Participants were 64 undergraduates attending the University of Groningen (39 women, and 25 men). They were recruited for a study regarding "Partner and Relationship". The mean age of the sample was 20.0 years, with a range from 17 to 25 years (19.9 years for women, 20.2 years for men). Twenty-nine (45%) participants were, at the time of the study, involved in relationships (29 dating relationships, 5 cohabitating, none married). The average duration of relationships was 1.7 years (ranging from 2 months to 6.3 years; 2.1 years for women, .9 years for men). Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions and they were given a prospect of winning one of six 50-guilder gift coupons (approximately $30) for their participation.

A 2 x 2 factorial design was used in this study. Two levels of Direction of Comparison (enhancing versus deprecating) and two levels of Target under Evaluation (self vs. partner) constituted between-participants factors. The dependent variables were the extent to which the verbal statements were considered as socially desirable, the extent to which participants felt sympathy for the discussant, the degree of identification with the discussant, and the attributions made for the discussant's communicative behavior.

Participants participated in what they thought was a study dealing with their opinions and their reactions to other people's public evaluation of their intimate relationship and their intimate partner. They completed the study privately and anonymously. The instructions to the participants were identical to those used in Study 4. All participants were informed that they would receive a brief fragment supposedly derived from a group discussion. They were asked to read the verbatim fragment very carefully as follows:

Next, on the same page, the scenario was presented. The following is the self-enhancing version of the fragment supposedly derived from a group discussion:

The scenario of the partner-enhancing fragment read:

In the deprecating conditions, the self-deprecating scenario was as follows:

Finally, the scenario of the partner-deprecating fragment read:

Next, participants completed the measures of social desirability, sympathy, identification and the two attribution scales. Finally, participants who were at the time of the study involved in an ongoing relationship were asked to answer an additional question. They were asked to imitate the discussant and act accordingly, by writing down an relationship-evaluation in the same manner as the discussant did in the scenario. Finally, participants were debriefed, thanked for their participation, and dismissed.

Social desirability of the verbal statements was measured by six items (including the two items used in Study 4) that required participants to indicate the extent to which they expected most people would do and what they believed what ought to be done in the same situation. Hence, participants were asked on 5-point scales "Do you consider the statements as...," completed with the following adjectives: normal, usual, appropriate, desirable, reprehensible, and remarkable, with the last two adjectives reverse scored. The scales ranged from I disagree strongly to I agree strongly. The items were found to load on a single factor and all ratings were thus averaged to a single index of social desirability, with the higher score indicating higher social desirability. The internal consistency of the composite score, as measured by Cronbach's coefficient alpha, was calculated to be .85.

The measure of sympathy was identical to that used in Study 4. Identification was measured by asking participants the following two questions: "Do you recognize yourself in the discussant?" and "Do you resemble the discussant?," both scores on 5-point scales ranging from ranging from Not at all to Very much. The two items obtained a correlation of .70 and were averaged to form one variable, so that higher scores indicated more identification with the discussant.

Each attribution measure was expanded to include some additional items measuring the attributions that were made for the enhancing or deprecating self- and partner-evaluations. The measures included, among others, the items used in Study 4. The measure of self-enhancement attribution was extended to a 6-items measure by the addition of two items (Cronbach's alpha = .88). The additional items asked whether participants believed that the discussant made his statements (a) to allow the self to appear in the best possible light, and (b) to boast about the self.

The compliance attribution was expanded by adding two items asking participants whether they believed that the discussant made his statements (a) to comply with the group norm, and (b) because the discussant expected others to do the same (Cronbach's alpha = .83). The items were answered on 5-point scales ranging from Not at all to Very much.

Finally, having completed the list of questions, participants who at the time of the study were involved in an ongoing relationship, were asked to answer an additional question. They were told that the experimenter wanted them to imitate the discussant by portraying themselves (as a partner) or their partner in a similar way. Thus, in accordance with the experimental condition to which participants were assigned they were asked to generate as many as possible enhancing or deprecating qualities of themself or their intimate partner. Participants who were not dating anyone at the time of the study were not presented with this question.