The social self in bulimia nervosa: Public self-consciousness, social anxiety, and perceived fraudulence.

1993 ◽  
Vol 102 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth H. Striegel-Moore ◽  
Lisa R. Silberstein ◽  
Judith Rodin
1993 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. H. Striegel-Moore ◽  
◽  
L. R. Silberstein ◽  
J. Rodin

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 144
Author(s):  
Seung-Hee Lee ◽  
Jane Workman

Many individual differences affect consumers in the decision-making process (i.e., what to purchase; when to purchase). Face consciousness and public self-consciousness affect when in the fashion life cycle consumers decide to purchase, as well as what to purchase. Both face consciousness and public self-consciousness are concerned with consciousness (i.e., awareness; mindfulness) and both depend on social comparison processes. But the motivation underlying the social comparisons is different: with face consciousness, social comparisons yield appraisals of prestige and social status; with public self-consciousness, social comparisons yield assessments of situational appropriateness. The purpose of this study was to examine links among face consciousness; public self-consciousness; brand prestige; self-expressive brand (inner; social), and fashion leadership. Participants were 221 university students who completed a questionnaire. Descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s alpha reliability, and multivariate/univariate analysis of variance (M/ANOVA) were conducted to analyze data. Results showed that face consciousness and public self-consciousness similarly affected ratings of the social self-expressive brand. However, face consciousness (but not public self-consciousness) influenced ratings of brand prestige and inner self-expressive brand. Public self-consciousness (but not face consciousness) influenced fashion leadership. Thus, while face consciousness and public self-consciousness are both concerned with consciousness, they independently influence consumer decision-making in different ways. Theoretical and practical implications are provided.


2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (10) ◽  
pp. 3349-3363
Author(s):  
Naomi H. Rodgers ◽  
Jennifer Y. F. Lau ◽  
Patricia M. Zebrowski

Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine group and individual differences in attentional bias toward and away from socially threatening facial stimuli among adolescents who stutter and age- and sex-matched typically fluent controls. Method Participants included 86 adolescents (43 stuttering, 43 controls) ranging in age from 13 to 19 years. They completed a computerized dot-probe task, which was modified to allow for separate measurement of attentional engagement with and attentional disengagement from facial stimuli (angry, fearful, neutral expressions). Their response time on this task was the dependent variable. Participants also completed the Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents (SAS-A) and provided a speech sample for analysis of stuttering-like behaviors. Results The adolescents who stutter were more likely to engage quickly with threatening faces than to maintain attention on neutral faces, and they were also more likely to disengage quickly from threatening faces than to maintain attention on those faces. The typically fluent controls did not show any attentional preference for the threatening faces over the neutral faces in either the engagement or disengagement conditions. The two groups demonstrated equivalent levels of social anxiety that were both, on average, very close to the clinical cutoff score for high social anxiety, although degree of social anxiety did not influence performance in either condition. Stuttering severity did not influence performance among the adolescents who stutter. Conclusion This study provides preliminary evidence for a vigilance–avoidance pattern of attentional allocation to threatening social stimuli among adolescents who stutter.


1989 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 450-451
Author(s):  
William P. Smith

1991 ◽  
Vol 36 (10) ◽  
pp. 869-871
Author(s):  
Joan G. Miller
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Margaret Kemeny ◽  
Tara Gruenewald ◽  
Sally Dickerson

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 53-58
Author(s):  
Umberto Granziol ◽  
◽  
Gioia Bottesi ◽  
Francesca Serra ◽  
Andrea Spoto ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document