- likely to reduce their effort in group settings than are men.
ternal, situational) aspects of the person to explain behavior. Furthermore, the degree of social loafing in groups is much
However, individuals from collectivist cultural backgrounds and larger in Western cultures than Eastern cultures, in which indi-
others who have constructed an interdependent self-construal viduals are more likely to have developed an interdependent
are less likely than those with an independent self-construal to self-construal. In fact, at least one study documents the opposite
make dispositional inferences from behavior (J. G. Miller, 1984; effect, termed "social striving," among Chinese students (Ga-
Morris & Peng, 1994).'° For the person with an interdependent brenya, Wang, & Latane, 1985). In this study, Chinese ninth
self-construal, behavior is shaped and directed by respon- graders tended to work harder in groups than when alone, in
siveness to the needs and wishes of close others and through a contrast to U.S. ninth graders who reduced their effort in groups.
negotiation of the demands of important roles. As a result, these In other words, if the needs and goals of close others or in-
individuals have a greater sensitivity to the situational con- group members become personal needs or goals for the person
straints or imperatives that influence their own and others' be- with an interdependent self-construal, then social behavior may
havior. In a study of children's attributions, Latino children, be based on relational or group goals rather than individual
who were expected to have developed an interdependent self- goals.
construal (Marin & Triandis, 1985), offered more situational Similarly, conflicts may be addressed differently by individu-
explanations for others' behavior than did Anglo children (New- als, depending on the nature of their self-construals. Individuals
man, 1991). In a later study, Newman (1993) compared the with an interdependent self-construal may prefer conflict resolu-
responses of individuals who scored high with those who scored tion strategies that preserve existing relationships rather than
low on a measure of independence or individualism. He found strategies that seek to maximize personal gain at the cost of the
that the very individualistic participants showed a greater ten- relationship. Again, cross-cultural research shows that individu-
dency to categorize the behavior of others in terms of traits als from a collectivist culture, who are likely to have constructed
than did those with low scores. As we suggested in Attention, an interdependent self-construal, value conciliatory resolution
individuals with an interdependent self-construal may be more procedures, such as mediation or bargaining (Leung & Lind,
likely to spontaneously take the perspective of another person 1986; see P. B. Smith & Bond, 1994, for a review). In contrast,
and may therefore make more situational attributions for others' members of an individualistic culture tend to prefer adversarial
behaviors than do individuals with an independent self- methods to resolve conflicts. Leung (1987) showed that these
construal. preferences are linked to the consequences of the settlement of
These variations in the attribution process point to gaps in the dispute for the relationship: Chinese participants preferred
the understanding of lay theories of causality. Given a Western
bias toward the explanation of behavior in terms of dispositions, 10
We found that virtually no researcher has reported tests of gender
researchers have paid less attention to ways that situations may differences in studies of the fundamental attribution error. Although we
be categorized and the effects of these categorizations on attri- can understand the reasons for this decision, it makes tasks such as ours
butions and subsequent behavior (Baumeister & Tice, 1985; much more difficult.
24 CROSS AND MADSON

dispute resolution procedures that were more likely to reduce ences, as well as other individual differences in behavior, may
animosity between the parties. Similarly, Trubisky, Ting- be a function of divergent constructions of the self.
Toomey, and Lin (1991) found that Taiwanese students endorsed
the use of conflict resolution strategies that are described as Other Explanations of Gender-Related Behaviors
"obliging" or "compromising" more than did U.S. students.
As is consistent with our theory of gender differences in self- This conceptualization of the source of gender differences is
structure, U.S. men are more likely to endorse resolution styles heir to a rich legacy of provocative thinking. Bakan's (1966)
that involve using pressure or dominance to get one's way, work initially frames gender differences in terms of agency and
whereas U.S. women are more likely to endorse mediation as communion. He described men as agentic, which referred to
the strategy of choice (Lind, Huo, & Tyler, 1994). For the person self-assertion, instrumentality, and a sense of separateness from
with an interdependent self-construal, there may be times in others. He described women as communal, which referred to
which the "unit" of decision making is not the self alone but relatedness and a desire for union with others. (We simplify
rather the self and the relationship. As a result, these individuals Bakan's thinking for the sake of brevity.) Later, Gilligan (1982)
may seek out resolution strategies that promote reconciliation argued that both affiliation and independence play a central
and further harmony in the relationship. role in girls' and women's identities. Jordan et al. (1991) also
At first glance, other gender differences in behavior appear maintained that many women develop a ' 'self-in-relation.''
to conflict with this conceptualization. For example, women Our views of the self-construal differ from Bakan's (1966)
were more likely than men to initiate a break-up or divorce traits in two important respects. First, Bakan depicted the con-
(Albrecht, Bahr, & Goodman, 1983; Kelly, 1982;Kitson, 1992), cept of agency as instrumental and active and implied that per-
men reported that the break-up of a romantic relationship was sons characterized by the communal trait are relatively more
more traumatic than did women (Rubin, Peplau, & Hill, 1981), passive. We argue, in contrast, that instrumentality characterizes
and men remarried more often after divorce than did women both the independent and interdependent self-construals. A per-
(Ihinger-Tallman & Pasley, 1987). Many factors may account son with an interdependent self-construal expresses instrumen-
for these findings; for example, women often have less power tality as he or she actively seeks out others for relationships,
in relationships (Peplau & Campbell, 1989), carry more of pays attention to the needs and wishes of those others, and seeks
the burden of housework in dual-earner families (Biernat & to maintain and nurture relationships. Indeed, the management
Wortman, 1991; Thompson & Walker, 1989), and are more of one's emotions and behaviors to maintain harmony in a rela-
often seriously injured by a partner than are men (Stets & Straus, tionship may be as instrumental as the direct expression of one's
1990). Therefore, they may be more likely to leave an abusive wishes and desires.
or dissatisfying marriage and may be less likely than men to Second, Bakan (1966) described agency as being self-assert-
view remarriage as advantageous. In addition, men's shorter ive. However, he presupposed an independent self-construal in
life spans and their tendency to marry women younger than this formulation. If one entertains the idea of individual differ-
themselves results in a larger pool of potential mates for men ences in self-construals, then the issue of self-assertion raises
than women. an interesting dilemma. Might self-assertion be expressed differ-
However, differences in the self-construal may play some role ently for the person with an interdependent self-construal than
in these findings. First, individuals with an interdependent self- for the person with an independent self-construal? For the for-
construal tend to pay more attention to the health of the relation- mer, self-assertion may include assertion of the needs and wishes
ship and, therefore, arc more likely to notice problems in their of others who are part of the self, in addition to the assertion
relationships than do individuals with an independent self- of one's own needs and wishes. Consider, for example, the
construal. Women, then, may be more aware of difficulties in a person who cooperates in social dilemma-type situations to
relationship and may see a break-up coming sooner than men achieve the greatest good for all involved. In this situation, the
(Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Rubin et al., 1981). We also person may be asserting a self that includes others rather than
assume that people need intimate and close relationships in their an individual self.
lives (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). One way to meet this need Our goal is not to contend with the conceptualizations of
is through marriage and romantic relationships. The person with Bakan (1966), Gilligan (1982), or Jordan et al. (1991) but
an interdependent self-construal, however, may also meet these rather to specify how ideas such as communality, relatedness,
needs in part through close relationships with friends or family. or the self-in-relation function. To link these ideas to the social-
As we described earlier, individuals with an independent self- cognitive research on the self permits more careful specification
construal may be less likely to develop as many or as satisfying of the possible mechanisms through which these divergent orien-
close relationships; in effect, they may put more of their inti- tations toward the self and others work. For example, women
macy "eggs" into the marriage "basket." When this person's may pay more attention to others and have better memory for
marriage ends, other relationships may not adequately provide social information than do men because this information is
the needed support or intimacy and remarriage may be the most closely associated with information about the self and is, there-
viable means to meet these needs. fore, privileged in cognition. This perspective may also contrib-
Our point is not to argue that every gender difference in ute to the useful development of a theory concerning the modera-
behavior is best explained in terms of the self-construal. As we tors of gender differences in behavior. For example, the behavior
explain below, gendered expectations, gendered situations, and of individuals with an interdependent self-construal may depend
social norms influence women's and men's behaviors in many on the closeness of relationships more than that of individuals
situations. However, many previously unexplained gender differ- with an independent self-construal. Careful attention to the inter-
 MODELS OF THE SELF 25

action of the self-construal and the contexts that are associated social structures do not directly impinge on individuals, whether
with self-relevant behavior may also illuminate biases in the these social structures are in the form of social class, the organiza-
literature that constrain the understanding of gender differences tion of power in a society, or structures developed out of age-graded
processes; rather, social structures affect individuals by conditioning
in behavior, such as the possibility that studies of attention to
the kinds of interactions and relationships within which individuals
nonverbal cues focus on cues relevant to emotional involvement
exist as social actors. Thus, accounting for the impact of the social
in relationships to the exclusion of dominance-related cues. In
structure of life courses means explicating "proximate" interaction
short, an emphasis on the self allows one to point to specific events through which individual lives are actually lived. The concept
cognitive, affective, and motivational processes that underlie of self provides an important component of the interaction interface
gender differences in behavior. between society and person . . . . Humans as biological organisms
Other investigators have also taken an explicitly social-cogni- become "persons" (in the sense of competent, acting participants
tive approach in investigations of the self in relation to others. in the ongoing social order) by developing selves, and thus are able
For example, Aron, Aron, Tudor, and Nelson (1991) have exam- to engage in minded, reflective behavior, to take into account the
ined the influence of particular self-with-other representations perspectives of others, to coordinate their behaviors with others,
(e.g., self with spouse or self with mother) on cognition. Ash- and to participate in complex institutionalized social processes,
(pp. 203-204)
more and Ogilvie (1992) have also investigated self-with-other
representations in the self-concept. We applaud these efforts to
look beyond individualistic assumptions about the person and To understand gender differences in behavior, then, one must
the self and agree that virtually everyone includes specific others recognize how the self has been created through a life time of
(perhaps their mother or spouse) in their self-representations. experience with gendered social norms and expectations and
We propose, however, a more general individual differences ap- how the self in turn directs responses to gendered situations.
proach: Some people include others in their self-concept more This perspective on the self-construal provides a theoretically
extensively and habitually than others, and this tendency has meaningful foundation to understand the agentic, self-directed,
significant implications for a wide range of phenomena that or willful nature of human action as it is enacted on a stage set
reach beyond the particular self-defining relationship. Further- by social norms, ideologies, and values.
more, inclusion of specific others in one's self-concept (e.g., A similar argument can be made for expectation states theory,
one's spouse or mother) may have different implications for which asserts that men's and women's behaviors in task groups
individuals with divergent self-construals. As we suggested in are a consequence of status-linked performance expectations
Intimate Relationships and Self-Disclosure, the close relation- (Berger, Fisek, Norman, & Zelditch, 1977; Carli, 1990;
ships of a person with an interdependent self-construal may Ridgeway, 1988). Research shows that, in task-oriented groups,
be more intimate and affective that those of a person with an men talk more, interrupt more, make more task-related com-
independent self-construal. ments, and are generally more influential than are women.
Some researchers have focused on, in contrast to the ap- Women, however, engage in more socioemotional behavior (e.g.,
proaches described above, situational influences on gendered showing support and agreeing) than do men. Expectation states
behavior to the exclusion of intra-individual explanations. For theory explains these differences in terms of differences in status
example, some researchers of social constructionism argued that and power. In this viewpoint, higher status interactants are as-
gender is not a quality of people but rather "exists in those sumed to be more competent and to have more desirable attri-
interactions that are socially construed as gendered" (Bohan, butes than are lower status interactants; higher status persons
1993, p. 7; see also Hare-Mustin & Marecek, 1988; Lott & are then afforded more opportunities to perform well and to
Maluso, 1993; and Mednick, 1989). From this viewpoint, gen- influence others and, therefore, are more influential than are
der-differentiated behaviors are not a consequence of the self, lower status persons. Lower status individuals show that they
dispositions, or traits, nor are these behaviors internalized in the are not trying to usurp power by communicating support for
development of the self-construal. Instead, gender-differentiated and agreement with higher status group members. In this society,
behaviors are viewed as a consequence of social norms and men have higher status than do women, and inferences about
situational contexts that require different behaviors of men and competence and influence follow from these status differences.
women. Advocates of social constructionism maintained that An expanded formulation of expectation states theory also takes
gendered social norms, expectations, and women's lower social into account the influence of social roles and cultural norms in
status adequately explain observed gender-typed behaviors. gendered interaction (Ridgeway & Diekema, 1992). However,
Thus, explanations of behavioral gender differences that focus as with social constructionism, person variables, such as the
on internal constructs, such as the self, are unnecessary. nature of the self-system, are eschewed as unnecessary to ex-
If gender is solely created in the situation and the self is not plain behavior in task-focused groups.
involved in social behavior, then women and men are simply Considerable evidence supports expectation states theory
puppets of situational influences, without personal agency or regarding behavior in mixed-gender task groups. However,
control. Furthermore, those investigators who argued that ob- many interesting gender differences in behavior occur outside
served gender differences are solely consequences of differential task-oriented groups; our goal is to provide a coherent and
power, lower status, or stigma ignored the mechanisms through parsimonious account of behavior in a broad array of interper-
which these social factors influence the individual. The explica- sonal situations, including close relationships, friendships, on-
tion of these social influences' impact on individuals is furthered going interactions, and acquaintanceships. However, there are
by a consideration of the self. As Wells and Stryker (1988) situations in which strong social norms, expectations, or scripts
explained, for behavior leave little room for the influence of individual
26 CROSS AND MADSON

differences (more on this later); many task-oriented groups may motivation, and social behavior that is left unexplained by gen-
fall into this category. der or social roles.
In addition, expectation states theory investigators have yet In addition, these models of the self may help explain why
to provide a simple and satisfying account of evidence that men and women behave differently in the same role. Investiga-
disconfirms their theory, in particular, the findings that women tors of role theories of gender differences argued that the pri-
engage in more socioemotional behavior in all female groups mary contributors to variation in men's and women's behaviors
than in mixed-gender groups. Expectation states theory predicts are the different roles and statuses occupied by the genders.
that women should be more task oriented in same-gender groups They predicted that, when men and women occupy the same
than in mixed-gender groups because they are not in a lower role (e.g., occupational roles), the demands and expectations
status position." Although Ridgeway (1988; Ridgeway & Die- associated with that role control behavior, and that the impact
kema, 1992) constructed an elaborate argument to account for of gender roles are weakened (Eagly & Karau, 1991). However,
these unexpected findings, a much simpler argument can be the person who deviates from the norm in a specific role may
made by an examination of the self-system. In brief, when indi- hold a very central or important self-view that powerfully influ-
viduals share goals of interpersonal harmony (as would group ences his or her responses to the situation. Given that men's and
members with interdependent self-construals), agreement, sup- women's self-construals differ, their behavior in the same role
portive responses, and encouraging head nods and vocalizations or situation may differ as well. In fact, Moskowitz et al. (1994)
are more likely to be reciprocated than when these goals are found that women behaved more communally than did men in
not shared by group members. Consequently, women in same- both supervisor and supervisee roles at work. In a meta-analysis
gender groups should engage in more socioemotional behavior of studies of gender differences in leadership behavior, Eagly
than women in mixed-gender groups. In summary, these models and Johnson (1990) found that, even when roles are controlled,
of the self explain many more gender differences and provide women used a more democratic leadership style than did men
a more parsimonious explanation for some situations than does (see also Ptacek, Smith, & Dodge, 1994). Further research is
expectation states theory. needed to ascertain whether (and when) these gender differences
In contrast to social constructionism and expectation states are a consequence of individual differences in the self, of the
theory, our perspective on the self-construal and gender differ- continuing impact of gender roles, or both.
ences in behavior is very compatible with Eagly's (1987) social From the perspective of these models of the self, one can also
anticipate the conditions under which individual differences in
role theory. Eagly argued that gender-typed behavior is often a
the structure of the self would have little effect on behavior.
function of the divergent roles played by men and women. Soci-
As social psychologists have long observed, there are strong
ety also has, different expectations of men and women (e.g.,
situations that override the impact of dispositional characteris-
men should be independent, and women should be relational),
tics on behavior (see Deaux & Major, 1987; Snyder, 1979; and
and individuals frequently conform to these expectations. As a
Snyder & Ickes, 1985, for reviews). According to Snyder, the
consequence of different social roles and expectations, men and
self and other personal attributes have little influence on behav-
women develop different skills, attributes, and beliefs and may
ior in situations that stress conformity to group norms or con-
internalize gender roles into their self-concept.
cern for others' evaluations. Consequently, individuals with dif-
Whereas social role theory attempts to explain the social
ferent self-construals may tend to behave similarly in these situa-
origins of gender differences in behavior and personal attributes,
tions. Differences in self-construals may also have little
our focus on the self emphasizes the intra-individual structures
influence in novel or ambiguous situations that present a salient
and processes that direct behavior. This view of divergent self-
model of behavior (e.g., many people walk by a stranger in
construals helps explain how gendered social roles and expecta-
need when other bystanders do the same) or situations that
tions are internalized and influence subsequent behavior.
suggest that one's attitudes or values are socially undesirable
Combined, social role theory and theoretical conceptions of the
(e.g., it is ill advised to appear too independent when one applies
self-construal provide a more complete understanding of the
for a job that requires teamwork and cooperation).
influences on men's and women's behaviors than either theory
We would also expect few differences in the behavior of
provides alone.
individuals with different self-construals in situations with oth-
For example, an examination of variation in self-construals ers who are not self-relevant. With out-group members or strang-
can help explain within-gender variation in response to roles ers, individuals with an interdependent self-construal may be-
and situations.12 Men and women vary greatly in the extent to have much like individuals with an independent self-construal.
which they have internalized gender norms and roles into their In fact, we suspect that in many cases (e.g., empathy studies),
self-construal. Men raised in a collectivist environment (e.g., the absence of expected gender differences in behavioral mea-
a Hispanic community or some religious communities) may sures may be a consequence of a target person who is not viewed
construct an interdependent self-construal. African American as self-relevant or as an in-group member. For example, in stud-
parents make fewer gender distinctions in their interactions with ies of the SEM model (Tesser, 1988), women were less likely
their children and encourage independence and autonomy in than men to denigrate the performance of a friend, but both men
their daughters more than do White parents, which may result
in the forging of an independent self-construal by African Amer- 11
However, women may behave as though they are in a lower status
ican girls (Baumrind, 1972; D. K. Lewis, 1978; see McLoyd, position when they engage in a gender-typed task (Ridgeway, 1988).
1993, for a review). These individual differences in the self- 12
Eagly (1987) was explicit that this is not one of the goals of social
construal may then explain the variance in thinking, feeling, role theory.
 MODELS OF THE SELF 27

and women denigrated the performance of a stranger (e.g., Tes- Fiske (1992) has described four universal forms of social rela-
ser et at, 1989). In other words, in situations that have strong tions—community sharing, authority ranking, equality match-
social norms for behavior or that do not implicate social bonds ing, and market pricing. These different forms of social relation-
or attachments, individuals with independent and interdependent ships may influence self-construals in ways that have yet to be
self-construals may behave very similarly. explored.
However, there may also be occasions where differences be- We have framed our discussion in terms of two types of
tween individuals with interdependent self-construals and those self-representations; however, we have used this framework heu-
with independent self-construals are evident even with respect ristically to clearly describe the differences in the two conceptu-
to strangers. For example, women tend to be better decoders of alizations. It is very likely that these construals represent two
nonverbal cues in studies with strangers (Hall, 1984). In fact, dimensions of the self and that men and women in U.S. culture
Hall {1987) later pointed out that much of the literature on are characterized by both dimensions (see also Guisinger &
gender differences in nonverbal communication consists of stud- Blatt, 1994; and Singelis, 1994). As Trafimow, Triandis, and
ies with unacquainted college students. Much less is known Goto (1991) have suggested, people from different cultural
about nonverbal communication between well-acquainted indi- backgrounds (as well as men and women within this culture,
viduals (Hall, 1987). This is not necessarily inconsistent with we suspect) may have both independent and interdependent self-
our theory, however. Although we expect individuals with an representations, but the number and organization of these vary.
interdependent self-construal to develop good nonverbal decod- Given gendered developmental histories of men and women,
ing skills because these abilities help foster and maintain close men may have a majority of independent self-representations
relationships with others, this does not preclude these individu- and women may have a majority of interdependent self-represen-
als from applying these skills to other types of interactions tations. In addition, these types of self-views may be stored
or goals. Specifically, individuals with an interdependent self- separately from each other and accessed with different frequen-
construal may become chronically sensitive to others' nonverbal cies. Women may access interdependent self-views more often
cues, accurately decoding the nonverbal behaviors of strangers, than do men, making these self-representations chronically ac-
friends, and family alike. Persons with an interdependent self- cessible (Bargh, Lombard!, & Higgins, 1988). Similarly, men
construal may also choose to use their nonverbal skills instru- may access independent self-views more often than do women,
mentally, as a means to anticipate the emotions and behaviors making these self-representations chronically accessible. To
of self-relevant or more powerful others (e.g., Henley, 1977).13 view these self-construals as two dimensions of the self-system
Thus, the hypothesized differences among individuals with inter- raises many additional questions about when each construal
dependent and independent self-construals may at times general- directs or dominates behavior. Although a thorough analysis of
ize to other situations, leading to gender differences that would this question is beyond the scope of this article, a consideration
not be directly predicted by this theory but are not inconsistent of individual differences in the priority given to each self-
with it either. construal may prove fruitful to the exploration of the many
Let us summarize briefly with a truism: One must take into mysteries of social behavior.
account both the situation and individual differences to fully
understand behavior. This truism highlights our position that
Final Comments
theories focusing on both social roles and self-construals are
useful tools to understand gender differences in behavior. Our Because the self is a cultural product, the relation between
point is not that the self-construal is the only causal mechanism gender and the independent and interdependent self-construals
necessary to understand gender differences in behavior but rather may narrow with time, as have other gender-related differences
that it is a helpful and potentially important construct for re- (e.g., some differences in verbal and reasoning abilities; Fein-
searchers seeking to understand society's influences on men and gold, 1988; Hyde & Linn, 1988; but also see Hedges & Nowell,
women. 1995; and Knight et al., 1996). For example, women lately
have obtained more opportunities to wield power and to be
independent, competitive, or aggressive. Women have more re-
A Caveat
cently been given combat roles in the military and have joined
We have proposed that these two models of the self may the ranks of upper management in the business world (Of-
explain a wide range of women's and men's behaviors in the
United States. However, we do not intend to imply that these
13
are the only two representations available to construct the self This is not to imply that gender differences in nonverbal communi-
nor that these models are culturally universal. However, given cation skills are attributable solely to gender differences in social power
that every individual is a part of at least one social group, every (e.g., Henley, 1977). In fact, Brody and Hall (1993) concluded that the
person may have to grapple with some form of the question, relations among status, power, and emotional decoding are quite complex
because more recent data are not always consistent with models stating
"To what extent am I independent of or interdependent with
that status differences produce differences in emotional communication
others?," to create a self (Markus & Cross, 1990; Shweder,
(e.g., Hall & Halberstadt, 1992; Vrugt & Kerkstra, 1984). Rather, we
1982). As we indicated in the beginning of this article, the argue that persons with an interdependent self-construal may choose to
models of the self that we have described are shaped by the capitalize on their existing nonverbal abilities by using these skills to
cultural values of the United States. In places with very different predict the behavior of more powerful individuals as well as for the
cultural values, the available representations of the self may be primary purpose of anticipating the needs, goals, and feelings of close
quite different (see Markus et al., in press). For example, A. others.
28 CROSS AND MADSON

fermann & Gowing, 1990). In addition, men have become more representations. In T. M. Brinthaupt & R. P. Lipka (Eds.), The self:
involved in child-care activities in the family (Douthitt, 1989; Definitional and methodological issues (pp. 236-290). Albany: State
Pleck, 1985, 1987). As men take on nurturing roles, they may University of New "fork Press.
Averill, !. R. (1983). Studies on anger and aggression: Implications for
internalize these roles as a part of their self-construal through
theories of emotion. American Psychologist, 38, 1145-1160.
self-perception processes. Boys who observe their fathers in
Bacon, P. L. (1996). The impact of the interdependent self-construal
nurturing roles may imitate their actions, which may promote
on downward comparison. Unpublished master's thesis, Iowa State
the development of interdependence. Other research suggests
University, Department of Psychology, Ames.
that traditional views of women's and men's attributes and gen- Bahrick, H. P., Bahrick, P. Q, & Wittlinger, R. P. (1975). Fifty years of
der roles may be changing (Eagly & Mladinic, 1989; Eagly, memory for names and faces: A cross-sectional approach. Journal of
Mladinic, & Otto, 1991; Labott, Martin, Eason, & Berkey, Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 54-75.
1991). These and other changes in the roles and opportunities Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Boston, MA: Beacon
for men and women have the potential to transform gender- Press.
typed social attitudes and practices, which may in turn transform Banaji, M. R., & Prentice, D. A. (1994). The self in social contexts.
men's and women's self-construals. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 297-332.
Ultimately, gender differences in the' self may disappear as a Bargh, J. A., Lombard!, W. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1988). Automaticity of
chronically accessible constructs in person X situation effects on
result of these and other social changes. However, the conceptu-
person perception: It's just a matter of time. Journal of Personality
alizations of the independent and interdependent self-construals
and Social Psychology, 15, 599-605.
may continue to be important tools to bring into focus heretofore
Barnett, R. C., Raudenbush, S. W., Brennan, R. T, Pleck, J. H., & Mar-
unexplored variation in human behavior. In the words of Samp-
shall, N. L. (1995). Change in job and marital experiences and change
son (1989), work such as ours that begins with an examination in psychological distress: A longitudinal study of dual-earner couples.
of gender differences Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 839-850.
Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psycho-
should no longer be understood as developing a psychology of logical answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
women b u t . . . is better seen as developing a psychology of human- Baumeister, R. E (in press). The self. In D. Gilbert (Eds.), Handbook
ity tomorrow. The real issue, therefore, does not involve gender of social psychology (4th ed.). New %rk: McGraw-Hill.
differences per se, as much as it speaks to an emerging theory of Baumeister, R. E, & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire
the person that is appropriate to the newly emerging shape of a for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.
globally linked world system, (p. 920)
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
Baumeister, R. E, Reis, H. T, & Delespaul, P. A. E. G. (1995). Subjec-
This emerging theory of the person points to new and diverse tive and experiential correlates of guilt in daily life. Personality and
strands of human experience that can be woven into the current Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1256-1268.
understanding of human behavior to create a more richly tex- Baumeister, R., Stillwell, A., & Heatherton, T. (1994). Guilt: An inter-
tured theory of the person. personal approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 243-267.
Baumeister, R. E, Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1995). Personal
narratives about guilt: Role in action control and interpersonal rela-
References
tionships. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 173-198.
Baumeister, R. E, & Tice, D. M. (1985). Toward a theory of situational
Acitelli, L. K. (1992}. Gender differences in relationship awareness and
structure. Environment and Behavior, 17, 147-192.
marital satisfaction among young married couples. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, IS, 102-110. Baumrind, D. (1972). An exploratory study of socialization effects on
Black children: Some Black-White comparisons. Child Development,
Albrecht, S. L., Bahr, H. M., & Goodman, K. L. (1983). Divorce and
remarriage. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. 43, 261-267.
Allen, J. G., & Haccoun, D. M. (1976). Sex differences in emotionality: Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M.
A multidimensional approach. Human Relations, 29, 711-722. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism & commitment in Ameri-
Allen, R. L., Dawson, M. C, & Brown, R. E. (1989). A schema based can life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
approach to modeling an African American racial belief system. Amer- Belle, D., Burr, R., & Cooney, J. (1987). Boys and girls as social
ican Political Science Review, S3, 421-442. support theorists. Sex Roles, 11-12, 657-665.
Allgood-Merten, B., Lewinsohn, P. M., & Hops, H. (1990). Sex differ- Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., Norman, R. Z., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1977).
ences and adolescent depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Status characteristics and social interaction: An expectation-states
99, 55-63. approach. New %rk: Elsevier Science.
Altaian, L, & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development Bernieri, F. J., Zuckerman, M., Koestner, R., & Rosenthal, R. (1994).
of interpersonal relationships. New M>rk: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Measuring person perception accuracy: Another look at self—other
Ambady, N., Hallahan, M., & Rosenthal, R. (1995). On judging and agreement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 367-378.
being judged accurately in zero-acquaintance situations. Journal of Bettencourt, B. A., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggres-
Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 518-529. sion as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Aries, E. J., & Johnson, F. L. (1983). Close friendships in adulthood: Bulletin, 119, 422-447.
Conversational content between same-sex friends. Sex Roles, 9, 1183- Beyer, S. (1990). Gender differences in the accuracy of self-evaluations
1196. of performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Uidor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relation- 960-970.
ships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Biernat, M., & Wortman, C. B. (1991). Sharing of home responsibilities
Psychology, 60, 241-253. between professionally employed women and their husbands. Journal
Ashmore, R. D., & Ogilvie, D. M. (1992). He's such a nice boy ... of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 844-860.
when he's with grandma: Gender and evaluations in self-with-other Birnbaum, D. W., & Croll, W. L. (1984). The etiology of children's
 MODELS OF THE SELF 29

stereotypes about sex differences in emotionality. Sex Rotes, 10, 677- pression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 587-
691. 596.
Bjorkqvist, K. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect Buczek, T. A. (1981). Sex biases in counseling: Counselor retention of
aggression: A review of recent research. Sex Roles, 30, 177-188. the concerns of a female and male client. Journal of Counseling
Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls ma- Psychology, 28, 13-21.
nipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and Bukowski, W. M., Nappi, B. J., & Hoza, B. (1987). A test of Aristotle's
indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, IS, 117-127. model of friendship for young adults' same-sex and opposite-sex rela-
Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). The develop- tionships. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 595-603.
ment of direct and indirect aggressive strategies in males and females. Burbank, V. K. (1987). Female aggression in cross-cultural perspective.
In K. Bjorkqvist & P. Niemela (Eds.), Of mice and women: Aspects Behavior Science Research, 21, 70-100.
of female aggression (pp. 51-64). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Burrowes, B. D., & Halberstadt, A. G. (1987). Self-and family-expres-
Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Lagerspetz, K. M. J. (1994). Sex differ- siveness styles in the experience and expression of anger. Journal of
ences in covert aggression among adults. Aggressive Behavior, 20, Nonverbal Behavior, 11, 254-268.
27-33. Buss, A. H. (1961). The psychology of aggression. New York: Wiley.
Blaine, B., & Crocker, J. (1993). Self-esteem and self-serving biases Buss, D. M. (1989). Conflict between the sexes: Strategic interference
in reactions to positive and negative events: An integrative review. In and the evocation of anger and upset. Journal of Personality and
R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem: The puzzle of low self-regard Social Psychology, 56, 735-747.
(pp. 55-85). New York: Plenum Press. Buss, D. M. (1991). Conflict in married couples: Personality predictors
Blier, M. J., & Blier-Wilson, L. A. (1989). Gender differences in self- of anger and upset. Journal of Personality, 59, 663-688.
rated emotional expressiveness. Sex Roles, 21, 287-295. Buunk, B. P., & VanYperen, N. W. (1989). Social comparison, equality,
Block, J. H. (1979). Another look at sex differentiation in the socializa- and relationship satisfaction: Gender differences over a ten-year pe-
tion behaviors of mothers and fathers. In J. A. Sherman & F. L. Den- riod. Social Justice Research, 3, 157-180.
mark (Eds.), Psychology of women: Future directions in research Bybee, J., Glick, M., & Zigler, E. (1990). Differences across gender,
(pp. 29-87). New York: Psychological Dimensions. grade level, and academic track in the content of the ideal self-image.
Block, J. H. (1984). Sex role identity and ego development. San Fran- Sex Roles, 22, 349-358.
cisco: Jossey-Bass. Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Ferguson, L. L., & Ga-
Bhimstein, P. W., & Schwartz, P. ( 1983). American couples. New %rk: riepy, J. L. (1989). Growth and aggression: 1. Childhood to early
Morrow. adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 25, 320-330.
Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (1991). Gender differences in depression Caldwell, M., & Peplau, L. (1982). Sex differences in same-sex friend-
in college students. Sex Roles, 25, 595-605. ship. Sex Roles, S, 721-732.
Bohan, J. S. (1993). Regarding gender. Psychology of Women Quarterly, Campbell, A., & Muncer, S. (1987). Models of anger and aggression
17, 5-21. in the social talk of women and men. Journal for the Theory of Social
Boldizar, J., Perry, D., & Perry, L. (1989). Outcome values and aggres- Behavior, 17, 489-512.
sion. Child Development, 60, 571-579. Campbell, A., Muncer, S., & Coyle, E. (1992). Social representation of
Boyatzis, C. J., Chazan, E., & Ting, C. Z. (1993). Preschool children's aggression as an explanation of gender differences: A preliminary
decoding of facial emotions. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154, study. Aggressive Behavior, IS, 95-108.
375-382. Campbell, J. D. (1986). Similarity and uniqueness: The effects of attri-
Brabeck, M. M., & Weisgerber, K. (1988). Responses to the Challenger bute type, relevance, and individual differences in self-esteem and
tragedy: Subtle and significant gender differences. Sex Roles, 19, 639- depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 281-
650. 294.
Brickman, P., & Bulman, R. J. (1977). Pleasure and pain in social Campbell, J. D. (1990). Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept.
comparison. In J. M. Suls & R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 538-549.
processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 149-186). Carli, L. L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Person-
Washington, DC: Hemisphere. ality and Social Psychology, 59, 941-951.
Brody, L. R. (1993 ). On understanding gender differences in the expres- Carpenter, S. L. (1988). Self-relevance and goal-directed processing
sion of emotion. In S. L. Ablon, D. Brown, E. J. Khantzian, & J. E. in the recall and weighting of information about others. Journal of
Mack (Eds.), Human feelings: Explorations in affect development Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 310-332.
and meaning (pp. 87-121). Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press. Cate, R., & Sugawara, A. I. (1986). Sex role orientation and dimensions
Brody, L. R., & Hall, J. A. (1993). Gender and emotion. In M. Lewis & of self-esteem among middle adolescents. Sex Roles, 15, 145-158.
J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 447-460). New Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis
York: Guilford Press. and the sociology of gender. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Brody, L. R., Hay, D., & Vandewater, E. (1990). Gender, gender role Claes, M. E. (1992). Friendship and personal adjustment during adoles-
identity and children's reported feelings toward the same and opposite cence. Journal of Adolescence, 15, 39-55.
sex. Sex Roles, 21, 363-387. Clancy, S. M., & Dollinger, S. J. (1993). Photographic depictions of the
Buck, R. (1984). The communication of emotion. New "fork: Guilford self: Gender and age differences in social connectedness. Sex Roles,
Press. 29, 477-495.
Buck, R., Baron, R., & Barrette, D. (1982). Temporal organization of Clark, M., & Reis, H. (1988). Interpersonal processes in close relation-
spontaneous emotional expression: A segmentation analysis. Journal ships. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 609-672.
of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 506-517. Clifford, B., &Bull, R. (1978). The psychology of person identification.
Buck, R., Baron, R., Goodman, N., & Shapiro, B. (1980). Unitization London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
of spontaneous nonverbal behavior in the study of emotion communi- Collins, N., & Miller, L. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-
cation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 522-529. analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 457-475.
Buck, R., Miller, R. E., & Caul, W. F. (1974). Sex, personality, and Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York:
physiological variables in the communication of affect via facial ex- Scribner.
30 CROSS AND MADSON

Cousins, S. D. (1989). Culture and self-perception in Japan and the A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psycho-
United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, logical Bulletin, 100, 309-330.
124-131. Eccles, J. S., Wigfield. A., Flanagan, C., Miller, C., Reuman, D., & Yee,
Crick, N.R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, D. (1989). Self-concepts, domain values, and self-esteem: Relations
and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710- and changes at early adolescence. Journal of Personality, 57, 283-
722. 310.
Cross, S. E. (1995). Self-construals, coping, and stress in cross-cultural Egerton, M. (1988). Passionate women and passionate men: Sex differ-
adaptation. Journal of Crass-Cultural Psychology, 26, 673—697. ences in accounting for angry and weeping episodes. British Journal
Damon, W., & Hart, D. (1988). Self-understanding in childhood and of Social Psychology, 27, 51-66.
adolescence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Schaller, M., & Miller, P. A. (1989). Sympa-
Davidson, L., & Duberman, L. (1982). Friendship: Communication and thy and personal distress: Development, gender differences, and inter-
interactional patterns in same-sex dyads. Sex Roles, 8, 809—822. relations of indexes. New Directions for Child Development, 44, 107-
Davis, J. D. (1978). When boy meets girl: Sex roles and the negotiation 126.
of intimacy in an acquaintance exercise. Journal of Personality and Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and
Social Psychology. 36, 684-692. related capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 100-131.
Davis, M. A., LaRosa, P. A., & Foshee, D. P. (1992). Emotion work in Eisenberg, N., & Strayer, J. (1987). Critical issues in the study of
supervisor-subordinate relations: Gender differences in the percep- empathy. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its devel-
tion of angry displays. Sex Roles, 26, 513-531. opment (pp. 3-13). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ekman, P. (1993). Facial expression and emotion. American Psycholo-
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differ-
gist, 48, 384-392.
ences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology,
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1984). Unmasking the face. Englewood
10, 85.
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Madi-
Fagot, B. L, & Hagan, R. (1985). Aggression in toddlers: Responses to
son, WI: Brown & Benchmark.
the assertive acts of boys and girls. Sex Roles, 12, 341-351.
Davis, M. H., & Franzoi, S. L. (1991). Stability and change in adoles-
Feather, N. T. (1991). Human values, global self-esteem, and belief in
cent self-consciousness and empathy. Journal of Research in Person-
a just world. Journal of Personality, 59, 83-107.
ality, 25, 70-87.
Feingold, A. (1988). Cognitive gender differences are disappearing.
DePaulo, B. M. (1992). Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation. Psy-
American Psychologist, 43, 95-103.
chology Bulletin, 111, 203-243.
Feldstein, J. H. (1976). Sex differences in social memory among pre-
Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An inter-
school children. Sex Roles. 2, 75-79.
active model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94,
Felson, R. B. (1981). Ambiguity and bias in the self-concept. Social
369-389.
Psychology Quarterly, 44, 64-69.
Derlega, V., Durham, B., Gockel, B., & Sholis, D. (1981). Sex differ-
Ferguson, T. J., & Crowley, S. L. (1993, June). Gender differences in
ences in self-disclosure: Effects of topic content, friendship, and part-
self-evaluative emotion as mediated by self-consciousness. Paper pre-
ner's sex. Sex Roles, 7, 433-447.
sented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society,
Derlega, V., Winstead, B., Wong, P., & Hunter, S. (1985). Gender effects
Chicago, IL.
in an initial encounter: A case where men exceed women in disclosure.
Rsshbach. N. D. (1969). Sex differences in children's modes of aggres-
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 25-44.
sive responses towards outsiders. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 15, 249-
Diener, E., Sandvik, E., & Larsen, R. J. (1985). Age and sex effects for
258.
emotional intensity. Developmental Psychology, 21, 542-546.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human
Dindia, K., & Allen, M. (1992). Sex differences in self-disclosure: A
Relations, 7, 117-140.
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 106-124.
Fischer, J., & Narus, L., Jr. (1981). Sex roles and intimacy in same sex
Douthitt, R. A. (1989). The division of labor within the home: Have
and other sex relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 444-
gender roles changed? Sex Roles, 20, 693-704.
455.
Dunn, J., Bretherton, I., & Munn, P. (1987). Conversations about feeling
Fiske, A, (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework
states between mothers and their young children. Developmental Psy- for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99,
chology, 23, 132-139.
689-723.
Dunning, D., & Hayes, A. F. (1996). Evidence of egocentric comparison Fiske, S. T, & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York:
in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, McGraw-Hill.
71, 213-229.
Fivush, R. (1989). Exploring sex differences in the emotional content
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role of mother-child conversations about the past. Sex Roles, 20, 675-
interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 691.
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A Fivush, R. (1991). Gender and emotion in mother-child conversations
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, IO&, 233-256. about the past. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 1, 325-341.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of lead- Fivush, R. (1992). Gender differences in parent-child conversations
ers: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, about past emotions. Sex Roles, 27, 683-698.
60, 685-710. Fox, M., Gibbs, M., & Auerbach, D. (1985). Age and gender dimensions
Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes of friendship. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 489-502.
toward women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Frey, K. S., & Ruble, D. N. (1987). What children say about classroom
IS, 543-558. performance: Sex and grade differences in perceived competence.
Eagly, A. H., Mladinic, A., & Otto, S. (1991). Are women evaluated Child Development, 58, 1066-1078.
more favorably than men? An analysis of attitudes, beliefs, and emo- Frodi, A., Macaulay, J., & Thome, P. (1977). Are women always less
tions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 203-216. aggressive than men? A review of the experimental literature. Psycho-
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V.I. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: logical Bulletin, 84, 634-660.
 MODELS OF THE SELF 31

Fry, D. (1990). Play aggression among Zapotec children: Implications Hall, J. A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psycho-
for the practice hypothesis. Aggressive Behavior, 16, 321-340. logical Bulletin, 85, 845-875.
Fry, D. (1992). Female aggression among the Zapotec of Oaxaca, Mex- Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy
ico. In K. Bjorkqvist & P. Niemela (Eds.), Of mice and women: and expressive style. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Aspects of female aggression (pp. 187-199). San Diego, CA: Aca- Hall, J. A. (1987). On explaining gender differences: The case of non-
demic Press. verbal communication. In P. Shaver & C. Hendrick (Eds.), Review of
Fuchs, D., & Thelen, M. (1988). Children's expected interpersonal con- personality and social psychology. Vol. 7: Sex and gender (pp. 177-
sequences of communicating their affective states and reported likeli- 200). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
hood of expression. Child Development, 59, 1314-1322. Hall, J. A., & Halberstadt, A. G. (1992). Smiling and gazing. In J. S.
Fujita, E, Diener, E., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Gender differences in nega- Hyde & M. C. Linn (Eds.), The psychology of gender: Advances
tive affect and well-being: The case for emotional intensity. Journal through meta-analysis (pp. 136-158). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 427-434. University Press.
Gabrenya, W. K. J., Wang, Y., & Latane, B. (1985). Social loafing on Hare-Mustin, R. T, & Marecek, J. (Eds.). (1988). Making a difference:
an optimizing task. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16, 223- Psychology and the construction of gender. New Haven, CT: Yale
242. University Press.
Gabriel, M. T., Critelli, J. W., & Ee, J. S. (1994, March). Narcissistic Harris, M. B. (1992). Sex and ethnic differences in past aggressive
illusions in self-evaluations of intelligence and attractiveness. Journal behaviors. Journal of Family Violence, 7, 85-102.
of Personality, 62, 143-155. Harris, M. B. (1993). How provoking! What makes men and women
Garcia, S., Stinson, L., Ickes, W., Bissonnette, V., & Briggs, S. R. angry? Aggressive Behavior, 19, 199-211.
(1991). Shyness and physical attractiveness in mixed-sex dyads. Harris, M. B. (1994). Gender of subject and target as mediators of
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 35-49. aggression. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 453-471.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New ^fork: Basic Harter, S. (1993). Causes and consequences of low self-esteem in chil-
Books. dren and adolescents. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem: The
puzzle of low self-regard (pp. 87-116). New York: Plenum Press.
Gibbons, F. X., & Gerrard, M. (1991). Downward comparison and
coping with threat. In J. Suls & T. A. Wills (Eds.), Social comparison: Haviland, J. J., & Malatesta, C. Z. (1981). The development of sex
Contemporary theory and research (pp. 317-345). Hillsdale, NJ: differences in nonverbal signals: Fallacies, facts, and fantasies. In C.
Mayo & N. M. Henley (Ed.), Gender and nonverbal behavior (pp.
Erlbaum.
183-208). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Gibbons, F. X., & McCoy, S. (1991). Self-esteem, similarity, and reac-
Hayes, R. B. (1984). The development and maintenance of friendship.
tions to active versus passive downward comparison. Journal of Per-
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, I, 75-98.
sonality and Social Psychology, 60, 414-424.
Heatherington, L., Daubman, K. A., Bates, C., Ann, A., Brown, H., &
Gilbert, D. T. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin,
Preston, C. (1993). Two investigations of "female modesty" in
117, 21-38.
achievement situations. Sex Roles, 29, 739-754.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and
Hedges, L. V., & Nowell, A. (1995, July 7). Sex differences in mental
women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
test scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals. Sci-
Gitelson, L, Petersen, A., & Tobin-Richards, M. (1982). Adolescents'
ence, 269, 41-45.
expectancies of success, self-evaluation, and attributions about perfor-
Hendrick, C. (1988). Roles and gender in relationships. In S. W. Duck
mance on spatial and verbal tasks. Sex Roles, 8, 411-419.
(Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 429-448). Chiches-
Goethals, G., Messick, D. M., & Allison, S. T. (1991). The uniqueness
ter, England: Wiley.
bias: Studies of constructive social comparison. In J. Suls & T. A.
Henley, N. M. (1977 ). Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal commu-
Wills (Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research
nication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
(pp. 149-176). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Higgins, E.T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and af-
Gonzales, M. H., Pederson, J. H., Manning, D. J., & Wetter, D. W.
fect. Psychological Review, 94, 319-340.
(1990). Pardon my gaffe: Effects of sex, status, and consequence
Higgins, E. T., & Bargh, J. A. (1987). Social cognition and social per-
severity on accounts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
ception. In M. R. Resenweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of
58, 610-621.
psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 369-425). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Goodnow, J. J. (1988). Children's household work: Its nature and func-
Hill, C. T., & Stull, D. E. (1981). Sex differences in effects of social
tions. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 5-26.
and value similarity in same-sex friendship. Journal of Personality
Gore, S., Aseltine, R. H., Jr., & Colten, M. E. (1993). Gender, social- and Social Psychology, 41, 488-502.
relational involvement, and depression. Journal of Research on Ado- Hill, C. T., & Stull, D. E. (1987). Gender and self-disclosure: Strategies
lescence, 3, 101-125. for exploring the issues. In V. J. Derlega & J. H. Berg (Eds.), Self-
Greenwald, A. G. (1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision disclosure: Theory, research, and therapy (pp. 81-100). New "fork:
of personal history. American Psychologist, 35, 603-618. Plenum.
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1989). The self as a memory sys- Hodgins, H. S., Liebeskind, E., & Schwartz, W. (1996). Getting out of
tem: Powerful but ordinary. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- hot water: Facework in social predicaments. Journal of Personality
chology, 57, 41-54. and Social Psychology, 71, 300-314.
Greenwald, A. G., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1984). The self. In J. R. S. Hoffman, L. W. (1991). The influence of the family environment on
Wyer & T. K. Srull (Ed.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 3, pp. personality: Accounting for sibling differences. Psychological Bulle-
129-178). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. tin, 110, 187-203.
Guisinger, S., & Blatt, S. J. (1994). Individuality and relatedness: Evolu- Hoffman, M. L. (1977). Sex differences in empathy and related behav-
tion of a fundamental dialectic. American Psychologist, 49, 104-111. iors. Psychological Bulletin, 54, 712-722.
Halberstadt, A. G., Hayes, C. W., & Pike, K. M. (1988). Gender and Hoffman, M. L. (1984). Interaction of affect and cognition on empathy.
gender role differences in smiling and communication consistency. In C. E. Izard, J. Kagan, & R. B. Zajonc (Eds.), Emotions, cognition,
Six Roles, 19, 589-604. and behavior (pp. 103 -131). New York: Cambridge University Press.
32 CROSS AND MADSON

Hofstede, G. H. (1984). Culture's consequences: International differ- In V. E. O'Leary, R. K. Unger, & B. S. Wallston (Eds.), Women, gen-
ences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. der, and social psychology (pp. 129-148). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hunter, F. T., & Youniss, J. (1982). Changes in functions of three rela- Km MI. S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic
tions during adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 18, 806-811. review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social
Huston, A. C. (1983). Sex typing. In P. H. Mussen & E. M. Hetherington Psychology, 65, 681-706.
(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (4th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 387-467). Kashima, Y., Yamaguchi, S., Kim, U., Choi, S. C., Gelfand, M. J., &
New York: Wiley. Yuki, M. (1995 ). Culture, gender, and self: A perspective from individ-
Hyde, J. S. (1984). How large are gender differences in aggression? A ualism-collectivism research. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
developmental meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 20, 722- chology, 69, 925-937.
736. Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D.
Hyde, J. S. (1990). Meta-analysis and the psychology of gender differ- Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 192-
ences. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 16, 55—73. 241). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Hyde. J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. 3. (1990). Gender differences in Kelley, H. H., Bercheid. E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J. H., Huston, T. L.,
mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychology Bulletin, 107, Levinger, G., McClintock, E., Peplau, L. A., & Peterson, D. R. (1983).
139-155. Close relationships. New York: Freeman.
Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: Kelly, J.B. (1982). Divorce: The adult perspective. In B. B. Wolman
A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 53-69. (Ed.), Handbook of developmental psychology (pp. 734—750). En-
Ickes, W., Robertson, E., Tooke, W., & Teng, G. (1986). Naturalistic glewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
social cognition: Methodology, assessment, and validation. .Journal of Kenny, M. E., Moilanen, D. L., Lomax, R., & Brabeck, M. M. (1993).
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 66-82. Contributions of parental attachments to view of self and depressive
Ickes, W., Stinson, L., Bissonnette, V., & Garcia, S. (1990). Naturalistic symptoms among early adolescents [Special issue]. Journal of Early
social cognition: Empathic accuracy in mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Adolescence, 13, 408-430.
Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 730-742. Kessler, R. C., & McLeod, J. D. (1984). Sex differences in vulnerability
Ickes, W., Tooke, W., Stinson, L., Baker, V. L., & Bissonnette, V. (1988). to undesirable life events. American Sociological Review, 49, 620-
Naturalistic social cognition: Intersubjectivity in same-sex dyads. 631.
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 12, 58-84. Kihlstrom, J. F., & Cantor, N. (1984). Mental representations of the
Ihinger-Tallman, M., & Pasley, K. (1987). Remarriage. Newbury Park, self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychol-
CA: Sage. ogy (Vol. 17, pp. 1-47). New York: Academic Press.
Ilardi, B. C., & Bridges, L. J. (1988). Gender differences in self-system Kihlstrom, J. F, Cantor, N., Albright, J. S., Chew, B. R., Klein, S., &
processes as rated by teachers and students. Sex Roles, 18, 333-342. Niedenthal, P.M. (1988). Information processing and the study of
Izard, C. E. (1991). The psychology of emotions. New York: Plenum. the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
James, W. ( 1890). The principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA: Har- psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 145-177). New York: Academic Press.
vard University Press. (Reprinted 1983)
Kihlstrom, J. F., & Klein, S. B. (1994). The self as a knowledge struc-
Janisse, M. P., Edguer, N., & Dyck, D. G. (1986). Type A behavior, ture. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition.
anger expression, and reactions to anger imagery. Motivation and Vol. 1: Basic processes (pp. 153-208). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Emotion, 10, 371-386.
Kitson, G. C. (1992). Portrait of divorce: Adjustment to marital break-
Johnson, F. L., & Aries, E. J. (1983). Conversational patterns among
down. New %rk: Guilford Press.
same-sex pairs of late-adolescent close friends. Journal of Genetic
Klein, S. B., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1986). Elaboration, organization, and
Psychology, 142, 225-238.
the self-reference effect in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychol-
Johnson-George, C., & Swap, W. C. (1982). Measurement of specific
ogy: General, 115, 26-38.
interpersonal trust: Construction and validation of a scale to assess
Klein. S. B., & Loftus, J. (1988). The nature of self-referent encoding:
trust in a specific other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
The contributions of elaborative and organizational processes. Journal
43, 1306-1317.
of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 5-11.
Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. (1972). The actor and the observer: Divergent
Klein, S. B., Loftus, J., & Burton, H. (1989). Two self-reference effects:
perceptions of causality. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley,
The importance of distinguishing between self-descriptiveness judg-
R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving
ments and autobiographical retrieval in self-referent encoding. Journal
the causes of behavior (pp. 79-94). Morristown, NJ: General Learn-
of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 853-865.
ing Press.
Knight, G. P., Fabes, R. A., & Higgins, D. A. (1996). Concerns about
Jordan, J. V. (1991). The meaning of mutuality. In J. V. Jordan, A. G.
drawing causal inferences from meta-analyses: An example in the
Kaplan, J. B. Miller, I. P. Stivey, & J. L. Surrey (Eds.), Women's
growth in connection: Writings from Stone Center (pp. 82-83). New study of gender differences in aggression. Psychological Bulletin, 119,
York: Guilford Press. 410-421.

Jordan, J. V., Kaplan, A. G., Miller, J. B., Stivey, I. P., & Surrey, J. L. Kondo, D. (1990). Crafting selves: Power, gender, and discourses of
(Eds.). (1991). Women's growth in connection: Writings from Stone identity in a Japanese work place. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Center. New Ybrk: Guilford Press. Press.
Jordan, J. V., &. Surrey, J. L. (1986). The self-in-relation: Empathy and Kraft, L., & Vraa, C. (1975). Sex composition of groups and pattern
the mother-daughter relationship. In X Bernay & D. W. Cantor of self-disclosure by high school females. Psychological Reports, 37,
(Eds.), The psychology of today's women. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 733-734.
University Press. Kuebli, J., Butler, S., & Fivush, R. (1995). Mother-child talk about
Josephs, R. A., Markus, H. R., & Tafarodi, R. W. (1992). Gender and past emotions: Relations of maternal language and child gender over
self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 391- time. Cognition and Emotion, 9, 265-283.
402. Kuebli, J., & Fivush, R. (1992). Gender differences in parent-child
Karm, A. S., & Gaeddert, W. P. (1985). From theories of equity to conversations about past emotions. Sex Roles, 27, 683-698.
theories of justice: The liberating consequences of studying women. Kuiper, N. A., & Rogers, T. B. (1979). Encoding of personal informa-
 MODELS OF THE SELF 33

tion: Self-other differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- Lyons, N. P. (1983). Two perspectives: On self, relationships, and moral-
chology, 37, 499-514. ity. Harvard Educational Review, 53, 125—145.
Kuschel, R. (1992). "Women are women and men are men": How Mackie, M. (1983). The domestication of self: Gender comparisons of
Bellonese women get even. In K. Bjorkqvist & P. Niemela (Eds.), Of serf-imagery and self-esteem. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 343-
mice and women: Aspects of female aggression (pp. 173—185). San 350.
Diego, CA: Academic Press. Maccoby, E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental ac-
Labott, S. M., Martin, R. B., Eason, P. S., & Berkey, E. Y. (1991). Social count. American Psychologist, 45, 513-520.
reactions to the expression of emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 5, Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex. differ-
397-417. ences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
LaFrance, M., & Banaji, M. (1992). Toward a reconsideration of the Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. (1987). Gender segregation in child-
gender-emotion relationships. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Emotion and hood. In H. W. Reese (Ed.). Advances in child development and be-
social behavior: Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. havior (Vol. 20, pp. 239-288). New York: Academic Press.
14, pp. 178-201), Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Major, B., & Adams, J. B. (1983). Role of gender, interpersonal orienta-
Lagerspetz, K., Bjorkqvist, K., & Peltonen, T. (1988). Is indirect aggres- tion, and self-presentation in distributive-justice behavior. Journal of
sion typical of females? Gender differences in aggressiveness in 11- Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 598-608.
to 12-year-old children. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 403-414. Malatesta, C. Z., Culver, C., Tesman, J., & Shepard, B. (1989). The
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self- development of emotion expression during the first two years of life.
esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Jour- Monographs of the Society of Research in Child Development, 50
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 518-530. (1-2, Serial No. 219).
Lecky, P. (1945). Self-consistency: A theory of personality. New York: Malatesta-Magai, C., Jonas, R., Shepard, B., & Culver, L. C. (1992).
Island Press. Type A behavior pattern and emotion expression in younger and older
Lempers, J. D., & Clark-Lempers, D. S. (1993). A functional compari- adults. Psychology and Aging, 7, 551-561.
son of same-sex and opposite sex friendships during adolescence. Marin, G., & Triandis, H. C. (1985). Allocentrism as an important char-
Journal of Adolescent Research, S, 89-108. acteristic of the behavior of Latin Americans and Hispanics. In R.
Lenney, E. (1977). Women's self-confidence in achievement settings. Diaz-Guerrero (Ed.), Cross-cultural and national studies in social
psychology (pp. 69-80). Amsterdam: North Holland.
Psychological Bulletin, 84, 1-13.
Lennon, R., & Eisenberg, N. (1987). Gender and age differences in Marks, G. (1984). Thinking one's abilities are unique and one's opin-
ions are common. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, JO,
empathy and sympathy. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayers (Eds.), Empathy
203-208.
and its development (pp. 195-217). Newark: Cambridge University
Press. Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemas and processing information about the
self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63-78.
Leung, K. (1987). Some determinants of reactions to procedural models
Markus, H. (1983). Self-knowledge: An expanded view. Journal of
for conflict resolution: A cross-national study. Journal of Personality
Personality, 51, 543-565.
and Social Psychology, 53, 898-908.
Markus, H., & Cross, S. E. (1990). The interpersonal self. In L. A.
Leung, K., & Lind, E. A. (1986). Procedural justice and culture: Effects
Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp.
of culture, gender, and investigator status on procedural preferences.
576-608). New York: Guilford Press.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1134- 1140.
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications
Lewis, D. K. (1978). The Black family: Socialization and sex roles. In
for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98,
R. Staples (Ed.), The Black family: Essays and studies (pp. 215-
224-253.
226). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1994). A collective fear of the collec-
Lewis, R. A. (1978). Emotional intimacy among men. Journal of Social
tive: Implications for selves and theories of selves. Personality and
Issues, 34, 108-121.
Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 568-579.
Lind, E. A., Huo, Y. J., & Tyler, T. R. (1994). . . . And justice for all:
Markus, H. R., Mullally, P. R., & Kitayama, S. (in press). Selfways:
Ethnicity, gender and preferences for dispute resolution procedures.
Diversity in modes of cultural participation. In U. Neisser & D. Jopling
Law and Human Behavior, IS, 269-290. (Eds.), The conceptual self in context. New York: Cambridge Univer-
Linn, M. C, & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization sity Press.
of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Develop- Markus, H-, & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psycholo-
ment, 56, 1479-1498. gist, 41, 954-969.
Linville, P. W. (1985). Self-complexity and affective extremity: Don't Markus, H., & Oyserman, D. (1989). Gender and thought: The role of
put all your eggs in one cognitive basket [Special issue]. Social Cogni- the self-concept. In M. Crawford & M. Hamilton (Ed.), Gender and
tion, 3, 94-120. thought (pp. 100-127). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Linville, P. W. (1987). Self-complexity as a cognitive buffer against Markus, H., Smith, J., & Moreland, R. L. (1985). Role of the self-
stress-related disease and illness. Journal of Personality and Social concept in the social perception of others. Journal of Personality and
Psychology, 52, 663-676. Social Psychology, 49, 1494-1512.
Lott, B., & Maluso, D. (1993). The social learning of gender. In A. E. Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social
Beall & R. J. Steinberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (pp. 99- psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299-
123). New York: Guilford Press. 337.
Lupfer, M. B., Clark, L. E, & Hutcherson, H. W. (1990). Impact of Marsh, H. W, Parker, J., & Barnes, J. (1985). Multidimensional adoles-
context on spontaneous trait and situational attributions. Journal of cent self-concepts: Their relationship to age, sex, and academic mea-
Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 239-249. sures. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 422-444.
Lykes, M. B. (1985). Gender and individualistic vs. collectivist bases McCabe, A., & Lipscomb, T. (1988). Sex differences in children's
for notions about the self. In A.I. Stewart & M. B. Lykes (Ed.), verbal aggression. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 34, 389-401.
Gender and personality: Current perspectives on theory and research McCauley, C. ( 1995). Are stereotypes exaggerated? A sampling of ra-
(pp. 268-295.). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. cial, gender, academic, occupational, and political stereotypes. In Y.
34 CROSS AND MADSON

Lee, L. Jussim, & C. R. McCauley (Eds.), Stereotype accuracy: To- Oved, Y. (1988). Two hundred years of American communes. New
ward appreciating group differences (pp. 215-243). Washington, Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.
DC: American Psychological Association. Oyserman, D., & Packer, M. (1996). Social cognition and self-concept:
McCombs, H. (1985). Black self-concept: An individual/collective A socially contextualized model of identity. In J. L. Nye & A. Brower
analysis. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 9, 1-18. (Eds.), What's social about social cognition? Social cognition re-
McFarland, C., & Miller, D. T. (1990). Judgments of self-other similar- search in small groups (pp. 175-201). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
ity: Just like other people, only more so. Journal of Personality and Papini, D., Farmer, E, Clark, S., Micka, J., & Barnett, J. (1990). Early
Social Psychology, 16, 475-484. adolescent age and gender differences in patterns of emotional self-
McGuire, W. J., & McGuire, C. V. (1982). Significant others in self disclosure to parents and friends. Adolescence, 25, 959-976.
space: Sex differences and developmental trends in social self. In J. Patterson, M. (1988). Functions of nonverbal behavior in close relation-
Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 1, pp. 71- ships. In S. W. Duck, D. F. Hay, S. E. Hobfoll, W. Ickes, & B. M.
96). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Montgomery (Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory,
McLoyd, V. C. (1993). Employment among African-American mothers research and interventions (pp. 41-56). Chichester, England: Wiley.
in dual-earner families: Antecedents and consequences for family life Pelharn, B. W. (1991). On confidence and consequence: The certainty
and child development. Tn J. Frankel (Ed.), The employed mother and and importance of self-knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social
the family context (pp. 180-226). New York: Springer. Psychology, 60, 518-530.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago, IL: University of Pelham, B. W, & Swann, W. B., Jr. (1989). From self-conceptions to
Chicago Press. self-worth: On the sources and structure of global self-esteem. Journal
Mednick, M. T. (1989). On the politics of psychological constructs: of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 672-680.
Stop the bandwagon, I want to get off. American Psychologist, 44, Pennebaker, J. W., Gender-Frederick, L., Stewart, H., Elfman, L., &
1118-1123. Skelton, J. A. (1982). Physical symptoms associated with blood pres-
Miller, J. B. (1986). Toward a new psychology of women (2nd ed.). sure. Psychophysiology, 19, 201-210.
Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Pennebaker, J. W, & Roberts, T. A. (1992). Toward a his and hers theory
Miller, J. G. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social of emotion: Gender differences in visceral perception. Journal of
explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 961 - Social and Clinical Psychology, 11, 199-212.
978. Pennebaker, J. W, & Watson, D. (1988). Blood pressure estimations and
Miller, J. G. (1994). Cultural diversity in the morality of caring: Individ- beliefs among normotensives and hypertensives. Health Psychology, 7,
ually oriented versus duty-based interpersonal moral codes. Cross- 309-328.
Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative Social Science, 28, Peplau, L. A., & Campbell, S. M. (1989). The balance of power in
3-39. dating and marriage. In J. Freeman (Ed.), Women: A feminist perspec-
Miller, L. C., Berg, J. H., & Archer, R. L. (1983). Openers: Individuals tive (4th ed., pp. 121-137). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
who elicit intimate self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Perry, D., Perry, L., & Rasmussen, P. (1986). Cognitive social learning
Psychology. 44. 1234-1244. mediators of aggression. Child Development, 57, 700-711.
Miller, L. C., & Read, S.J. (1987). Why am 1 telling you this? Self- Perry, D., Perry, L., & Weiss, R. (1989). Sex differences in the conse-
disclosure hi a goal-based model of personality. In V. J. Derlega & quences that children anticipate for aggression. Developmental Psy-
J. H. Berg (Eds.), Self-disclosure: Theory, research, and therapy (pp. chology, 25, 312-319.
35-58). New York: Plenum Press. Pleck, J. H. (1985). Working wives/working husbands. Beverly Hills,
Moran, P. B., & Eckenrode, J. (1991). Gender differences in the costs CA: Sage.
and benefits of peer relationships during adolescence. Journal of Ado- Pleck, J. H. (1987). American fathering in historical perspective. In
lescent Research, 6, 396-409. M. S. Kimmel (Ed.), Changing men: New directions in research on
Morris, M. W, & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and men and masculinity (pp. 83-97). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Person- Pratt, M. W., Golding, G., Hunter, W., & Sampson, R. (1988). Sex
ality and Social Psychology, 67, 949-971. differences in adult moral orientations. Journal of Personality, 56,
Morton, T. L. (1978). Intimacy and reciprocity of exchange: A compari- 373-391.
son of spouses and strangers. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- Pratt, M. W, Prancer, M., Hunsberger, B., & Manchester, J. (1990).
chology, 36, 72-81. Reasoning about the self and relationships in maturity: An integrative
Moskowit2, D. S., Sun, E. J., & Desaulniers, J. (1994). Situational in- complexity analysis of individual differences. Journal of Personality
fluences on gender differences in agency and communion. Journal of and Social Psychology, 59, 575-581.
Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 753-761. Ptacek, J. T., Smith, R. E., & Dodge, K. L. (1994). Gender differences
Newman, L. S. (1991). Why are traits inferred spontaneously? A devel- in coping with stress: When stressor and appraisals do not differ.
opmental approach. Social Cognition, 9, 221-253. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 421-430.
Newman, L. S. (1993). How individualists interpret behavior: Idiocen- Rachlin, V. C. (1987). Fair vs. equal role relations in dual-career and
trism and spontaneous trait inference. Social Cognition, 11, 243-269. dual-earner families: Implications for family interventions. Family
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1987). Sex differences in unipolar depression: Relations, 36, 187-192.
Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 259-282. Radloff, L. G. (1975). Sex differences in depression: The effects of
Offermann, L. R., & Gowing, M. K. ( 1990). Organizations of the future: occupation and marital status. Sex Roles, 1, 249-265.
Changes and challenges. American Psychologist, 45, 95-108. Radloff, L. G. (1980). Risk factors for depression: What do we learn
Ogilvie, D. M., & Clark, M. D. (1992). The best and worst of it: Age from them? In M. Guttentag, S. Salasin, & D. Belle (Eds.), The
and sex differences in self-discrepancy research. In R. P. Lipka & mental health of women (pp. 93-110). New \brk: Academic Press.
T. M. Brinthaupt (Eds.), Self-perspectives across the life span (pp. Radloff, L. G., & Monroe, M. K. (1978). Sex differences in help-
186-222). Albany: State University of New York Press. lessness—With implication for depression. In L. H. Hansen & R. S.
O'Leary, V. E., & Smith, D. (1988, August). Sex makes a difference: Rapoza (Eds.), Career development and counseling of women (pp.
Attributions for emotional cause. Paper presented at the 96th Annual 199-221). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Convention of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA. Rands, M., & Levinger, G. (1979). Implicit theories of relationship: An
 MODELS OF THE SELF 35

intergenerational study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, dropping on nonverbal cues. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
37, 645-661. chology, 37, 273-285.
Reis, H. T. (1986). Gender effects in social participation: Intimacy, lone- Ross, L. D. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings:
liness, and the conduct of social interaction. In R. Gilmour & S. Duck Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances
(Eds.), The emerging field of personal relationships (pp. 91-107). in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173-220). New York:
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Academic Press.
Reis, H. T. (1990). The role of intimacy in interpersonal relations. Jour- Ross, M., & Holmberg, D. (1992). Are wives' memories for events in
nal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 15-30. relationships more vivid than their husbands' memories? Journal of
Reis, H. T, Senchak, M., & Solomon, B. (1985). Sex differences in Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 585-604.
the intimacy of social interaction: Further examination of potential Rotter, N.G., & Rotter, G. S. (1988). Sex differences in the encoding
explanations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, and decoding of negative facial emotions. Journal of Nonverbal Be-
1204-1217. havior, 12. 139-148.
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. Rubin, Z., Hill, C., Peplau, L., & Dunkel-Schetter, C. (1980). Self-
In S. Duck, D. F. Hay, S. E. Hobfoll, W. Icfces, & B. M. Montgomery disclosure in dating couples: Sex roles and the ethic of openness.
(Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 305-317.
interventions (pp. 367-389). Chichester, England: Wiley. Rubin, Z., Peplau, L. A., & Hill, C. T. (1981). Loving and leaving: Sex
Reisman, J. M. (1990). Intimacy in same-sex friendships. Sex Roles, differences in romantic attachments. Sex Roles, 8, 625-638.
23, 65-72. Sampson, E. E. (1988). The debate on individualism: Indigenous psy-
Rhee, E., Uleman, J. S., Lee, H. K., & Roman, R. J. (1995). Spontane- chologies of the individual and their role in personal and societal
ous self-descriptions and ethnic identities in individualistic and collec- functioning. American Psychologist, 43, 15-22.
tivistic cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, Sampson, E. E. (1989). The challenge of social change for psychology:
142-152. Globalization and psychology's theory of the person. American Psy-
Ridgeway, C. L. (1988). Gender differences in task groups: A status chologist, 44, 914-921.
and legitimacy account. In M. Webster & M. Foschi (Eds.), Status Sapadin, L. A. (1988). Friendship and gender: Perspectives of profes-
generalization: New theory and research (pp. 188-206). Stanford, sional men and women. Journal of Social and Personality Relation-
CA: Stanford University Press. ships, 5, 387-403.
Ridgeway, C. L., & Diekema, D. (1992). Are gender differences status Sattel, J. W. (1976). The inexpressive male: Tragedy or sexual politics?
differences? In C. L. Ridgeway (Ed.), Gender, interaction, and in- Social Problems, 23, 469-477.
equality (pp. 157-180). New York: Springer-Verlag. Schmidt, N., & Sermat, V. (1983). Measuring loneliness in different
Rime, B., Mesquita, B., Phillipot, P., & Boca, S. (1992). Beyond the relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44,
emotional event: Sex students in the social sharing of emotions. Cogni- 1038-1047.
tion and Emotion, 5, 435-465. Schmitt, J. P., & Kurdek, L. A. (1985). Age and gender differences
in and personality correlated of loneliness in different relationships,
Robbins, P. R., & Tanck, R. H. (1991). Gender differences in the attribu-
Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 485-496.
tion of causes for depressed feelings. Psychological Reports, 68,
1209-1210. Schultz, N. R., & Moore, D. (1986). The loneliness experience of col-
lege students: Sex differences. Personality and Social Psychology
Roberts, T., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1989). Sex differences in reactions
Bulletin, 12, 111-119.
to evaluative feedback. Sex Roles, 21, 725-747.
Schwalbe, M. L., & Staples, C. L. (1991). Gender differences in sources
Roberts, T., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1994). Gender comparisons in
of self-esteem. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 158-168.
responsiveness to others' evaluations in achievement settings. Psychol-
Sedikides, C., Olsen, N., & Reis, H. T. ( 1993). Relationships as natural
ogy of Women Quarterly, 18, 221-240.
categories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 71 -
Roberts, T. A., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1995). Gender differences in per-
82.
ceiving internal state: Toward a his-and-hers model of perceptual cue
Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development
use. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
and death. San Francisco: Freeman.
(Vol. 27, pp. 143-176). New \brk: Academic Press.
Shaffer, D. R., Pegalis, L., & Bazzini, D. G. (1996). When boy meets
Rogers, T. B. ( 1981). A model of the self as an aspect of human informa-
girl (revisited): Gender, gender-role orientation, and prospect of future
tion processing. In N. Cantor & J. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality,
interaction as determinants of self-disclosure among same- and oppo-
cognition, and social interaction (pp. 193-214). Hillsdale, NJ:
site-sex acquaintances. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
Erlbaum.
22, 495-506.
Rogers, T. B., Kuiper, N. A., & Kirker, W. S. (1977). Self-reference and Shapiro, P. N., & Penrod, S. (1986). Meta-analysis of facial identifica-
the encoding of personal information. Journal of Personality and tion studies. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139-156.
Social Psychology, 35, 677-688. Shields, S. A. (1995). The role of emotion beliefs and values in gender
Rose, S. M. (1985). Same- and cross-sex friendships and the psychology development. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Review of personality and social
of homosociality. Sex Roles, 12, 63-74. psychology. Vol. 15: Social development (pp. 212-232). Thousand
Rosenberg, F. R., & Simmons, R. G. (1975). Sex differences in the self- Oaks, CA: Sage.
concept during adolescence. Sex Roles, I, 147-160. Sherif, C. (1982). Needed concepts in the study of gender identity.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 6, 375-398.
NJ: Princeton University Press. Showers, C. (1992). Compartmentalization of positive and negative self-
Rosenberg, M. (1981). The self-concept: Social product and social knowledge: Keeping bad apples out of the bunch. Journal of Person-
force. In M. Rosenberg & R. H. Turner (Eds.), Social psychology: ality and Social Psychology, 62, 1036-1049.
Sociological perspectives (pp. 593-624). New "fork: Basic Books. Shweder, R. A. (1982). Beyond self-constructed knowledge: The study
Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the adolescent self-image. Middle- of culture and morality. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 28, 41-69.
town, CT Wesleyan University Press. Shweder, R. A., & Bourne, E. J. (1984). Does the concept of the person
Rosenthal, R., & DePaulo, B. M. (1979). Sex differences in eaves- vary cross-culturally? In R. A. Shweder & R. A. LeVine (Ed.), Cul-
36 CROSS AND MADSON

ture theory: Essays on mind, self, and emotion (pp. 158-199). Cam- Stokes, J., Childs, L., & Fuehrer, A. (1981). Gender and sex roles as
bridge, England: Cambridge University Press. predictors of self-disclosure. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28,
Sidanius, J.,Pratto, F.,&Bobo, L. (1994). Social dominance orientation 510-514.
and the political psychology of gender: A case of invariance? Journal Stoner, S. B., & Spencer, W. B. (1987). Age and gender differences with
of Personality and Social Psychology, 67; 998-1011. the Anger Expression Scale. Educational and Psychological Measure-
Simmons, R. G. (1987). Moving into adolescence: The impact ofpuber- ment, 47, 487-492.
tal change and school context. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Storandt, M., Grant, E. A., & Gordon, B, C. (1978). Remote memory
Simmons, R. G., & Rosenberg, F. (1975). Sex, sex roles, and self-image. as a function of age and sex. Experimental Aging Research, 4, 365-
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 4, 229-258. 375.
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdepen- Stotland, E. (1969). Exploratory studies of empathy. In L. Berkowitz
dent self-cons truals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 271-
580-591. 314). New York: Academic Press.
Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Appraisal components, core Strayer, J. (1986). Children's attributions regarding the situational deter-
relational themes, and the emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 7, 233- minants of emotion in self and others. Developmental Psychology, 22,
269. 649-654.
Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1994). Social psychology across cultures: Surrey, J. L. (1991). The "self-in-relation": A theory of women's devel-
Analysis and perspectives. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. opment. In J. V Jordan. A. G. Kaplan, J. B. Miller, L R Stiver, & J. L.
Snell, W. E., Miller, R. S., & Belk, S. S. (1988). Development of the Surrey (Eds.), Women's growth in connection: Writings from Stone
Emotional Self-Disclosure Scale. Sex Roles, 18, 59-73. Center (pp. 51-66). New York: Guilford Press.
Snell, W. E., Miller, R. S., Belk, S. S., Garcia-Falconi, R., & Hernandez- Swann, W. B., Jr. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into
Sanchez, J. E. (1989). Men's and women's emotional disclosures: harmony with the self. In J. Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Social
The impact of disclosure recipient, culture, and the masculine role. psychological perspectives on the self( Vol. 2, pp. 33-66). Hillsdale,
Sex Roles, 21, 467-486. NJ: Erlbaum.
Snydcr, M. (1979). Self-monitoring processes. Advances in Experimen- Swann, W. B., Jr. (1990). To be adored or to be known? The interplay
tal Social Psychology, 12, 85-128. of self-enhancement and self-verification. In E. T. Higgins & R. M.
Snyder, M., & Ickes, W. (1985). Personality and social behavior. In G. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Founda-
Lindsey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd tions of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 408-448). New York: Guilford.
ed., Vol. 2, pp. 883-948). New York: Random House. Swann, W. B., Jr., Stein-Seroussi, A., & Giesler, B. ( 1992). Why people
Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., &. Pyszczynski, T. (1991). A terror manage- self-verify. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 392-
ment theory of social behavior: The psychological functions of self- 306.
esteem and cultural worldviews. In M. E. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances Swim, J. K. (1994). Perceived versus meta-analytic effect sizes: An
in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 91-159). San Diego, assessment of the accuracy of gender stereotypes. Journal of Person-
CA: Academic Press. ality and Social Psychology, 66, 21—36.
Stake, J. E. (1992). Gender differences and similarities in self-concept Tangney, J. (1990). Assessing individual differences in proneness to
within everyday life contexts. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, shame and guilt: Development of the self-conscious affect and attribu-
349-363. tion inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,
Stapley, J. C., & Haviland, J. M. (1989). Beyond depression: Gender 102-111.
differences in normal adolescents' emotional experiences. Sex Roles, Tangney, J. P. (1992). Situational determinants of shame and guilt in
20, 295-308. young adulthood. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18,
Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining 199-206.
the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experi- Tesser, A. (1980). Self-esteem maintenance in family dynamics. Journal
mental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261-302). New %rk: Aca- of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 77-91,
demic Press. Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social
Stein, J. A., Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1992). The effect of behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
agency and communality on self-esteem: Gender differences in longi- psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 181-227). New York: Academic Press.
tudinal data. Sex Roles, 26, 465-481. Tesser, A., & Campbell, J. (1982). Self-evaluation maintenance and the
Stern, L. (1990). Conceptions of separation and connection in female perception of friends and strangers. Journal of Personality, 50, 261-
adolescents. In C. Gilligan, N. P. Lyons, & T. J. Hanmer (Eds.), Mak- 279.
ing connections: The relational worlds of adolescent girls at Emma Tesser, A., Campbell, J., & Smith, M. (1984). Friendship choice and
Willard School (pp. 73-87). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University performance: Self-evaluation maintenance in children. Journal of Per-
Press. sonality and Social Psychology, 46, 561-574.
Stets, J. E., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Gender differences in reporting Tesser, A., Millar, M., & Moore, J. (1988). Some affective consequences
marital violence and its medical and psychological consequences. In of social comparison and reflection processes: The pain and pleasure
M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American of being close. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families 49-61.
(pp. 151-165). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Tesser, A., & Moore, J. (1990). Independent threats and self-evaluation
Stewart, A. J., & Lykes, M. B. (1985). Conceptualizing gender in per- maintenance processes. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 677-691.
sonality theory and research. Tn A. J. Stewart & M. B. Lykes (Eds.), Tesser, A., & Paulhus, D. (1983). The definition of self: Private and
Gender and personality: Current perspectives on theory and research public self-evaluation management strategies. Journal of Personality
(pp. 2-13). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. and Social Psychology, 44, 672-682.
Stipek, D. J., & Gralinski, J. H. (1991). Gender differences in children's Tesser, A., Pilkington, C. J., & Mclntosh, W. D. (1989). Self-evaluation
achievement-related beliefs and emotional responses to success and maintenance and the medialional role of emotion: The perception of
failure in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, S3, 361- friends and strangers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
371. 57, 442-456.
 MODELS OF THE SELF 37

Thoits, P. A. (1992). Identity structures and psychological well-being: friendships. In P.M. Nardi (Ed.), Men's friendships (pp. 74-114).
Gender and marital status comparisons. Social Psychology Quarterly, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
55, 236-256. Wells, L. E., & Stryker, S. (1988). Stability and change in self over the
Thompson, L., & Walker, A. J. (1989). Gender in families: Women and life course. In P. B. Baltes, D. L. Featherman, & R. M. Leraer (Eds.),
men in marriage, work, and parenthood. Journal of Marriage and the Life-span development and behavior (Vol. 8, pp. 191-229). Hillsdale,
Family, 51, 845-871. NJ: Erlbaum.
Towson, S-, & Zanna, M. (1982). Toward a siruational analysis of gender Wethington, E., McLeod, J. D., & Kessler, R. C. (1987). The importance
differences in aggression. Sex Roles, 8, 903-914. of life events for explaining sex differences in psychological distress.
Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C, & Goto, S. G. (1991). Some tests of the In R. C. Barrett, L. Beiner, & G. K. Baruch (Eds.), Gender and stress
distinction between the private self and the collective self. Journal of (pp. 144-156). New York: Free Press.
Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 649-655. Wheeler, L., Reis, H. T., & Nezlek, J. (1983). Loneliness, social interac-
Trepanier-Street, M. L., & Romatowski, J. A. (1986). Sex and age differ- tion, and sex roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
ences in children's creative writing. Journal of Humanistic Education 45, 943-954.
and Development, 25, 18-27. Williams, C., & Bybee, J. (1994). What do children feel guilty about?
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural Developmental and gender differences. Developmental Psychology,
contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-520. 30, 617-623.
Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. Williams, D. G. (1985). Gender, masculinity-femininity, and emotional
(1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives intimacy in same-sex friendship. Sex Roles, 12, 587-600.
on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychol-
chology, 54, 323-338. ogy. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 245-271.
Trubisky, P., Ting-Toomey, S., & Lin, S.-L. (1991). The influence of Winstead, B. A. (1986). Sex differences in same-sex friendships. In
individualism-collectivism and self-monitoring on conflict styles. In- V, J. Derlega & B. A. Winstead (Eds.), Friendship and social interac-
ternational Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 65-84. tion (pp. 81-99). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Turner, H. A. (1994). Gender and social support: Taking the bad with Wong, M. M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Affiliation motivation
the good? Sex Roles, 30, 521-541. and daily experience: Some issues on gender differences. Journal of
Underwood, M. K., Coie, J. D., & Herbsman, C. R. (1992). Display Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 154-164.
Wood, J. B., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Serving self-relevant goals through
rules for anger and aggression in school-age children. Child Develop-
ment, 63, 366-380. social comparison. In J. Suls & T. A. Wills (Eds.), Social comparison:
Contemporary theory and research (pp. 23-49). Hillsdale, NJ:
Vangelisti, A. L., Daly, J. A., & Rudnick, J. R. (1991). Making people
Erlbaum.
feel guilty in conversations: Techniques and correlates. Human Com-
Wood, W., Rhodes, N., & Whelan, M. (1989). Sex differences in positive
munication Research, 18, 3-29.
well-being: A consideration of emotional style and marital status.
Van Goozen, S. H. M., Frijda, N. H., Kindt, M., & Van de Poll, N. E.
Psychological Bulletin, 106. 249-264.
(1994). Anger proneness in women: Development and validation of
Wright, P. H., & Crawford, A. C. (1971). Agreement and friendship: A
the Anger Situation Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 20, 79-100.
close look and some second thoughts. Representative Research in
Vrugt, A., & Kerkstra, A. (1984). Sex differences in nonverbal commu-
Social Psychology, 2, 52-69.
nications. Semiotica, 50, 1-41.
Wylie, R. C. (1974). The self-concept. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Wagner, H. L., Buck, R., & Winterbotham, M. (1993). Communication
Press.
of specific emotions: Gender differences in sending accuracy and com-
Yarmey, A. D. (1993). Adult age and gender differences in eyewitness
munication measures. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 17, 29-53.
recall in field settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23,
Wagner, H. L., MacDonald, C. J., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1986). Com-
1921-1932.
munication of individual emotions by spontaneous facial expressions.
Zeman, J., & Garber, J. (1996). Display rules for anger, sadness, and
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 737-743.
pain: It depends on who is watching. Child Development, 67, 957-
Walker, L. J., de Vries, B.. & Trevethan, S. D. (1987). Moral stages
973.
and moral orientations in real-life and hypothetical dilemmas. Child
Zuckerman, D. M. (1985). Confidence and aspirations: Self-esteem and
Development, 58, 842-858.
self-concepts as predictors of students' life goals. Journal of Person-
Watts, B. L., Messe, L. A., & Vallacher, R. R. (1982). Toward under-
ality, 53, 543-560.
standing sex differences in pay allocations: Agency, communion, and Zuckerman, D. M. (1989). Stress, self-esteem, and mental health: How
reward distribution behavior. Sex Roles, 12, 1175-1188. does gender make a difference? Sex Roles, 20, 429-444.
Weisz, J. R., Rothbaum, F. M., & Blackburn, T. C. (1984). Standing out
and standing in: The psychology of control in America and Japan. Received March 27, 1996
American Psychologist, 39, 955-969. Revision received October 20, 1996
Wellman, fl. (1992). Men in networks: Private communities, domestic Accepted November 1, 1996 •

View publication stats