See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232567532
Consciousness of body: Private and public
Article  in  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · August 1981
DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.41.2.397
CITATIONS
346
READS
5,857
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Neural Network Models of Personality View project
Unlocking Stigma's enigmas View project
Lynn Carol Miller
University of Southern California
138 PUBLICATIONS   4,660 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Lynn Carol Miller on 28 May 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
1981, Vol. 41, No. 2, 397-406
Copyright 1981 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
0022-3514/81/4102-0397S00.75
Consciousness of Body: Private and Public
Lynn C. Miller, Richard Murphy, and Arnold H. Buss
University of Texas at Austin
A self-report instrument yielded two separate factors: private body consciousness
(awareness of internal sensations) and public body consciousness (awareness of
observable aspects of body). For each factor, norms, test-retest reliability data,
and correlations with other personality measures are presented. An experiment
on reaction to ingestion of caffeine revealed that only subjects high in private
body consciousness or high in both private body consciousness and private selfconsciousness
were stimulated by caffeine; individual differences in public body
consciousness and in private self-consciousness alone had no impact. These findings
have implications for biofeedback, false physiological feedback, and excitation
transfer.
When we attend to ourselves, what do we
observe? Though there may be various answers
to this question, one is to classify the
diverse components of the self into private
and public aspects. The private aspects can
be observed only by the experiencing person:
thoughts, images, memories, motives, and
feelings—all concerning oneself. The public
aspects can be observed by anyone else: appearance,
manners, and style of behavior.
People differ considerably in the extent to
which they attend to the private aspects of
themselves, and there are marked individual
differences in consciousness of the public or
social aspects of oneself. These two dispositions,
private and public self-consciousness,
are measured by the Self-Consciousness Inventory
(Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975).
Among the highest loading items on the Private
Self-Consciousness Scale are, "I reflect
about myself a lot," "I'm generally attentive
to my inner feelings," and "I'm alert to
changes in my mood." Among the highest
loading items on the Public Self-ConsciousThe
authors thank LuAnne Dumas, Lou Hunt, Nancy
Nunn, Janice Woods, Susan Young, Sharon Kasanoff,
Dubrouvka Hrgovcic, Nancy High, and Cheryl Nugent,
who ably served as experimenters and helped record
data. We are also grateful to Bill Underwood, John
Loehlin, and Jeffrey Herman for their valuable help on
methodological questions. Finally, we are grateful to
Richard Archer, Stephen Read, and Stephen Briggs,
who commented on earlier drafts of the manuscript.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Arnold H.
Buss, Department of Psychology, University of Texas,
Austin, Texas 78712.
ness Scale are, "I usually worry about making
a good impression," "I'm concerned
about the way I present myself," and "I'm
self-conscious about the way I look." Subsequent
research has established that both
private self-consciousness and public selfconsciousness
are important determinantsof
behavior (see Buss, 1980, for a review).
Does this private-public distinction apply
to awareness of the body? Offhand, the answer
would appear to be yes. Everyone has
experienced stomach gurgles, itchy scalp, or
tense muscles—experiences not open to observation
by others. And most people are
aware of the appearance of their face, body,
and hair and their posture and body build—
all of which can be observed by anyone else.
Though these examples suggest that the private
aspects of the body can be distinguished
from the public aspects, examples can be
cited to prove virtually anything. We need
a more rigorous basis for maintaining this
distinction and for demonstrating that there
are two separate personality dispositions, one
for each kind of body awareness.
The Body Consciousness Questionnaire
Seymour Fisher (1968), well known for
his research on awareness of the body, devised
measures of body prominence and body
focus, but neither measure separates the private
aspects of the body from the public aspects.
Another self-report measure inquires
about the body sensations experienced by
397
398 L. MILLER, R. MURPHY, AND A. BUSS
people when they are anxious or happy
(Mandler, Mandler, & Uviller, 1958); this
scale deals with the physiological concomitants
of affective states. We could find no
self-report measure of the private and public
aspects of the body in neutral (nonaffective)
states. We therefore devised one.
Item Selection and Factor Analysis
We started with a set of items that, taken
at face value, dealt with awareness of either
the privateor the public aspects of the body.
To avoid overlap with hypochondriasis, we
omitted items dealing with pain or illness.
None of our body awareness items dealt with
evaluation of the body, so we added several
items that concerned the strength, effectiveness,
and grace of the body.
After pilot work, we administered the final
form of the questionnaire, containing 15
items, to 561 college men and 720 college
women. They answered each item on a scale
that ranged from 0 (extremely uncharacteristic)
to 4 (extremely characteristic). Each
item was correlated with every other item.
The resulting correlation matrix was evaluated
against the three criteria ofsuitability
for factor analysis specified by Dzuiban and
Shirkey (1974). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
test of sampling adequacy was .83, Bartlett's
test of sphericity was 3,940.5 (p < .00001),
and the numberof off-diagonal elements was
17.4%. These figures establish the suitability
of the correlation matrix for factor analysis.
We used the Joreskog Factor Analysis Program
in SPSS (Burns, 1976) and a maximum
likelihood solution with varimax rotation.
The factor patterns for men and
women were similar, so we combined their
data in all subsequent factor analyses. The
factor analysis for men and women combined
yielded three factors similar to the factors
obtained in pilot work. These three factors,
selected with a criterion of an eigenvalue
of 1.0, accounted for 46% of the variance.
As a check on reliability, we administered
the Body Consciousness Questionnaire to
two new samples of 460 and 680 college students,
both times replicating the basic factor
structure.
The items making up the three factors are
presented in Table 1. The names we assigned
to these factors appear to reflect their item
content: private body consciousness, public
body consciousness, and body competence.
Notice that the two body consciousness factors
are nonevaluative but that the body
competence factor is evaluative.
Next, we correlated the three factors, using
the data from a sample of 628 subjects.
Private and public body consciousness correlated
.37, which suggests that people who
attend to one aspect of their body also attend
to the other major aspect as well. The correlations
between body competence and the
two kinds of body consciousness were the
same (.21); evidentlythere is a link between
body consciousness and self-evaluation of
competence, but it is weak. Perhaps people
with stronger, more graceful bodies simply
pay more attention to them.
Stability of the Body Consciousness of
Scales Over Time
We administered the three scales of the
Body Consciousness Questionnaire to a sample
of 130 undergraduate men and women
on two separate occasions, 2 months apart.
Test-retest reliabilities for the Private Body
Consciousness Scale, Public Body Consciousness
Scale, and Body Competence
Scale were, respectively, .69, .73, and .83.
As Nunnally (1978, p. 245) points out, these
coefficients are quite acceptable, especially
given that the number of items on each scale
varied between four and six.
Norms
Table 2 contains the norms for 568 men
and 731 women on the three Body Consciousness
Questionnaire scales. Women
scored significantly higher on public body
consciousness (p < .01). There were no other
gender differences.
Relationship to Relevant Personality
Traits
Are the two kinds of body consciousness
related to the two kinds of self-consciousness?
Public self-consciousness is moderately
correlated with social anxiety (Fenigstein
et al., 1975), but is public body
consciousness also correlated with social
BODY CONSCIOUSNESS 399
Table 1
Items and Factor Loadings of the Body Consciousness Questionnaire Scales
Scale/item
Factor
loading
Private Body Consciousness
I am sensitive to internal bodily tensions.
I know immediately when my mouth or throat getsdry.
I can often feel my heart beating.
I am quick to sense the hunger contractions of my stomach.
I'm very aware of changes in my body temperature.
Public Body Consciousness
When with others, I want my hands to be clean and look
nice.
It's important for me that my skin looks nice . . . forexample,
has no blemishes.
I am very aware of my best and worst facial features.
I like to make sure that my hair looks right.
I think a lot about my body build.
I'm concerned about my posture.
Body Competence
For my size, I'm pretty strong.
I'm better coordinated than most people.
I'm light on my feet compared to most people.
I'm capable of moving quickly.
.45
.50
.54
.39
.39
.53
.68
.48
.68
.44
.47
.44
.63
.69
.69
Note. The data for men and women were combined to yield an TV of 1,281. Only factor loadings of over .30 are
reported; using this criterion, there were no overlapping items.
anxiety or with other kinds of distress? To
answer these questions, we correlated the
scales of the Body Consciousness Questionnaire
with several relevant personality dis-
positions.
The Self-Consciousness Inventory (Fenigstein
et al., 1975) also has three scales.
Two of these, measuring private and public
self-consciousness, have already been mentioned.
The third scale, measuring social
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations on Body
Consciousness Questionnaire Scales for Men
and Women
Men Women
Scale M SD M SD
Private Body
Consciousness
Public Body
Consciousness
11.7 3.0 12.0 3.3
15.7 3.6 17.1 3.3
Body Competence 10.5 2.5 10.0 2.5
Note. Based on an N of 275 men and 353 women.
anxiety, involves tendencies to become embarrassed,
shy, and upset when with others.
We also used a modified version of the Hypochondriasis
(Hs) scale of the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Hathaway
& McKinley, 1967). Some of the items
on this scale were essentially the same as
items on the Body Consciousness Questionnaire;
to avoid a built-in relationship, we
omitted these items from the Hs scale. The
latter scale also contains repetitive items; we
eliminated later items that were merely reworded
versions of earlier items. Several Hs
items appear to deal with pathology (e.g.,
"I am troubled by attacks of nausea and
vomiting," or "I have never vomited blood
or coughed up blood"); such items were also
eliminated. The resulting modified scale contained
14 items.1
The last personality measure
was the Emotionality Scale of the
EASI (Emotionality, Activity, Sociability,
Impulsivity) Temperament Survey (Buss
' Item numbers of the MMPI Hypochondriasis scale
used were 2, 18, 23, 43, 55, 72, 108, 163,175,189, 190,
243, 273, and 281.
400 L. MILLER, R. MURPHY, AND A. BUSS
Table 3
Correlations Among the Body Consciousness Questionnaire Scales and Relevant Personality Traits
Trait
Private Body
Consciousness
Public Body
Consciousness
Men Women Men Women
Note. N = 275 men and 353 women.
*p<01.
Body Competence
Men Women
Privateself-consciousness
Publicself-consciousness
Social anxiety
Hypochondriasis
Emotionality
.37*
.30*
.15
.10
.16
.45*
.28*
.12
.21
.24
.32*
.71*
.10
-.04
.14
.33*
.66*
.12
.03
.30*
.17
.13
-.17
-.32*
-.19
.31*
.09
-.20
-.10
-.17
& Plomin, 1975). This scale involves the
negative end of emotionality: tendencies to
become frightened, upset, or angry.
The correlations among these various
measures are presented in Table 3, in which
men's and women's data are kept separate
because there were some gender differences
in the correlations. Concerning the question
of how body consciousness relates to selfconsciousness,
the answer may be found in
the first two rows of the table. Private selfconsciousness
correlates moderately with
private body consciousness and only slightly
less with public body consciousness. The similarity
of these relationships is surprising; on
the face of it, private self-consciousness
should be related to private body consciousness
but not to public body consciousness.
Private self-consciousness also has a very
modest correlation with body competence
for men and a slightly higher correlation for
women.
The correlations for public self-consciousness,
shown in the second row of Table 3,
are more in line with expectations. The correlations
are moderate for private body consciousness,
high for public body consciousness,
and not far from zero for body
competence. The correlation between public
self-consciousness and public body consciousness
is sufficiently strong to suggest
that, given the reliabilities of each scale, they
are measuring approximately the same personality
disposition.
Now consider the last three rows of Table
3. The relationships are too modest to warrant
comment, with two exceptions. One is
the men's correlation of —.32 between body
competence and hypochondriasis, perhaps
because men with body complaints devalue
their bodies. The other exception is the
women's correlation of .30 between public
body consciousness and emotionality, and
here the direction of causality could go either
way. Concerning the last three rows of the
table, notice that the correlations for body
competence, though modest to moderate, are
consistently negative, whereas the correlations
for private and public body consciousness
are virtually all positive. Though these
correlations are slight, their opposite signs
suggest that the presence of negative affect
(social anxiety, hypochondriasis, and emotionality)
is associated with more body consciousness
and less body competence.
We also administered one other personality
measure, not previously mentioned.
This was a three-item self-report of self-esteem,
which correlated near zero with the
two body self-consciousness scales and in the
30s with body competence. The near-zero
correlations tell us that paying attention to
one's body, either the private or the public
aspects, has nothing to do with self-evaluation.
The positive relationship between selfesteem
and so evaluative a scale as body
competence is entirely in line with expec-
tations.
Our main interest in Table 3 concerns the
Private Body Consciousness Scale and Public
Body Consciousness Scale, so let us
briefly examine the columns of this table.
As expected, private body consciousness
correlates with private self-consciousness,
but also, and this was not expected, with
public self-consciousness. Public body con-
BODY CONSCIOUSNESS 401
sciousness correlates with private self-consciousness
and is strongly related to public
self-consciousness, with both relationships
stronger than expected. Three sets of facts
emerge from this pattern of correlations.
First, an interest in the psychological aspects
of oneself (self-consciousness) is associated
with an interest in the bodily aspects of oneself,
regardless of whether the focus is on
private or public aspects of oneself. Second,
private body consciousness and private selfconsciousness,
though related, are distinct
personality traits, but public body consciousness
and public self-consciousness seem to
be essentially the same. Third, neither kind
of body consciousness appears to be related
to social anxiety, hypochondriasis, or emotionality.
(The correlations are too low to
suggest any meaningful relationship.)
Laboratory Research
Past and continuing research has shown
that subjects high in private self-consciousness
behave differently than those low in
private self-consciousness(Buss, 1980). What
about private body consciousness? The experiment
to be reported is the first step in
using behavioral outcomes to evaluate the
worth of both the scale and the extrapolation
of the private-public dichotomy from the
psychological self to the body self.
Method
Subjects. People who are aware of the private aspects
of their body should be especially sensitive to
changes in their bodily state. In contrast, people who
are low in private body consciousness should be relatively
insensitive to bodily changes. In searching for a
chemical substance that would induce a bodily change
and still fall within the bounds of ethical standards and
practicality, we came up with a substance in common
use: caffeine.2
Pilot research revealed a fact probably
known to coffee drinkers: Habitual caffeine users report
little or no physiologicalreaction to a cup or two of a
caffeine-containing beverage.3
We therefore restricted
our research to subjects who consume less than a cup
of tea or a cup of coffee daily. In addition, subjects who
had consumed any cola, iced tea, coffee, hot tea, wine,
beer, or hot chocolate 2 hours preceding the experiment
were not allowed to sign up for or participate in the
study. That is, these restrictions were explicitly listed
on the subject sign-up sheets. The noncaffeinatedbeverages
were added to the list of beverages to reduce
subject suspicion that they would drink a caffeinated
beverage during the study. As an additional check on
caffeine consumption, we asked subjects at the conclusion
of the study how many cups of coffee and tea they
normally consumed. The data of subjects who indicated
that they drink one or more cups of either coffee or tea
daily were not analyzed.
There were three samples of subjects. Each sample
was drawn from introductory psychology classes in
which the body consciousness and self-consciousness
scales were administered. In the first sample, 59 men
were preselected from the top and bottom thirds of the
distribution of private body consciousness scores. The
second sample of 65 men and the third sample of 64
women were not so selected.
Procedure. All subjects drank hot chocolate. In the
experimental group, this beverage contained caffeine in
the form of No-Doze, a commercial drug available over
the counter. No-Doze tablets were pulverized so that
they would not be detected in the hot chocolate. As a
rough control for body weight, men received 300 mg,
and women, 200 mg. In the control group, the hot chocolate
contained no caffeine. In all other respects, the
experimental and control groups were treated the same.
The experimenter who interacted with the subject was
blind to both the subject's personality scores and
whether he or she was in the experimental or control
condition.
The subjects, run individually, were given the following
cover story. We were ostensibly testing whether
drinking a beverage would affect the taste of food eaten
afterward. We gave subjects a list of beverages that they
might drink in the study. Some of these beverages, they
were told, contained alcohol (wine, beer) and others
contained caffeine (coffee, tea). Subjects wereexplicitly
asked if they would mind drinking an alcoholic or caffeinated
beverage. In addition, all subjects were asked
if they were currently taking medication or had any
chronic medical problems. Those subjects who preferred
not to drink a beverage or had a medical problem were
excused. Then subjects were told that physiological and
psychological states, having been found to affect taste,
needed to be controlled. Therefore, we would record
their heart rate, and they would rate themselves on a
questionnaire.4
This questionnaire asked subjects to rate
themselves on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (intensely)
2
Caffeine is known to stimulate the central nervous
system, elevate cardiovascular functioning, and reduce
mental and physical fatigue (Grollman, 1965).
3
This finding is in accord with previous pharmacological
research which indicates that, compared with a
placebo control group, nonhabitual consumers report
more caffeine-related bodily sensations than do habitual
consumers (Colton, Gosselin, & Smith, 1968).
4
Though caffeine definitely appears to increase heart
functioning (Grollman, 1965), causing a more pronounced
heartbeat (Vander, Sherman, & Luciano,
1975), the actual beats per minute may be diminished
(Colton et al., 1968). Furthermore, we could find no
research that assessed pulse change after consumption
of 300 mg of caffeine for nonhabitual caffeine consumers.
Therefore, it is unclear whether pulse should go up,
down, or stay the same after caffeine administration.
In any event, pulse rate yielded no significant effects.
402 L. MILLER, R. MURPHY, AND A. BUSS
for experiencing each of 12 bodily states. They filled out
this questionnaire twice, once before drinking the chocolate
and 30 minutes later, when caffeine begins having
its maximal effects. During this 30-minute period, the
subjects worked on puzzles. After their second set of
ratings, they were debriefed and they left.
Dependent variables. The above questionnaire included
questions about two different kinds of bodily sensations.
The first kind concerned sensations previously
reported to occur after ingestion of caffeine (Gilbert,
1976; Goldstein, Kaizer, & Warren, 1965; Goodman
& Oilman, 1965; Grollman, 1965): alert, stimulated,
exhilarated, shaky, jittery, restless, not fatigued, nervous,
and heart pounding. These nine sensations were
grouped into a composite, with an internal consistency
(Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, & Bent, 1975) of .73.
Subsequent mention of caffeine-associated sensations
will refer to this composite.
The second kind of sensations, deliberately included
as a control measure, consisted of bodily states not previously
associated with the ingestion of caffeine: feeling
dry, feeling dizzy, and having a headache. The occurrence
of these sensations after ingestion of caffeine
should not be related to individualdifferences in private
body consciousness. On the other hand, private body
consciousness should be related to the caffeine-associated
sensations.
Results
Concerning sensations not associated with
ingestion of caffeine, there were no significant
main effects or interactions for any personality
dispositions or for the experimental
condition. This finding, expected because of
the nature of the symptoms, requires no further
comment.5
Concerning sensations associated with
caffeine ingestion, we examined the initial
reports of sensations, which could not be
affected by the subsequent experimental
manipulations. Again, there were no significant
differences for private body consciousness,
though there was variability among
subjects. To correct for this variability, we
covaried initial composite scores for the caffeine-associated
sensations from final scores
(Cronbach & Furby, 1970). To obtain means
for each of the groups in the study, we adjusted
final scores for initial scores using the
formula specified by Kerlinger and Pedhazur
(1973, pp. 270-274).
The,adjusted means (final scores adjusted
for initial scores) for the first sample of men
are presented in the first two columns of
Table 4. Notice that one cell stands out from
the others; in the caffeine condition, men
high in private body consciousness reported
more changes in bodily state than men in the
other three cells. In line with these differences
among means, an analysis of covariance
yielded a significant interaction between
experimental condition (caffeine vs.
no caffeine) and level of private body consciousness,
F(\, 54) = 3.88,p = .05. Among
men high in private body consciousness,
those who received caffeine reported significantly
more bodily change than those who
did not, t(54) = 3.61, p < .01. Among men
who received caffeine, those high in private
body consciousness reported significantly
more bodily change than those who were
low, t(54) = 2.10, p < .05. No other comparisons
were significant.
The second and third samples were unselected
with respect to private body consciousness.
To make the distribution of subjects
for the last two studies comparable to
the first sample, we divided these two samples
at the top and bottom 40% of the distribution
of private body consciousness.6
The adjusted means for the second sample
(men) are shown to the right of the first sample
in Table 4. As before, among men high
in private body consciousness, those who received
caffeine reported significantly more
bodily changes than those who did not,
f(49) = 3.5, p < .01. Among men who received
caffeine, those high in private body
consciousness tended to report more bodily
change than those who were low, /(49) =
1.94,/j < .06. The Condition X Private Body
Consciousness interaction was of borderline
significance, F(l, 49) = 3.76, p < .06. For
both samples of men, the main effect for
condition (caffeine vs. no caffeine) was significant,
F(l, 54)= 9.72, p< .005, andF(l,
49) = 10.19, p < .005, respectively.
The adjusted means for the third sample
(women) are shown in the last two columns
of Table 4. Again, one cell stood out: subjects
high in private body consciousness who re-
5
We covaried initial from final scores using a regression
approach to analysis of variance to equate for unequal
/is. All final dependent variables in the research
reported here are corrected for initial differences using
a covariance approach.
6
Eleven subjects were excluded in the second sample
and 10 subjects were excluded in the third sample. In
subsequent regression analyses, to be reported below,
the data of all subjects in these samples were included.
BODY CONSCIOUSNESS 403
Table 4
Reported Bodily Changes in Subjects High and Low in Private Body Consciousness
Men
First
Condition
Caffeine
No caffeine
High
M
23.9
18.6
n
13
13
sample
Low
M
21.1
19.7
Second
n
18
15
High
M
22.0
16.3
n
11
14
sample
Low
M
18.7
17.3
Women
n
11
18
High
M n
21.3 12
17.7 15
Low
M
18.7
20.7
n
11
16
ceived caffeine. These women reported significantly
more bodily changes than either
women high in private body consciousness
who received no caffeine, t(49) = 3.33, p <
.01, or women low in private body consciousness
whoreceived caffeine, f(49) = 2.22, p <
.05. In line with these differences, the Condition
X Private Body Consciousness interaction
was significant, F(l, 49) = 13.31,p <
.001. The only other significant finding was
that, for control subjects only, women low
in private body consciousness reported significantly
more bodily change than those
who were high, <(49) = 2.99, p < .05. There
is no obviousexplanation for this anomalous
finding, which did not occur among the men;
we suggest that it may be due to sampling
error among the control subjects. The crucial
finding, which occurred in all three samples,
was that administration of caffeine caused
more reported bodily change only in subjects
high in private body consciousness.
Is this finding specific to private body consciousness?
Would the tendency to focus on
the other aspects of the self result in the
same awarenessof an induced bodilychange?
We performed three simultaneous regression
analyses to assess the effects of three related
continuous variables: public body consciousness,
public self-consciousness, and private
self-consciousness. The preselection of subjects
in the first sample from the upper and
lower thirds of the private body consciousness
distribution precluded a regression
analysis of their data. Therefore, we analyzed
only the data of the second and third
samples. Because there were no interactions
with gender for any of the predictor variables,
we combined the men's and women's
data for ease of presentation.
In the first analysis, we examined the effects
of public body consciousness, simultaneously
entering the following variables: initial
symptom reporting, condition (caffeine
vs. no caffeine), private body consciousness,
public body consciousness, each of the two
Condition X Personality interaction terms,
the Private Body Consciousness X Public
Body Consciousness interaction term, and
the three-way interaction term.7
The second
analysis was identical to the first, except that
we substituted public self-consciousness (in
all of the main effect and interaction terms)
for public body consciousness. In both analyses,
the Private BodyConsciousness X Condition
effect was still significant—F(l,
120) = 8.94, p < .005, in the first analysis,
and F(l, 120) = 10.26, p < .005, in the second
analysis—even after controlling for the
effects of public body consciousness and
public self-consciousness. The only other significant
finding was that subjects in the caffeine
condition reported more bodily sensations
than those in the no-caffeinecondition,
F(l, 120) = 9.36, p<.005, andF(l, 120) =
10.84, p < .005, respectively. Thus, neither
public self-consciousness nor public body
consciousness accounted for the significant
7
Simultaneous multiple regression and effect coding
of the caffeine or no caffeine conditionwere used to best
approximate analysis of variance for unequal /is (Overall,
Spiegel, & Cohen, 1975). Values of the personality
variables were recomputed as deviations from the mean
to reduce the correlation between the main effects and
interaction terms (Althauser, 1971; Kenney, 1979). A
simultaneous regression approach estimates the unique
contribution of every variable controlling for every other
variable in the equation. A number of recent articles
have argued the merits of this approach over a hierarchical
regression approach (Appelbaum & Cramer,
1974; Overall et al., 1975).
404 L. MILLER,R. MURPHY,AND A. BUSS
effects of private body consciousness reported
earlier.
In the third analysis, we examined the
effects of private self-consciousness, using
the same type of regression model as the one
just described. This time we substituted the
effects of private self-consciousness for those
of the public scales. As above, there was a
significant effect for condition, F( 1, 120) =
12.38, p< .005. Again, there was a significant
Private Body Consciousness X Condition
interaction, F(l, 120) = 15.70, p< .001,
after controlling for the effects of private
self-consciousness. For private self-consciousness,
neither the main effect nor the
interaction with condition was significant,
F(l, 120) = 2.82, /? = .096, and F(l,
120) < 1.0, respectively. Finally, the triple
interaction, Private Body Consciousness
X Private Self-Consciousness X Condition,
was significant, F(l, 120) = 4.31,
p < .05. What this interaction suggests is
that being high in private bodyconsciousness
makes individuals especially aware of an induced
change in bodily state only if they are
also high in private body consciousness.
These findings underscore the importance of
private body consciousness, alone or in combination
with the private self-consciousness
scale, as a determinant of awareness of internal
bodily change.
Discussion
Private Versus Public Body Consciousness
This research attempted to apply the public-private
distinction, first developed for
self-consciousness, to consciousness of the
body. Public body consciousness involves a
chronic tendency to focus on and be concerned
with the external appearance of the
body. Private body consciousness is the disposition
to focus on internal bodily sensations.
Items relevant to these two aspects of
the body load on separate, nonoverlapping
factors. Though moderately correlated, the
two types of body consciousness relate to
behavior differently. Subjects who scored
high on the Private Body Consciousness
Scale were more aware of the stimulating
effect of caffeine than those with low scores.
Variations in public body consciousness had
no significant effects on awareness of bodily
changes after ingestion of caffeine.
There is some additional evidence for the
discriminant validity of the two body scales.
A recent study (Miller & Cox, Note 1) examined
whether women who were high in
public body consciousness would be more
concerned about their physical appearance
than those who were low in this dimension.
Examination of color photographs, taken
during the experiment, revealed that public
body consciousness was significantly correlated
with makeup use, but private body consciousness
was not. Thus, when one body
consciousness scale was effective, the other
was not.
Body Consciousness, Body Competence,
and Hypochondriasis
We included a hypochondriasis measure
on the assumption that people who report
body symptoms tend to be high in private
body consciousness. The correlations between
the two dispositions, .21 for women
and .10 for men, suggest little relationship.
Evidently, the people who report more symptoms
(hypochondriacs) are no more aware
of the inside of their bodies than those who
do not report symptoms.
Hypochondriasis is an evaluative disposition,
involving the tendency to report negatively
(pain and symptoms) about the body.
Body competence is also evaluative, but the
evaluation is positive; those high in body
competence endorse items relevant to effective
body functioning.8
Therefore, these two
evaluative dispositions should be negatively
correlated. As expected, the correlation between
hypochondriasis and body competence
was —.32 for men. The correlation for
women, however, was near zero. Speed,
strength, and coordination of the body,
though critical aspects of body evaluation for
men, are evidently not important for women.
Body competence had the same correlation
(.21) with both public and private body
consciousness.9
Though significant, these
8
Body competence correlates at .37 withself-esteem,
which adds credence to the contention that body competence
involves positiveevaluation.
'There were no gender differences in correlations
between body competence and each type of body consciousness,
sowecombined the men'sand women's data.
BODY CONSCIOUSNESS 405
two correlations suggest only a weak relationship
between an evaluative aspect of the
body (body competence) and body consciousness.
Moreover, both public and private
body consciousness correlated near-zero
with self-esteem. This pattern of correlations
suggests that the two body consciousness
scales are essentially nonevaluative.
Body Consciousness and Self-
Consciousness
Consider a person as a social object (the
public self). Given traditional gender role
socialization, it is reasonable to expect that
women have a more acute sense of themselves
as social objects than men. However,
there is no gender difference on the Public
Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein et al.,
1975). Though this scale contains a few
items on appearance, most refer to behavioral
style and the impression one makes on
others.
In contrast, there is a gender difference
in public body consciousness: Women score
significantly higher than men. This scale
consists solely of items referring to anatomy:
hair, face, hands, and body build. These two
sets of facts—presence versus absence of
gender differences and a difference in the
item content of the two scales—suggest that
gender role socialization may be more specific
than had previouslybeen believed. Perhaps
women's greater awareness of themselves
as social objects is limited to their
appearance, and they are no more concerned
than men are about the behavioral aspects
of the social self.
Now consider private body consciousness
and private self-consciousness. In the present
research, private body consciousness was an
important determinant of the effect of caffeine,
but private self-consciousness was not.
Thus, the conceptual distinction between
private body consciousness and private selfconsciousness,
first mentioned at the beginning
of the article, has received empirical
support.
We would be overstating the case, however,
if we suggested that the two dispositions
are entirely distinct. First, they are significantly
correlated. Second, though subjects
high in private self-consciousness were not
significantly more sensitive to body changes
induced by caffeine, subjects high in both
private self-consciousness and private body
consciousness were significantly more sensitive
to these effects.
Clearly, as a determinant of awarenessof
bodily change (in this instance, caused by
caffeine), private body consciousness is
preeminent. Private self-consciousness, however,
does add to awareness, but only in those
who are already high in private body con-
sciousness.
Implications for Private Body
Consciousness
Inconsistencies in the effect of biofeedback
on hypertension, heart rate, and pain
(Surwit, Shapiro, & Good, 1978; White,
Holmes, & Bennett, 1977) have been linked
to variations in ability to alter physiological
states through biofeedback (Turk, Meichenbaum,
& Herman, 1979). A major source of
this variability may be private body consciousness.
Subjects high in this disposition,
keenly aware of physiological events, would
be especially susceptible to the effects of
biofeedback. There are also marked individual
differences in subjects' responses to false
feedback. Individuals low in private body
consciousness should be ideal subjects for
false feedback research, because they tend
to be unaware of their internal bodily states
and therefore easily misled.
Private body consciousness may also affect
excitation transfer (Zillman, Johnson,
& Day, 1974). In this paradigm, low levels
of arousal from one source (e.g., strenuous
exercise) transfer to and enhance subsequent
emotional states (e.g., sexual arousal). However,
as Zillman et al. (1974) point out,
"Transfer effects can be impaired and possibly
prevented by the presence of ... interoceptive
feedback of the excitation associated
withthe initial [arousing] experience"
(p. 504). Individuals high in private body
consciousness, being more aware of interoceptive
feedback, should be less susceptible
to excitation transfer then those whoare low.
In sum, private body consciousness has
implications for biofeedback, false feedback,
and excitation transfer. The present research
406 L. MILLER, R. MURPHY, AND A. BUSS
has shown that subjects high in private body
consciousness may be the only ones affected
by weak drugs or by very mild doses of drugs.
We suggest that this disposition is an important
determinant of the extent to which
internal bodily changes are perceived.
Reference Note
1. Miller, L., & Cox, C. Unpublished manuscript, University
of Texas, 1980.
References
Althauser, R. P. Multicolinearity and nonadditive
regression models. In H. M. Blalock (Ed.), Causal
models in the social sciences. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton,
1971.
Appelbaum, M. I. & Cramer, E. M. Some problems in
the nonorthogonal analysis of variance. Psychological
Bulletin, 1974, 81, 335-343.
Burns, P. SPSS Subprogram JFACTOR—Joreskog
factor analysis (Document No. 412). Evanston, 111.:
Northwestern Computing Center, 1976.
Buss, A. H. Self-consciousness and social anxiety. San
Francisco: Freeman, 1980.
Buss, A. H., & Plomin R. A temperament theory of
personality development. New York: Wiley, 1975.
Colton, T., Gosselin, R., & Smith, R. The tolerance of
coffee drinkers to caffeine. Clinical Pharmacology
and Therapeutics, 1968, 9, 31-39.
Cronbach, L., & Furby, L. How we should measure
"change"—or should we? Psychological Bulletin,
1970, 74, 68-80.
Dzuiban, C., & Shirkey, E. When is a correlation matrix
appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules.
Psychological Bulletin, 1914,81, 358-360.
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M., & Buss, A. H. Public and
private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1975,
43, 522-527.
Fisher, S. Body image and personality (2nd ed.). New
York: Dover, 1968.
Gilbert, R. Caffeine as a drug of abuse. In R. Gibbons
et al. (Eds.), Research advances in alcohol and drug
problems (Vol. 3). New York: Wiley, 1976.
Goldstein, A. Kaizer, S., & Warren, R. Psychotropic
effects of caffeine in man: II. Alertness, psychomotor
coordination, and mood. Journal of Pharmacology
and Experimental Therapeutics, 1965, ISO, 146-151.
Goodman, L., & Oilman, A. Pharmacological basis of
therapeutics (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan, 1980.
Grollman, A. Pharmacy and therapeutics. Philadelphia:
Lea & Febiger, 1965.
Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory. New York: Psychological
Corporation, 1967.
Kenny, D. A. Correlation and causality. New York:
Wiley, 1979.
Kerlinger, F., & Pedhazur, E. Multiple regression in
behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston, 1973.
Mandler, G., Mandler, J. M., & Uviller, E. T. Autonomic
feedback: The perception of autonomic activity.
Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 1958, 58,
367-373.
Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner,
K., & Bent, D. H. Statistical package for the social
sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.
Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
Overall, J. E., Spiegel, D. K., & Cohen, J. Equivalence
of orthogonal and nonorthogonal analysis of variance.
Psychological Bulletin, 1915,82, 182-186.
Surwit, R., Shapiro, D., & Good, M. Comparison of
cardiovascular biofeedback, neuromuscular biofeedback,
and meditation in the treatment of borderline
essential hypertension. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 1978, 46, 252-263.
Turk, D., Meichenbaum, D., & Herman, W. Amplification
of biofeedback for the regulation of pain: A
critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 1979, 86,
1322-1338.
Vander, A., Sherman, J. H., & Luciano, D. Human
Physiology: The mechanics of body function (2nd
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.
White, T., Holmes, D., & Bennett, D. Effect of instructions,
biofeedback, and cognitive activities on heart
rate control. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Learning and Memory, 1977, 3, 477-484.
Zillman, D., Johnson, R., & Day, K. Attribution of
apparent arousal and proficiency of recovery from
sympathetic activation affecting excitation transfer
to aggressive behavior. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 1974, 10, 503-515.
Received May 15, 1980
View publication statsView publication stats