Content uploaded by Danu Anthony Stinson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Danu Anthony Stinson on Oct 30, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by John G Holmes
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John G Holmes on Jan 08, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://psp.sagepub.com
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
DOI: 10.1177/0146167209338629
2009; 35; 1165 originally published online Jul 1, 2009; Pers Soc Psychol Bull
Danu Anthony Stinson, Jessica J. Cameron, Joanne V. Wood, Danielle Gaucher and John G. Holmes
Anticipated Acceptance
Deconstructing the "Reign of Error": Interpersonal Warmth Explains the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy of
http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/35/9/1165
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
can be found at:Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Additional services and information for
http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://psp.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/35/9/1165 Citations
at UNIV OF WATERLOO on September 8, 2009 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
1165
Deconstructing the “Reign of Error”:
Interpersonal Warmth Explains the Self-
Fulfilling Prophecy of Anticipated Acceptance
Danu Anthony Stinson
University of Waterloo
Jessica J. Cameron
University of Manitoba
Joanne V. Wood
Danielle Gaucher
John G. Holmes
University of Waterloo
Authors’ Note: Danu Anthony Stinson is now at the University of
Victoria. This research was prepared with the support of Ontario
Graduate Scholarships and a Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada (SSHRC) postdoctoral fellowship to Danu Anthony
Stinson; SSHRC standard research grants to Jessica J. Cameron,
Joanne V. Wood, and John G. Holmes; and a SSHRC graduate schol-
arship to Danielle Gaucher. Our thanks to Joanna Anderson, Jennifer
Butcher, Jeremy Cone, Sandra Gregory, Jennifer McClellan, Jackie
McGinnis, Bjanka Pokorny, Steve Sargent, Lindsay Schaefer, Nicole
Simpson, Sara Spragge, and Elizabeth Whittington for helping con-
duct this research. Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Danu Anthony Stinson, Department of Psychology,
University of Victoria, P.O. Box 3050 STN CSC, Victoria, British
Columbia, Canada, V8W 3P5; e-mail: dstinson@uvic.ca.
PSPB, Vol. 35 No. 9, September 2009 1165-1178
DOI: 10.1177/0146167209338629
© 2009 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
Andrew was in line at the grocery store when he
noticed that the women in front of him were from his
psychology class. One of them was named Tara, and
although Tara actually thought Andrew was cute and
funny, he was convinced that she did not like him.
Intent on avoiding an awkward social situation, Andrew
pretended that he had not seen the women, feigning
interest in his cell phone when Tara looked his way.
When the women left without speaking to him, Andrew
thought to himself, “I knew Tara didn’t like me!”
People’s expectations of acceptance often come to create
the acceptance or rejection they anticipate. The authors
tested the hypothesis that interpersonal warmth is the
behavioral key to this acceptance prophecy: If people
expect acceptance, they will behave warmly, which in
turn will lead other people to accept them; if they expect
rejection, they will behave coldly, which will lead to less
acceptance. A correlational study and an experiment
supported this model. Study 1 confirmed that partici-
pants’ warm and friendly behavior was a robust media-
tor of the acceptance prophecy compared to four
plausible alternative explanations. Study 2 demonstrated
that situational cues that reduced the risk of rejection
also increased socially pessimistic participants’ warmth
and thus improved their social outcomes.
Keywords: self-fulfilling prophecy; social expectations;
acceptance; self-esteem; warmth
The specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy cre-
ates a reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual
course of events as proof that he was right from the very
beginning.
R. K. Merton, 1948
at UNIV OF WATERLOO on September 8, 2009 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
1166 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
Such are the “perversities of social logic” that char-
acterize self-fulfilling prophecies (Merton, 1948, p.
195): A perceiver holds an initially incorrect belief
about a target person, and the belief causes the perceiver
to behave in a manner that causes the target to confirm
the perceiver’s expectations (e.g., Darley & Fazio, 1980).
In this case, Andrew thinks that Tara does not like him,
so he acts in a way that could be perceived as cold and
aloof. In response to Andrew’s cold manner, Tara thinks
he is unfriendly and avoids him, thus confirming
Andrew’s belief that she does not like him.
Self-fulfilling prophecies have been demonstrated for
a diverse range of beliefs (for reviews, see Darley &
Fazio, 1980; Jussim, 1986; Snyder, 1992). In our view,
one of the most important self-fulfilling prophecies is
the acceptance prophecy, which is illustrated in the story
of Andrew and Tara. For example, when people receive
false feedback indicating that a novel acquaintance
accepts them, and then they interact with that person
for 10 to 20 min, the stranger ends up liking them; if
people are led to believe that the novel acquaintance
does not like them, the stranger does, indeed, reject
them (e.g., Curtis & Miller, 1986). If one’s expectations
about acceptance from novel acquaintances can create a
self-fulfilling prophecy, then unwarranted doubts about
acceptance may sabotage one’s ability to satisfy one’s
relatedness needs (e.g., Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, &
Ryan, 2000).
Despite its potential importance to the acquisition of
new relationships, the acceptance prophecy has received
relatively little empirical attention. To our knowledge, in
the past 40 years, only four studies have directly exam-
ined the acceptance prophecy. Rabiner and Coie (1989)
induced acceptance expectancies in young children who
were typically unpopular and found that compared to
control participants, such children were more liked by
their peers. Jones and Panitch (1971) induced acceptance
or rejection expectancies in male and female participants
and found that partners of male participants liked the
acceptance-expectancy men more than the rejection-
expectancy men. Curtis and Miller (1986) induced accep-
tance or rejection expectancies in female participants
and found that such expectancies predicted actual accep-
tance by interaction partners. Moreover, participants
who anticipated acceptance self-disclosed more, dis-
agreed less, expressed dissimilarity less, and had a more
positive tone of voice and general attitude than partici-
pants who anticipated rejection. Finally, Downey, Freitas,
Michaelis, and Khouri (1998) examined naturally occur-
ring acceptance prophecies in romantic relationships and
found that high levels of dispositional rejection sensitiv-
ity predicted relationship dissolution.
Not only has there been little empirical attention
directed at the acceptance prophecy, but there has been
little consideration of the behavioral and psychological
mechanisms that explain how one’s expectations come
to create the acceptance or rejection that one anticipates.
Although Curtis and Miller (1986) described behaviors
associated with the self-fulfilling prophecy, they did not
propose a theoretical account of the links among the
behaviors they observed nor did they suggest a reason
why the observed behaviors varied as a function of par-
ticipants’ acceptance expectancies. Moreover, although
Downey et al. (1998) found that women’s hostile behav-
ior during conflicts explained the self-fulfilling prophecy
within romantic relationships, we suspect that the behav-
ioral mechanism may be quite different in first-meeting
situations. Hence, our goal is to understand the mecha-
nisms that underlie the self-fulfilling prophecy of accep-
tance in novel social interactions.
The mediation model that we propose and test sug-
gests that if Andrew expects acceptance, he will be
warm, which in turn will lead to acceptance by his inter-
action partners; if Andrew expects rejection, he will be
cold or withdrawn, which in turn will lead to less accep-
tance (i.e., anticipated acceptance → warmth → actual
acceptance). In this model, the behavioral key to the
acceptance prophecy involves one’s level of interper-
sonal warmth. Along with competence, warmth is one
of two fundamental dimensions underlying personality,
social behavior, and person perception (for a review, see
Judd, James-Hawkins, Yzerbyt, & Kashima, 2005).
Warmth corresponds to one’s level of agreeableness
(McCrae & Costa, 1989) and is evident in friendly,
prosocial behaviors such as responsiveness and self-
disclosure (e.g., Moskowitz, 1994). Such warm behaviors
convey important social information to one’s interac-
tion partners: Interpersonal warmth suggests that one
has a positive social agenda aimed at promoting positive
relationships (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002; McCrae
& Costa, 1989). Perhaps in reflection of its social
import, people are remarkably adept at judging an
interaction partner’s level of interpersonal warmth,
forming accurate impressions in as little as 30 s (Ambady,
Bernieri, & Richeson, 2000). Of import for the present
research, considerable evidence also indicates that inter-
personal warmth is an exceptionally strong determinant
of liking (e.g., Ambady & Rosenthal, 1993; Bernieri,
Gillis, Davis, & Grahe, 1996; Fiske et al., 2002). This
makes sense given Fiske et al.’s (2002) functional account
of the importance of interpersonal warmth: People like
interaction partners who appear to have positive, com-
munal, and prosocial motivations, which means that
people like interaction partners who are warm.
Hence, the second half of our mediation model is
well established in the literature. However, the link
between anticipated acceptance and warmth has only
been implied in the literature. Chronic doubts about
at UNIV OF WATERLOO on September 8, 2009 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Stinson et al. / SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY OF ACCEPTANCE 1167
whether others will be accepting appear to inhibit one’s
warmth toward others. For example, social anxiety
inhibits self-disclosure (DePaulo, Epstein, & LeMay,
1990) and intimacy (Meleshko & Alden, 1993), and
concerns about a romantic partner’s regard inhibit
desires for closeness (Murray, Bellavia, Rose, & Griffin,
2003). Moreover, in one study that manipulated accep-
tance expectations, participants who anticipated rejec-
tion were perceived as less self-disclosing and friendly
than those who anticipated acceptance (Curtis & Miller,
1986). However, no previous research has examined
whether such variations in warmth actually explain the
acceptance prophecy nor has research tested warmth as
a behavioral mechanism against alternative behavioral
or psychological explanations. Therefore, Study 1 uses
a correlational method to examine in detail the pro-
posed behavioral mechanism underlying the acceptance
prophecy, and it tests our model against four plausible
alternative explanations for the associations among
anticipated acceptance between anticipated acceptance,
warmth, and actual acceptance.
In addition to examining the behavioral mechanism
of the acceptance prophecy, we seek to understand why
anticipated acceptance predicts warmth. We propose
that anticipated acceptance affects interpersonal warmth
because of people’s strategies for managing the risk of
rejection (i.e., anticipated acceptance → risk regulation
strategies → warmth). When people are anxious about
whether others will like them, they tend to adopt a vari-
ety of self-protective strategies that are aimed at avoid-
ing the pain, humiliation, and embarrassment that
accompany rejection (e.g., Murray, Holmes, & Collins,
2006). It can be risky to reveal oneself to another person
(e.g., Baumeister, Tice, & Hutton, 1989; Gaucher et al.,
2009) and especially risky to show that one likes that
person (Murray et al., 2006). For example, if Andrew’s
liking for Tara is not reciprocated, he may be hurt or
humiliated, especially if he has made his liking apparent
(e.g., Leary, Springer, Negel, Ansell, & Evans, 1998).
Therefore, displaying less warmth may be a self-protective
method of regulating one’s interpersonal risk by mini-
mizing one’s social engagement (e.g., “You won’t like
me, so I am not going to risk showing that I like you!”
DePaulo et al., 1990).
1
In Study 2 we test this risk-reg-
ulation account of the association between anticipated
acceptance and warmth by experimentally manipulating
the risk of rejection. We then examine whether our
manipulation increases socially pessimistic participants’
warmth and thereby improves their social outcomes.
Therefore, Study 2 provides causal evidence for the
mechanism responsible for the link between anticipated
acceptance and warmth: social risk.
Our method for assessing actual acceptance in our
studies also deviates from previous research, which
has typically asked participants’ interaction partners to
indicate their acceptance for the participant. This
method is problematic because it cannot account for
potential reciprocal effects of the interaction partners’
behavior (e.g., Curtis & Miller, 1986). In contrast, in
both of the studies we present, we use 1-min thin slices
of participants’ videotaped behavior (e.g., Ambady &
Rosenthal, 1993) as the method of “communication”
between participants and impartial observers. We exam-
ine whether a thin slice of the participants’ behavior is
sufficient to influence observers’ actual acceptance of
participants and whether a thin slice of warmth is
strong enough to explain the association between par-
ticipants’ anticipated acceptance and impartial observ-
ers’ actual acceptance.
In addition to the aforementioned variables, we
include global self-esteem in both studies. We expect
that self-esteem will influence situationally based antici-
pated acceptance because lower self-esteem individuals
(LSEs) tend to anticipate less acceptance than higher
self-esteem individuals (HSEs; Anthony, Wood, &
Holmes, 2007; Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995).
Furthermore, we expect that self-esteem will moderate
the acceptance prophecy. LSEs tend to be more self-
protective than HSEs (e.g., Baumeister et al., 1989), and
LSEs’ behavior is more dependent than HSEs’ behavior
on the level of acceptance they anticipate (Anthony et al.,
2007). Hence, LSEs may be more likely than HSEs to
self-protectively inhibit their interpersonal warmth
when they experience doubts about acceptance from
others, and therefore the acceptance prophecy may
occur more strongly for LSEs than HSEs.
STUDY 1: DECONSTRUCTING THE PROPHECY
The present study uses a correlational method to test
our model. Participants were invited to join an existing
social group and were asked to report their anticipated
acceptance by the group members. Participants then
filmed a video in which they introduced themselves to
the group. In this constructed first-impression context,
we anticipate that the risk of rejection will be salient, as
it is in most real-world first-meeting interactions. Two
different sets of observers watched 1-min excerpts from
the participants’ interviews and rated either the warmth/
friendliness of the participants or the observers’ own
acceptance of the participants.
This method offers a conservative test of our model.
First, we used different reporters to assess the predictor
(i.e., participants’ expectations of whether they would
be accepted by the group), the mediator (i.e., observers’
impressions of participants’ warmth), and the outcome
variable (i.e., a second set of observers’ acceptance of
at UNIV OF WATERLOO on September 8, 2009 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
1168 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
participants). Using different reporters eliminates
shared-method variance among the variables. Second, in
this first study we test our model against four plausible
alternative explanations for the association between
anticipated acceptance and observers’ actual accep-
tance. Hence, we assessed participants’ mood and inter-
est in joining the group, and additional observers rated
participants’ assertiveness and sociability.
Method
Participants
During a mass testing session, introductory psychol-
ogy students at the University of Waterloo completed,
among other questionnaires, Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem
Scale (Rosenberg, 1965), which was modified to include
a 9-point response scale for each item rather than the
original 4-point scale. Participants in the current study
were selected from the top third (HSEs: M
self-esteem
= 7.86;
n = 37; 20 females, 17 males) and bottom third (LSEs;
M
self-esteem
= 5.21; n = 34; 18 females, 16 males) of the
distribution of scores, and were between 18 and 25 years
of age (M
age
= 20.22, SD = 1.32). Hence, the terms HSE
and LSE refer to people with higher and lower self-esteem
relative to the population distribution rather than relative
to absolute values on the self-esteem scale. Participants
received either $5 or partial course credit in appreciation
for their time.
Procedure
Participants were telephoned by a same-sex inter-
viewer and invited to an individual lab session to par-
ticipate in a study about “group dynamics.” The
researcher who ran the experimental session was blind
to participants’ self-esteem. An elaborate cover story
was devised to make the context of social evaluation
realistic and meaningful (see Anthony et al., 2007). In
the lab, the participant was told that the experimenter
was a representative of the “Center for Group Dynamics”
and that he or she was currently recruiting a replace-
ment member for a five-person market research focus
group that meets about once a month to assess a prod-
uct. Next, participants were told that the current focus
group members had viewed some anonymous question-
naires from the introductory psychology mass testing
session and that a sample of the participants’ question-
naires was among those viewed by the group. Supposedly,
the group had been asked to provide feedback about
whether they thought the person who filled out the
questionnaire would be a good addition to their group.
The participant was assured that the group members
did not know the identity of the people whose question-
naires they viewed. To heighten the salience of social
evaluation, the participant was also informed that the
experimenter would show to him or her the comments
made by the current group members. Feedback con-
sisted of four apparently handwritten comments on four
separate sheets of paper.
2
After the participants read the feedback in private,
they completed a questionnaire that assessed their inter-
est in joining the group and the degree to which they
anticipated acceptance by the group (assuming he or she
chose to join the focus group). All items were accompa-
nied by a 9-point response scale (1 = not at all, 9 = very
much). Participants’ willingness to join the group was
assessed with three items (Anthony et al., 2007): “How
much would you like to join this focus group?”
“How many meetings would you like to attend?” and
“How willing are you to attend meetings held late in the
evenings, and on Saturday and Sunday mornings at
8:00 am?” These items were averaged to form a reliable
interest in joining the group composite (α = .82). Parti-
cipants’ anticipated acceptance was assessed with the
items: “How likely do you think it is that you will get
along with the other group members?” “How likely is it
that you will fit in with the group?” “How much will
the group as a whole like you after the first meeting?”
and “How much will the group as a whole like you after
the fourth meeting?” These items were averaged to form
a reliable anticipated acceptance composite (α = .88).
Next, the experimenter filmed a structured interview
with each participant, which the participant thought
would be shown to the focus group. The structured
interview consisted of eight open-ended questions (e.g.,
“What personal qualities are important to how you see
yourself?”).
After the interview, participants completed a second
questionnaire that included the Positive and Negative
Affect Scale (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988),
in which participants were asked to indicate how well a
list of emotion words described how they felt at that
moment (1 = not at all or very slightly, 3 = moderately,
5 = very or extremely). Positive affect (PA) terms were
averaged to form a reliable PA index (α = .83), and
negative affect (NA) terms were averaged to form a reli-
able NA index (α = .85).
To assess actual acceptance, five undergraduate
research assistants who were unaware of the experimen-
tal hypothesis acted as observers. They were instructed
to “imagine that [they] are going to meet [the partici-
pant] soon, perhaps in a small study group of about six
other people.” Three of the acceptance items began with
the phrase, “How likely would you be to . . .” and
ended with the phrases: “. . . talk to this person?” “. . .
want this person in your study group?” and “. . . enjoy
hanging out with this person?” Three additional items
began with the phrase, “After a few weeks of knowing
at UNIV OF WATERLOO on September 8, 2009 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Stinson et al. / SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY OF ACCEPTANCE 1169
each other, how likely would you be to . . .” and ended
with the phrases: “. . . hang out/play sports with this
person?” “. . . invite this person to hang out with a
group of your friends?” “. . . hang out one-on-one with
this person?” Two final questions asked “How likely
would it be that you would become friends with this
person?” and “Would this person be a valuable friend
to have?” All items used 7-point response scales (1 = not
at all likely, 7 = extremely likely). The five observers
showed adequate agreement about each rating (all intra-
class consistency correlation coefficients [ICCC] > .68,
ps < .001), so acceptance scores were averaged for all
five coders, and then all eight scores were averaged to
form a reliable actual acceptance composite (α = .88).
An independent set of three observers also watched
each participant’s taped interview and used a 7-point
scale (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely) to answer the ques-
tion: “How warm/friendly does this person appear?”
Once again, observers were unaware of the experimen-
tal hypothesis. Observers showed adequate agreement
in their impressions of participants’ warmth/friendliness
(ICCC = .68, p < .001). The same observers also rated
participants’ assertiveness using a 7-point scale (1 = not
at all, 7 = extremely) to answer the question: “How
assertive/confident does this person appear?” Observers
showed good agreement about participants’ assertive-
ness/confidence (ICCC = .77, p < .001). A third set of
three observers rated participants’ sociability using the
same 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely) to
answer the question, “How sociable does this person
appear?” Once again, coders showed adequate agree-
ment (ICCC = .70, p < .001).
Results and Discussion
During the debriefing, 8 participants indicated that
they doubted the cover story (2 LSE and 3 HSE males,
1 LSE and 2 HSE females). These participants’ data
were excluded from further analyses. Preliminary analy-
ses indicated that gender did not moderate any of the
results we describe, so we report results without this
variable. Means and standard deviations for all assessed
variables and the zero-order correlations between vari-
ables are presented in Table 1.
Unless otherwise stated, in all of the analyses that fol-
low, we begin with the same basic regression model to
predict the dependent variables: At Step 1, we enter
dummy coded self-esteem (0 = LSEs, 1 = HSEs) and
mean-centered anticipated acceptance, and at Step 2 we
add the interaction between the variables. Interactions are
interpreted based on the results of Step 2, whereas main
effects are interpreted based on the results of Step 1.
The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
We hypothesized that because LSEs are more self-
protective than HSEs (e.g., Baumeister et al., 1989),
LSEs, but not HSEs, would display the self-fulfilling
prophecy of anticipated acceptance because LSEs, but
not HSEs, would inhibit their warmth when they expe-
rience social doubts.
Consistent with prior research (e.g., Anthony et al.,
2007; Leary et al., 1995), a preliminary regression in
which dummy-coded self-esteem was used to predict
anticipated acceptance revealed that LSEs (M = 7.08,
SD = 1.31) were less optimistic than HSEs (M = 7.59,
SD = 0.55) that they would be liked by the group, β =
.26, t(61) = 2.13, p = .039. However, results using our
basic regression model to predict actual acceptance
revealed that, contrary to our prediction, self-esteem
was not uniquely associated with actual acceptance, β =
–.07, t < 1, and self-esteem and anticipated acceptance
did not interact, β = .05, t < 1. Instead, only anticipated
acceptance uniquely predicted actual acceptance, β =
.40, t(59) = 3.21, p = .002.
We hypothesized that participants’ warmth/friendli-
ness would explain this association. Results of our basic
regression model revealed that anticipated acceptance
strongly predicted warmth/friendliness, β = .41, t(59) =
3.41 p < .001, and once again this association was not
moderated by self-esteem, β = .22, t(59) = 1.65, p = .104
,
nor did self-esteem directly predict warmth/friendliness,
TABLE 1: Variables Assessed in Study 1, Their Means and Standard Deviations, and Zero-Order Correlations Between the Variables
M SD 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Anticipated acceptance by the group 7.35 1.01 .38** .41** .54** –.41** .51** .26* .30*
2. Actual acceptance by observers 3.78 0.87 — .77** .09 –.12 .11 .37** .44**
3. Participants’ warmth/friendliness 4.21 0.99 — — .06 –.22* .28* .60** .55**
4. Interest in joining the group 5.70 1.30 — — — –.42** .47** –.09 –.20
5. Negative affectivity 1.73 0.64 — — — — –.24† –.22 –.05
6. Positive affectivity 3.28 0.63 — — — — — .06 .01
7. Participants’ assertiveness/confidence 4.30 1.28 — — — — — — .74**
8. Sociability 4.04 1.25 — — — — — — —
†p = .054. *p < .05. **p < .01.
at UNIV OF WATERLOO on September 8, 2009 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
1170 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
β = .01, t < 1. Finally, when warmth/friendliness was
added to Step 1 of the basic regression model predicting
actual acceptance, the direct association between antici-
pated and actual acceptance diminished completely, β =
.09, t < 1, whereas the association between warmth/
friendliness and actual acceptance was very strong, β =
.74, t(59) = 8.31 p < .001. This mediation model is
depicted in Figure 1. Sobel’s test confirmed that warmth/
friendliness completely explained the association
between anticipated and actual acceptance, Sobel’s z =
2.41, p = .001.
Hence, although LSEs anticipated less acceptance
than did HSEs, our hypothesis that only LSEs would
inhibit their warmth was disconfirmed. Global self-
es
teem was only indirectly associated with actual accep-
tance via its association with anticipated acceptance
(i.e., self-esteem → anticipated acceptance → actual
acceptance), Sobel’s z = 1.75, p = .061.
Exploring Alternative Explanations
Next, we examined four plausible alternative expla-
nations for the observed associations among anticipated
acceptance, warmth, and actual acceptance. Preliminary
analyses indicated that self-esteem did not moderate any
of the results that follow. However, in each of the analy-
ses we controlled for participants’ level of self-esteem to
statistically account for the fact that we selected groups
of low- and high-self-esteem participants.
Interest in joining the group predicts warmth/friendli-
ness. Anticipated acceptance from a social group is
strongly related to one’s willingness to join that social
group (Anthony et al., 2007). Hence, it is possible that
the participants who anticipated little acceptance did not
plan to join the group. This lack of interest may have
caused them to be apathetic and thus less warm, which
caused them to be less liked by observers. If so, interest
in joining the group, not anticipated acceptance, would
be the true cause of actual acceptance. Replicating
Anthony et al. (2007), interest in joining the group was
strongly related to anticipated acceptance from the group,
β = .52, t(60) = 4.99, p < .001. However, interest in join-
ing the group was not related to participants’ warmth/
friendliness, β = .06, t < 1, nor did it predict actual accep-
tance, β = .09, t < 1. Additionally, including participants’
interest in joining the group in the mediation analysis
examining the associations among anticipated accep-
tance, warmth/friendliness, and actual acceptance did
not alter the results described previously, Sobel’s z = 3.53,
p < .001. Thus, it does not appear that a lack of interest
in joining the group can explain the finding that antici-
pated acceptance predicts actual acceptance.
Mood predicts warmth/friendliness and acceptance.
People who doubt that they will be liked by others often
experience negative mood (Leary et al., 1998). People
experiencing negative moods are unlikely to behave in a
warm manner (e.g., Coyne, 1976). Hence, negative
mood, not anticipated acceptance, could be the true
predictor of actual acceptance. Although NA was mar-
ginally related to warmth/friendliness, β = –.21, t(60) =
–1.64, p = .11, it was not related to actual acceptance,
β = –.12, t < 1. Additionally, the inclusion of NA in each
step of the mediation analysis relating anticipated accep-
tance to warmth/friendliness and actual acceptance did
not alter the results described previously, Sobel’s z =
3.30, p < .001. Similar results emerged for PA, which
was also not significantly associated with actual accep-
tance, β = .11, t < 1.
Perceptions of assertiveness/confidence predict actual
acceptance. Assertiveness or confidence reflects another
fundamental dimension of person perception—specifi-
cally, dominance—that is typically thought to be orthog-
onal to warmth (e.g., Judd et al., 2005). Given its social
importance, a third alternative explanation for the accep-
tance prophecy is that decreased anticipated acceptance
predicts decreased assertiveness, and this lack of asser-
tiveness, not a lack of warmth, predicts actual accep-
tance by observers. Results of our usual regression
revealed that anticipated acceptance was only margin-
ally predictive of assertiveness/confidence, β = .21, t(60)
= 2.12, p = .089. When both anticipated acceptance and
assertiveness/confidence were entered simultaneously in
the regression to predict actual acceptance, anticipated
acceptance remained a significant predictor of actual
acceptance, β = .33, t(59) = 2.72, p = .009, and although
assertiveness/confidence predicted actual acceptance, β =
.32, t(59) = 2.65, p = .010, Sobel’s test indicated that this
indirect path was not significant, z = 1.63, p = .103.
Because ratings of warmth/friendliness and assertive-
ness/confidence were correlated in the present study, r =
.60, p < .001, we conducted an additional mediation
Actual
Acceptance
Anticipated
Acceptance
(.40**) .09
.41**
Warmth/
Friendliness
.74**
Figure 1 Mediation model testing whether observers’ ratings of
participants’ warmth/friendliness explain the association
between anticipated and actual acceptance in Study 1.
NOTE: Participants rated their anticipated acceptance by the group,
one set of observers rated participants’ warmth/friendliness, and a
second set of observers rated actual acceptance of participants.
**p < .01.
at UNIV OF WATERLOO on September 8, 2009 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Stinson et al. / SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY OF ACCEPTANCE 1171
analysis in which both warmth/friendliness and asser-
tiveness/confidence were entered into the second step of
the mediation analysis simultaneously. Results of this
analysis indicated that warmth/friendliness remained a
strong predictor of actual acceptance, β = .82, t(58) =
7.56, p < .001, and explained the association between
anticipated and actual acceptance even when shared
variance with assertiveness/confidence was controlled,
Sobel’s z = 3.31, p < .001. In contrast, the association
between assertiveness/confidence and actual acceptance
was eliminated when warmth/friendliness was con-
trolled, β = –.12, t(58) = –1.18, p = .244, and the indirect
path from anticipated acceptance to actual acceptance
through assertiveness/confidence was also eliminated,
Sobel’s z = 1.17, ns. These results suggest that although
one’s anticipated acceptance by the group predicts oth-
ers’ impressions of both assertiveness/confidence and
warmth/friendliness, only warmth/friendliness uniquely
predicts actual acceptance by observers. This result is
consistent with research suggesting that warmth is asso-
ciated with acceptance whereas agency is associated with
other outcomes, such as respect or status (e.g., Fiske
et al., 2002).
Perceptions of sociability predict actual acceptance.
Observers’ actual acceptance of participants may depend
on participants’ sociability rather than their warmth.
McCrae and Costa (1989) distinguished warmth from
sociability by suggesting that warmth reflects the under-
lying personality dimension of agreeableness, whereas
sociability reflects extroversion. Moreover, they suggest
that warmth reflects an individual’s positive social inten-
tions, whereas sociability reflects an individual’s interest
in social relationships. Although distinct aspects of per-
sonality, these two dimensions are uniquely social and
therefore it is possible that participants’ sociability—or
social interest—is the true predictor of actual accep-
tance. Anticipated acceptance indeed predicted sociabil-
ity, β = .26, t(60) = 2.10, p = .040, and when anticipated
acceptance and sociability were entered into regression
simultaneously to predict actual acceptance, sociability
predicted actual acceptance, β = .37, t(59) = 3.13, p =
.003, and this indirect path was significant, z = 1.97,
p = .049. However, the direct path between anticipated
acceptance and actual acceptance remained significant
when sociability was included in the regression, β = .30,
t(59) = 2.49, p = .016. Moreover, even though different
sets of coders rated each variable, sociability and
warmth/friendliness were correlated, r = .54, p < .001.
Therefore, we conducted a second mediation analysis in
which warmth/friendliness and sociability were entered
simultaneously into the second step. Controlling for
sociability, observers’ impressions of participants’
warmth/friendliness remained a strong predictor of
actual acceptance, β = .73, t(58) = 6.97, p < .001, and
explained the association between anticipated and actual
acceptance, Sobel’s z = 3.26, p = .001. In contrast, the
association between sociability and actual acceptance
was eliminated when warmth/friendliness was con-
trolled, β = .03, t < 1.
Taken together, these results offer support for our
model, suggesting that warmth/friendliness plays a key
behavioral role in explaining the self-fulfilling prophecy
of acceptance. However, given that Study 1 was correla-
tional, these results cannot definitively nail down the
causal nature of the associations among variables.
Hence, Study 2 uses an experimental method to repli-
cate and extend the results of Study 1.
STUDY 2: CHANGING THE PROPHECY
Study 2 experimentally tests our hypothesis that
strategies for regulating social risk explain the associa-
tion between anticipated acceptance and warmth (i.e.,
anticipated acceptance → strategies for risk regulation
→ warmth). Specifically, we test the hypothesis that
when people with pessimistic social expectations are in
a socially risky situation, such as a first impression situ-
ation, they regulate the risk of rejection by displaying
inhibited interpersonal warmth and therefore garner less
acceptance from others. Single male participants engaged
in a videotaped face-to-face conversation with an attrac-
tive female confederate. At a later date, female observers
watched a 1-min slice of the participants’ behavior dur-
ing the interaction and rated their acceptance for each
participant. A second group of female observers rated
the participants’ warmth. As in Study 1, in the control
condition we expected that the risk of rejection would
be salient to participants in this first-impression context.
Thus, participants low in anticipated acceptance would
regulate this risk by displaying inhibited warmth and in
turn would be less liked by observers.
Our experimental condition was designed to subtly
decrease the rejection anxieties of people low in antici-
pated acceptance, thereby allowing these participants to
abandon their self-protective risk-regulation strategy
and behave more warmly. Our intention was to reduce
the self-focused attention and evaluation that so often
accompany social anxiety (e.g., Mor & Winquist, 2002)
by instead focusing the participants’ attention on their
interaction partner. Thus, before the face-to-face inter-
action, participants in the experimental condition
received a handwritten personal disclosure from the
confederate in which she admitted that she was often
anxious about whether other people like her. Cameron,
Stinson, Gaetz, and Balchen (in press) demonstrated
that this disclosure reduced receivers’ perceived risk of
at UNIV OF WATERLOO on September 8, 2009 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
1172 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
rejection by the discloser, compared to a control condi-
tion in which no disclosure was offered. This disclosure
effect on perceived risk of rejection was not moderated
by participants’ gender.
In addition to decreasing self-focused attention and
evaluation, the disclosure manipulation may reduce rejec-
tion concerns in other ways. For example, (a) the disclo-
sure suggests that the confederate, who experiences social
anxiety herself, may not negatively judge the participant’s
own shy or nervous behavior, or (b) the confederate is
admitting that she has a personal flaw, which may cause
participants to feel superior to the confederate.
In the present study, we anticipate that the disclosure
manipulation will not affect the behavior or social out-
comes of participants high in anticipated acceptance. By
definition, these participants are not concerned about
rejection by the confederate, and thus the confederate’s
disclosure should hold little import to them. In contrast,
the experimental manipulation should have a marked
effect on participants low in anticipated acceptance.
These participants are concerned about being rejected by
the confederate, and thus her disclosure and its implica-
tions for the likelihood of rejection are very important
for them. We predict that relative to the control condi-
tion, the confederate’s disclosure will decrease socially
pessimistic participants’ rejection anxieties, removing the
need to regulate the risk of rejection and thereby allow-
ing them to behave in a warm and friendly manner. In
turn, increased warm behavior will cause these partici-
pants to be more liked by observers. Thus, the present
study examines whether situational cues that limit the
need to self-protectively regulate the risk of rejection can
increase socially pessimistic participants’ interpersonal
warmth and thereby improve their social outcomes.
Method
Participants
Twenty-eight men from the University of Waterloo
were recruited to participate in the present study; 8 were
recruited from the introductory psychology subject pool
and 20 were recruited from a campus student center.
Participants received partial course credit or an $8 gift
certificate and two chocolate bars (or a stationary set) in
appreciation for their time. All participants were between
18 and 24 years of age (M = 20 years, SD = 1.56), all
were single, and all reported being fluent in English.
Procedure and Measures
Participants were recruited for a study about “com-
munication styles and media.” Participants were
informed that they would watch an excerpt from a
television program and then discuss the television pro-
gram and other topics with a second participant. The
other “participant” was actually a confederate. To bol-
ster the believability of the confederate’s “participant”
identity, the research assistant met both the confederate
and the participant in the same location before the study
and then separated them into different rooms for the
first part of the study.
In his individual lab room, the participant first com-
pleted a preliminary survey in which he reported his
self-esteem using the same self-esteem scale used in
Study 1 (α = .86). In addition, the participant reported
his anticipated acceptance by the confederate with four
items: “How likely is it that you will get along with your
interaction partner?” “How enjoyable do you think it
will be to spend time with your interaction partner?”
“How comfortable will you feel when speaking to your
interaction partner?” “How likely is it that your interac-
tion partner will like you?” All four items were averaged
to form a reliable index of anticipated acceptance (α =
.82). The preliminary survey also included demographic
questions (e.g., age) and filler items intended to disguise
our focus on self-esteem and anticipated acceptance.
Next, the participant watched an 8-min clip from a
documentary about the international coffee industry.
The participant was reminded that he would be asked to
discuss the documentary with the other participant and
thus was provided with a pen and notepad to make
notes for his later discussion.
After watching the documentary, the participant was
given a sealed envelope that contained an information
sheet about the confederate. Ostensibly, this informa-
tion was provided to allow the participant to get to
know the confederate before they interacted. In actual-
ity, the information sheet constituted the experimental
manipulation. Participants were randomly assigned to
one of two conditions, and because a second researcher
prepared the envelopes containing the information
sheet, the researcher running the experimental session
was blind to the condition. In the control condition,
participants were provided with neutral information
about the confederate: She was a 20-year-old, single,
Canadian female, whose first language was English.
This condition was designed to mimic the level of risk
salience that is typical in first-meeting situations. In the
disclosure condition, in addition to receiving the same
neutral information about the confederate that was pro-
vided in the control condition, participants also received
the confederate’s supposed handwritten answers to two
additional questions: “What are your best qualities?”
and “What are some things you’d like to improve about
yourself?” The confederate’s answer to the first question
was: “I’m pretty good at creative writing, especially
at UNIV OF WATERLOO on September 8, 2009 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Stinson et al. / SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY OF ACCEPTANCE 1173
short stories. And I’m open to trying new things.” Her
answer to the second question was a personal disclosure
designed to suggest that she was socially anxious: “I
wish I could feel more confident in social situations.
Especially when I meet someone new (like now!), I find
myself worrying about whether the other person likes
me or not. I’d like to improve that.”
After the participant read this information about the
confederate, the researcher brought the confederate to
the participant’s lab room and gave to both of them the
interaction task instructions:
[Participant], you were randomly assigned to be the
communicator in this study, so that means that you will
give your opinions about each of the questions on this
sheet of paper, and [Confederate], you were randomly
assigned to be the listener, which means that you are
supposed to ask [Participant] the questions and then
listen to his answers.
In actuality, the participant was always assigned the role
of communicator, making the confederate the listener.
For all participants, the confederate, who was blind to
condition, acted in a warm, attentive manner with the
goal of making the other participant feel comfortable.
She did not cross her legs, she leaned toward the par-
ticipant as he spoke, and smiled, nodded, and main-
tained eye contact. In addition, she responded to some
of the participant’s comments with scripted lines. All
interactions were videotaped.
Following the interaction task, the participant
returned to his individual lab room and completed a
second questionnaire that included a manipulation-
check question among other items that are not relevant
to the present research (see Cameron et al., in press).
Participants indicated their agreement with the state-
ment, “The listener was probably feeling shy and ner-
vous during our interaction,” using a 7-point scale (1 =
completely disagree, 7 = completely agree). After com-
pleting this survey, participants were thoroughly
debriefed as to the true purposes of the study.
At a later date, two independent sets of observers
watched the 1st min of each participant’s interaction
with the confederate and rated him on a number of
dimensions. First, observers rated the participants on
two variables intended to index participants’ rejection
anxieties: nervous and insecure. We assessed these vari-
ables as a manipulation check to determine whether our
disclosure manipulation successfully reduced the rejec-
tion anxieties of participants low in anticipated accep-
tance. In a second coding session, these same three
coders again watched the 1st min of each participant’s
interaction and rated his interpersonal warmth using
five variables: maintains eye contact, engaged, respon
sive,
inhibited, and uncomfortable (the latter two variables
were reverse-coded before analyses). At a third coding
session, a second group of five female observers watched
the 1st min of each interaction and rated their accep-
tance for the participant by answering three questions:
“Based on how the male participant is behaving, how
much would you enjoy interacting with him?” “How
interested would you be in meeting him again?” and
“How likely would you be to hang out with him one-
on-one?” All ratings involved a 7-point scale (1 = not at
all, 7 = extremely). Interrater agreement for all variables
was high (all ICCCs < .80, all ps < .001). Thus, the
observers’ ratings for each variable were averaged, and
traits assessing each construct were averaged to create
reliable indices of anxiety (α = .98), warmth (α = .97),
and actual acceptance (α = .95).
Results and Discussion
One participant in the control condition and 4 par-
ticipants in the disclosure condition indicated during
debriefing that they did not believe that the confederate
was an actual participant. These skeptical participants
were excluded from the analyses.
As in Study 1, preliminary analyses indicated that self-
esteem did not moderate any of the results. However,
because we were particularly interested in assessing the
influence of situational cues on the self-fulfilling proph-
ecy of social acceptance (i.e., the confederate’s disclo-
sure), we included self-esteem as a main-effect predictor
in each of the analyses that follow. By controlling for
self-esteem, we are statistically removing personality
variance in the mediator and dependent variables and
thus increasing our power to detect the effects of our
situational manipulation of risk. As in Study 1, self-esteem
was modestly correlated with anticipated acceptance,
r =
.36, p = .095, suggesting that regressions including
both of the variables would not overresidualize either
variable. Unless otherwise indicated, self-esteem was not
directly related to the dependent variables.
We used the same hierarchical regression procedure
to test each of our hypotheses. In addition to controlling
for mean-centered self-esteem, we entered mean-centered
anticipated acceptance and dummy coded condition
(0
= control, 1 = disclosure) as main effects at Step 1,
and entered the two-way interaction at Step 2. We inter-
preted the main effects from Step 1 of the analyses and
the two-way interactions obtained at Step 2. When a
significant interaction emerged at Step 2, simple-effects
analyses were conducted according to Aiken and West’s
(1991) recommendations. Means and standard devia-
tions for all assessed variables and zero-order correla-
tions are presented in Table 2.
at UNIV OF WATERLOO on September 8, 2009 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
1174 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
Manipulation Checks
Did participants understand the confederate’s disclo-
sure? As intended, participants in the control condition
thought that the confederate was less shy and nervous
during the interaction task (M = 2.42, SD = .51) than
did participants in the disclosure condition (M = 4.36,
SD = 1.36), β = .57, t(19) = 3.44, p = .003. In addition,
anticipated acceptance was associated with participants’
perceptions of the confederate, such that participants
who anticipated higher levels of acceptance thought that
the confederate was less shy and nervous than did parti-
cipants who anticipated lower levels of acceptance, β =
–.39, t(19) = –2.51, p = .021. Condition and anticipated
acceptance did not interact to predict perceptions of the
confederate’s shyness and nervousness.
Did the confederate’s disclosure reduce participants’
anxieties? If our disclosure manipulation successfully
reduced the rejection anxieties of participants low in
anticipated acceptance, these participants should appear
less anxious in the disclosure condition than in the con-
trol condition. To test this hypothesis, we used our usual
regression to predict observers’ impressions of partici-
pants’ anxiety (M = 2.80, SD = 1.36). Consistent with
this prediction, the experimental manipulation inter-
acted with participants’ anticipated acceptance to pre-
dict participants’ anxiety, β = .87, t(18) = 3.06, p = .007.
This interaction is depicted in Figure 2. In the control
condition, anticipated acceptance was strongly related
to observers’ impressions of participants’ anxiety, β =
–.89, t(18) = –3.14, p = .006, such that participants who
were low in anticipated acceptance appeared much more
anxious than participants who were high in anticipated
acceptance. However, the confederate’s disclosure elim-
inated this effect of anticipated acceptance, β = .34,
t(18) = 1.21, ns, because the confederate’s disclosure
successfully decreased the anxiety of participants who
were low in anticipated acceptance, β = –.68, t(18) =
–2.90, p = .008. Also as expected, the experimental
manipulation did not influence the anxiety of partici-
pants who were high in anticipated acceptance, β = .34,
t(18) = 1.44, ns. These results suggest that our experi-
mental manipulation successfully reduced socially pes-
simistic participants’ rejection anxieties, which should
reduce their reliance on self-protective risk-regulation
strategies.
The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Next, we examined whether anticipated acceptance
and condition uniquely or interactively predicted observ-
ers’ actual acceptance of participants. In this case,
results of the regression revealed a main effect for self-
esteem, β = .58, t(19) = 2.39, p = .027, such that observ-
ers liked HSEs more than they liked LSEs. Yet results
also revealed the predicted interaction between antici-
pated acceptance and condition, β = –.63, t(18) = –2.18,
p = .042. No other effects emerged. The interaction
between anticipated acceptance and condition is depicted
in Figure 3. In the control condition, where rejection
was possible, anticipated acceptance was strongly asso-
ciated with observers’ actual acceptance of the partici-
pants, β = .59, t(18) = 2.02, p = .056. This result
replicates the results obtained in Study 1 but in the more
naturalistic social context of a face-to-face interaction.
However, as expected, the experimental manipulation
markedly increased actual acceptance for participants
low in anticipated acceptance, β = .62, t(18) = 2.36, p =
.029, bringing their actual acceptance by observers to a
level similar to that of participants high in anticipated
acceptance, β = –.29, t(18) = –1.07, ns. The experimen-
tal manipulation did not influence observers’ actual
TABLE 2: Variables Assessed in Study 2, Their Means and
Standard Deviations, and Zero-Order Correlations
Between the Variables
M SD 2 3 4
1. Global self-esteem 6.94 1.37 .36 .54* .31
2. Anticipated acceptance
by the group 6.30 1.04 — .19 .46*
3. Actual acceptance by
observers 3.78 0.87 — — .75**
4. Warmth 1.73 0.64 — — —
*p < .05. **p < .01.
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Control
Condition
Low Anticipated Acceptance
High Anticipated Acceptance
Observers’ Rating of
Participants’ Anxiety
Disclosure
Figure 2 Observers’ ratings of participants’ anxiety as a function of
participants’ anticipated acceptance and experimental
condition in Study 2.
NOTE: Anticipated acceptance is graphed for values 1 SD above and
below the mean.
at UNIV OF WATERLOO on September 8, 2009 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Stinson et al. / SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY OF ACCEPTANCE 1175
acceptance of participants high in anticipated accep-
tance, β = –.13, t < 1.
Explaining the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
We predicted that our experimental manipulation
would eliminate the self-protective inhibition of warmth
that is typical of participants who are low in anticipated
acceptance when the risk of rejection is present, thereby
allowing them to garner greater acceptance from observ-
ers. Because we did not predict or observe an effect of
our experimental manipulation for participants high in
anticipated acceptance, our prediction is a mediated
moderation hypothesis: We proposed that for partici-
pants low in anticipated acceptance, but not for partici-
pants high in anticipated acceptance, condition influences
participants’ warmth, which in turn determines how
well they are liked (i.e., Anticipated Acceptance ×
Condition → warmth → actual acceptance). To test this
hypothesis, we conducted mediated moderation analysis
(see Muller, Judd, & Yzerbyt, 2005), and the results are
depicted in Figure 4. Next, we present a detailed account
of the procedures we used to obtain the results depicted
in Figure 4.
We have already presented results indicating that
anticipated acceptance and condition interacted to pre-
dict actual acceptance by observers, such that the con-
federate’s disclosure increased actual acceptance of
participants low in anticipated acceptance but did not
influence actual acceptance of participants high in
anticipated acceptance (see Figure 3). Results also
revealed the expected interaction between anticipated
acceptance and condition predicting observers’ ratings
of participants’ warmth, β = –.75, t(18) = –2.56, p =
.021. No other main effects or interactions emerged
from the regression predicting warmth. This interaction
is depicted in Figure 5. Results parallel those depicted in
Figure 3. In the control condition, when the risk of
rejection was present, anticipated acceptance was
strongly related to observers’ ratings of participants’
warmth, β = .98, t(18) = 3.30, p = .004, such that
observers thought that participants low in anticipated
acceptance exhibited much less warmth than partici-
pants high in anticipated acceptance. This is a replica-
tion of the results observed in Study 1 but using a more
behavioroid operationalization of the proposed media-
tor, interpersonal warmth. However, when the risk of
rejection was reduced by the confederate’s disclosure,
observers perceived that participants low in anticipated
acceptance displayed increased levels of warmth, β = .58,
t(18) = 2.09, p = .049, and in fact did not differ from
their counterparts high in anticipated acceptance, β =
–.08, t < 1. In contrast, the experimental manipulation
did not influence observers’ impressions of the warmth
of participants high in anticipated acceptance, β = –.29,
t(18) = 1.05, ns.
In the next step of the mediated moderation analyses,
we added warmth to the usual regression equation pre-
dicting observers’ actual acceptance of participants. As
Figure 4 indicates, warmth was strongly predictive of
actual acceptance by observers, β = .72, t(17) = 3.98, p =
.001. Moreover, when warmth was included in the regres-
sion, the interaction between anticipated acceptance and
condition no longer predicted actual acceptance by
observers, β = –.16, t < 1. Sobel’s test confirmed that the
indirect path from the interaction term through warmth
to actual acceptance was significant, z = 2.53, p = .011.
3
Taken together, these mediation results suggest that
when the risk of rejection is present, as in the control
condition, low anticipated acceptance causes people
to exhibit inhibited warmth, which we suggest is a
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
Control
Condition
Actual Acceptance
by Observers
Disclosure
Low Anticipated Acceptance
High Anticipated Acceptance
Figure 3 Observers’ actual acceptance of participants as a func-
tion of participants’ anticipated acceptance and experi-
mental condition in Study 2.
NOTE: Anticipated acceptance is graphed for values 1 SD above and
below the mean.
Actual
Acceptance
Anticipated Acceptance
X Condition
(−.63*) −.16
−.75*
Warmth
.72**
Figure 4 Mediated moderation model testing whether the Condition
× Anticipated Acceptance interaction effect on actual
acceptance is explained by warmth in Study 2.
NOTE: Participants rated their anticipated acceptance by the group,
one set of observers rated participants’ warmth/friendliness, and a
second set of observers rated actual acceptance of participants.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
at UNIV OF WATERLOO on September 8, 2009 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
1176 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
self-protective method of regulating the risk of rejec-
tion. In turn, such inhibited warmth predicts the very
social outcome that such individuals fear: low actual
acceptance. However, the effect of our experimental
manipulation also suggests that when socially pessimis-
tic people’s rejection anxieties are assuaged, the need to
regulate the risk of rejection may be removed, allowing
them to behave more warmly and thus garner increased
acceptance by observers.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Results supported our model of the self-fulfilling
prophecy of acceptance. In Study 1, these results were
obtained even though all three variables in the media-
tion analysis were from different sources (i.e., the par-
ticipants and two independent sets of observers), which
eliminated shared method variance. Despite this conser-
vative test of mediation, warmth emerged as a robust
mediator. A 1-min slice of warmth was sufficient to
explain the association between anticipated acceptance
and actual acceptance. Controlling for self-esteem did
not alter the results of the mediation analysis. Moreover,
although observers’ perceptions of participants’ warmth
were associated with perceptions of assertiveness/confi-
dence and sociability, controlling for both of these vari-
ables did not diminish the strength of the mediating role
of warmth. Results also indicated that participants’
negative mood and willingness to join the group did not
predict actual acceptance by observers. Controlling for
these variables in the mediation analyses did not dimin-
ish the association between anticipated acceptance and
actual acceptance, nor did it diminish the mediating
power of warmth.
Study 2 offered experimental support for our model.
Not only did results conceptually replicate those of Study
1 in the control condition, using the more naturalistic
social context of a face-to-face interaction and a more
behavioroid index of warmth (i.e., responsiveness, eye
contact, discomfort), but results also demonstrated one
important mechanism responsible for the self-fulfilling
prophecy of acceptance: interpersonal warmth. When
socially pessimistic participants’ rejection anxieties were
alleviated by the confederate’s disclosure, observers
reported equal acceptance for participants high and low
in anticipated acceptance. Moreover, this increase in
actual acceptance of participants low in anticipated accep-
tance was explained by increases in these participants’
warmth. Taken together, these results suggest that when
people doubt that they will be accepted by others, they
self-protectively inhibit their warm behavior as a method
of regulating the risk of rejection in the social situation.
These results offer an important addition to the risk-
regulation literature in a number of ways. The majority
of research testing Murray et al.’s (2006) risk-regulation
model has focused on the social context of romantic
relationships (e.g., Murray et al., 2003) or other inti-
mate relationships (e.g., DeHart, Murray, Pelham, &
Rose, 2003). By testing the risk-regulation model in the
context of a first-impression situation, the present
research illustrates the remarkable generalizability of
the risk-regulation model across a number of social con-
texts (see also Anthony et al., 2007). In addition, to our
knowledge, these results are among the first to demon-
strate that risk-regulation processes influence behavior.
The majority of risk-regulation research has examined
the effects of social risk on people’s thoughts and feel-
ings (see Murray et al., 2006). Recent studies have also
demonstrated that risk regulation affects people’s behav-
ioral intentions (e.g., Anthony et al., 2007) and their
social perceptions (Cameron et al., 2009). However, the
present research demonstrates that risk regulation affects
people’s actual social behavior, specifically, their level of
interpersonal warmth. Once again, then, the present
research helps demonstrate the predictive power of the
risk-regulation model.
The results of Study 2 are particularly notable given
the subtle nature of our manipulation of the risk of
rejection. Most research examining the self-fulfilling
prophecy of acceptance has used very direct and obvi-
ous methods to alter participants’ social expectations
(e.g., false feedback stating that the participants’ inter-
action partners did or did not like them; Rabiner &
Coie, 1989). Despite the fact that our manipulation of
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
Control
Condition
Participants’ Warmth
Disclosure
Low Anticipated Acceptance
High Anticipated Acceptance
Figure 5 Observers’ ratings of participants’ warmth as a function of
participants’ anticipated acceptance and experimental
condition in Study 2.
NOTE: Anticipated acceptance is graphed for values 1 SD above and
below the mean.
at UNIV OF WATERLOO on September 8, 2009 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Stinson et al. / SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY OF ACCEPTANCE 1177
social risk was indirect, via the confederate’s disclosure,
it nevertheless had a very large influence on partici-
pants’ social behavior and successfully eliminated the
association between anticipated acceptance and social
outcomes that was observed in both Study 1 and in the
control condition of Study 2. These results suggest that
the self-fulfilling prophecy of anticipated acceptance is
not explained by a social skills deficit. Socially pessimis-
tic participants in the experimental condition of Study 2
were perfectly capable of behaving in a warm and
friendly manner, and indeed they behaved as prosocially
as their socially optimistic counterparts. These results
suggest that the negative social consequences of unwar-
ranted social pessimism can be overcome with simple
psychological interventions that limit the risk of rejec-
tion and alleviate social anxieties.
Given the negative consequences of self-protectively
inhibiting warmth, an important question to ask is
whether people are consciously aware that they are
using this risk-regulation strategy. Like many social
behaviors, inhibition of warmth in response to social
risk could occur at a relatively uncontrolled level, and
people may not be aware of their particular level of
warmth in a given risky social situation. If this is the
case, the negative consequences of such a risk-regulation
strategy could affect more than one’s immediate social
outcomes. If people are not able to reflect on their own
social behavior following an unsuccessful social interac-
tion and note their own cool or unfriendly behavior,
they cannot blame the unsuccessful social interaction on
something controllable (i.e., their own behavior; “She
didn’t like me because I wasn’t being myself!”). Instead,
they may blame their poor social outcomes on some-
thing internal about the self (i.e., their personality or
character; “She didn’t like me because I am a loser!”).
Over time, such internal attributions for failed social
interactions could undermine people’s self-esteem, fur-
ther contributing to the self-fulfilling prophecy of accep-
tance by increasing the likelihood that people will
harbor pessimistic social expectations.
Contrary to what we expected originally, self-esteem
did not moderate the pattern of associations among
variables involved in the acceptance prophecy. In retro-
spect, these results are not entirely surprising. Consistent
with research on the attitude–behavior connection (e.g.,
Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005), we found that generalized
attitudes about one’s value as a relational partner (i.e.,
global self-esteem; Leary et al., 1995) predicted situation-
specific attitudes about one’s value as a relational part-
ner (i.e., anticipated acceptance), which in turn predicted
participants’ behavior and actual social outcomes. This
model (i.e., self-esteem → anticipated acceptance →
behavior) is also consistent with past research suggest-
ing that situation-specific social expectations explain
the association between self-esteem and social behavior
(e.g., Anthony et al., 2007).
Our goal was to deconstruct the “reign of error”
(Merton, 1948) to understand why people’s expecta-
tions of acceptance or rejection predict actual accep-
tance or rejection from others. To that end, we tested
our hypothesis that a thin slice of warmth is sufficient
to explain the association between anticipated accep-
tance and actual acceptance. Results strongly supported
this hypothesis, demonstrating the interpersonal power
of being warm and friendly.
NOTES
1. At first blush, self-protectively inhibiting one’s warmth seems a
counterintuitive social strategy for protecting the self from rejection
because it actually increases the likelihood that one will be rejected. A more
sensible response to social doubts would be to increase one’s warmth,
thereby increasing the likelihood of acceptance. Unfortunately, increasing
one’s interpersonal warmth would also increase one’s social involvement,
thus increasing the risk inherent to the social situation, making this a highly
unlikely social strategy for socially pessimistic individuals.
2.
The feedback was originally included in an attempt to manipulate
participants’ anxieties about being evaluated by the group. Participants
received one of three types of feedback, which varied in the amount
of positivity that the group expressed toward the participant (e.g.,
“This person sounds nice, I hope they join us” vs. “We seem pretty
different, but I’m willing to give it a try”). Unfortunately, this manip-
ulation failed. Feedback condition did not directly, or interactively,
influence any of the variables assessed or any of the results presented
in this article. Therefore, data were collapsed across feedback condi-
tions in analyses.
3. These mediated moderation results are the same if we do not
control for global self-esteem: The interaction term predicts participants’
warmth, β = –.65, t(19) = –2.21, p = .041; participants’ warmth predicts
actual acceptance, β = .85, t(18) = 4.58, p < .001; and Sobel’s test indi-
cated that this indirect path was significant, z = –1.99, p = .046.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior.
In D. Albarracin, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Handbook
of attitudes (pp. 173-221). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ambady, N., Bernieri, F. J., & Richeson, J. A. (2000). Toward a histol-
ogy of social behavior: Judgmental accuracy from thin slices of the
behavioral stream. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology, 32, 201-271.
Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1993). Half a minute: Predicting
teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and
physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 64, 431-441.
Anthony, D. B., Wood, J. V., & Holmes, J. G. (2007). Testing sociom-
eter theory: Self-esteem and the importance of acceptance for
social decision-making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
43, 425-432.
Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Hutton, D. G. (1989). Self-presentational
motivations and personality differences in self-esteem. Journal of
Personality, 57, 547-579.
Bernieri, F. J., Gillis, J. S., Davis, J. M., & Grahe, J. E. (1996). Dyad
rapport and the accuracy of its judgment across situations: A lens
model analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71,
110-129.
at UNIV OF WATERLOO on September 8, 2009 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
1178 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN
Cameron, J. J., Stinson, D. A., Gaetz, R., & Balchen, S. (in press).
Acceptance is in the eye of the beholder: Self-esteem and motivated
perceptions of acceptance from the opposite sex. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology.
Coyne, J. C. (1976). Depression and the response of others. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 85, 186-193.
Curtis, R. C., & Miller, K. (1986). Believing another likes or dislikes
you: Behaviors making the beliefs come true. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51, 284-290.
Darley, J. M., & Fazio, R. H. (1980). Expectancy confirmation pro-
cesses arising in the social interaction sequence. American
Psychologist, 35, 867-881.
DeHart, T., Murray, S. L., Pelham, B., & Rose, P. (2003). The regula-
tion of dependency in non-romantic relationships. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 59-67.
DePaulo, B. M., Epstein, J. A., & LeMay, C. S. (1990). Responses of
the socially anxious to the prospect of interpersonal evaluation.
Journal of Personality, 58, 623-640.
Downey, G., Freitas, A. L., Michaelis, B., & Khouri, H. (1998). The
self-fulfilling prophecy in close relationships: Rejection sensitivity
and rejection by romantic partners. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 75, 545-560.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of
(often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respec-
tively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902.
Gaucher, D., Wood, J. V., Stinson, D. A., Holmes, J. G., Logel, C., &
Hogle, A. (2009). The risky business of “opening up”: Testing a
risk-regulation model of emotional expressivity. Unpublished man-
uscript, University of Waterloo.
Jones, S. C., & Panitch, D. (1971). The self-fulfilling prophecy and
interpersonal attraction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
7, 356-366.
Judd, C. M., James-Hawkins, L., Yzerbyt, V., & Kashima, Y.
(2005). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment:
Understanding the relations between judgments of competence
and warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89,
899-913.
Jussim, L. (1986). Self-fulfilling prophecies: A theoretical and integra-
tive review. Psychological Review, 93, 429-445.
Leary, M., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-
esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 518-530.
Leary, M. R., Springer, C., Negel, L., Ansell, E., & Evans, K. (1998).
The causes, phenomenology, and consequences of hurt feelings.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1225-1237.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989). The structure of interpersonal
traits: Wiggins’ circumplex and the five-factor model. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 586-595.
Meleshko, K. G. A., & Alden, L. E. (1993). Anxiety and self-disclosure:
Toward a motivational model. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 64, 1000-1009.
Merton, R. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. Antioch Review, 8,
193-210.
Mor, N., & Winquist, J. (2002). Self-focused attention and negative
affect: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 638-662.
Moskowitz, D. S. (1994). Cross-situational generality and the inter-
personal circumplex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
66, 921-933.
Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation
is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 89, 852-863.
Murray, S. L., Bellavia, G., Rose, P., & Griffin, D. (2003). Once hurt,
twice hurtful: How perceived regard regulates daily marital interac-
tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 126-147.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Collins, N. L. (2006). Optimizing
assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships, Psychological
Bulletin, 132, 640-666.
Rabiner, D., & Coie, J. (1989). Effect of expectancy inductions on
rejected children’s acceptance by unfamiliar peers. Developmental
Psychology, 25, 450-457.
Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L, Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M.
(2000). Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and
relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 419-
435.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Snyder, M. (1992). Motivational foundations of behavioral confir-
mation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 67-114). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A. & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and valida-
tion of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS
scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Received May 16, 2008
Revision accepted March 26, 2009
at UNIV OF WATERLOO on September 8, 2009 http://psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
