ArticlePublisher preview available

Beautiful Mess Effect: Self–Other Differences in Evaluation of Showing Vulnerability

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract

Confessing romantic feelings, asking for help, or taking responsibility for a mistake constitute just a few examples of situations that require showing one's vulnerability. Out of fear, many individuals decide against it. To explore whether these fears are reflected in the evaluation of others, we investigate self-other differences in evaluation of showing vulnerability. Drawing on construal level theory, we hypothesize that the mental representations of individuals who find themselves in a vulnerable situation are rather concrete, shifting the focus on the negative aspects of making oneself vulnerable and resulting in a relatively negative evaluation of showing vulnerability. By contrast, when depicting others in a vulnerable situation, individuals are expected to represent it more abstractly, focus more on the positive aspects of showing vulnerability, and, therefore, evaluate it more positively. A total of seven studies demonstrate the predicted self-other differences in the evaluation of showing vulnerability in various situations, such as confessing love, revealing imperfections of one's body, or asking for help, including evidence on the generalizability of the effect in a real-life situation. Moreover, we report empirical evidence on the crucial role of level of construal in the emergence of the observed self-other differences. (PsycINFO Database Record
Beautiful Mess Effect: Self–Other Differences in Evaluation of
Showing Vulnerability
Anna Bruk, Sabine G. Scholl, and Herbert Bless
University of Mannheim
Confessing romantic feelings, asking for help, or taking responsibility for a mistake constitute just a few
examples of situations that require showing one’s vulnerability. Out of fear, many individuals decide
against it. To explore whether these fears are reflected in the evaluation of others, we investigate
self– other differences in evaluation of showing vulnerability. Drawing on construal level theory, we
hypothesize that the mental representations of individuals who find themselves in a vulnerable situation
are rather concrete, shifting the focus on the negative aspects of making oneself vulnerable and resulting
in a relatively negative evaluation of showing vulnerability. By contrast, when depicting others in a
vulnerable situation, individuals are expected to represent it more abstractly, focus more on the positive
aspects of showing vulnerability, and, therefore, evaluate it more positively. A total of seven studies
demonstrate the predicted self– other differences in the evaluation of showing vulnerability in various
situations, such as confessing love, revealing imperfections of one’s body, or asking for help, including
evidence on the generalizability of the effect in a real-life situation. Moreover, we report empirical
evidence on the crucial role of level of construal in the emergence of the observed self-other differences.
Keywords: construal level, perspective-taking, self– other differences, showing vulnerability
“Embrace the glorious mess that you are”
—Elizabeth Gilbert
Have you ever been in love and were afraid to confess your
feelings? Have you ever struggled with an illness and hesitated to
ask for help for fear it would make you look weak? The common
factor behind these two different situations is their tendency to
make most individuals feel vulnerable. In the pioneering work on
vulnerability, Brown (2012) employed the grounded theory
method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to answer the question: “What
is vulnerability?” in a large number of qualitative interviews.
“Saying ‘I love you’ first,” “asking for help,” “admitting I’m
afraid,” “sharing an unpopular opinion,” “asking for forgive-
ness,” and “trying something new” (pp. 35–37) constitute only
some examples of the variety of answers provided by her
participants. A rather broad construct of vulnerability emerged
from these interviews, which Brown (2012) defines as “uncer-
tainty, risk, and emotional exposure” (p. 34).
Individuals have two basic options when confronted with vul-
nerable situations: They can either choose to close themselves off
to feeling vulnerable or they can choose to engage with the
situation and show their vulnerability. Out of fear of being per-
ceived in a negative light, many individuals decide against show-
ing vulnerability (Lee, 1997;Rosenfeld, 1979). However, is this
fear justified? Do others judge our showing of vulnerability as
negatively as we judge it in ourselves? Although research has
explored how some examples of vulnerable situations are per-
ceived, such as disclosing personal negative information (Gromet
& Pronin, 2009) or seeking help (Brooks, Gino, & Schweitzer,
2015), a general investigation of the underlying construct is still
lacking. This paper aims to address this gap by studying self– other
differences in showing vulnerability and to identify the respective
underlying processes.
Showing Vulnerability
We define showing vulnerability as an authentic and intentional
willingness to be open to uncertainty, risk, and emotional exposure
in social situations in spite of fears. With respect to authenticity,
we exclude any sort of display of vulnerability that does not match
the actor’s internal feelings. Sometimes, individuals may act as if
they were displaying vulnerability for strategic reasons, because of
normative pressure, or merely out of habit without feeling vulner-
able. The respective examples could be a presenter declaring her
nervousness before giving a talk to reduce potential critical judg-
ment, following the norm to cry at a funeral, or asking for help out
of a sense of entitlement. As long as individuals do not truly
experience vulnerability in the process, such situations would not
be captured by the current definition. Note that, in some cases,
individuals experience the displayed vulnerability and, in addition,
see potential advantages of showing their vulnerability (e.g., feel-
ing vulnerable while confessing a mistake, but hoping that taking
responsibility for it would be beneficial for the relationship in the
Anna Bruk, Sabine G. Scholl, and Herbert Bless, Department of Psy-
chology, School of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim.
The authors thank Leonie Ader, Daniel Gläsel, Annegret Heimburger,
Nicole Heller, Carolin Neureuter, Miriam Pfister, Vanessa Runft, and
Hannah Soiné for their help with data collection.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Anna
Bruk, Department of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University
of Mannheim, 68131 Mannheim, Germany. E-mail: abruk@mail.uni-
mannheim.de
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
© 2018 American Psychological Association 2018, Vol. 115, No. 2, 192–205
0022-3514/18/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000120
192
Article
Full-text available
Just as animals forage for food, humans forage for social connections. People often face a decision between exploring new relationships versus deepening existing ones. This trade-off, known in optimal foraging theory as the exploration–exploitation trade-off, is featured prominently in other disciplines such as animal foraging, learning, and organizational behavior. Many of the framework’s principles can be applied to humans’ choices about their social resources, which we call social exploration/exploitation. Using known principles in the domain of social exploration/exploitation can help social psychologists better understand how and why people choose their relationships, which ultimately affect their health and well-being. In this article, we discuss the costs and benefits of social exploration and social exploitation. We then synthesize known person- and situation-level predictors of social decision making, reframing them in the language of the explore–exploit trade-off. We propose that people explore more when they find it more rewarding and less costly, and when the environment has many opportunities to do so. We conclude by discussing hypotheses generated by applying optimal foraging theory to social decision making.
Thesis
Full-text available
This thesis applies and critically examines Self-Determination Theory’s concepts of basic need satisfaction, autonomy support and motivational types in the context of a major UK music conservatoire. The study is a mixed methods study with an explanatory, concurrent and independent design. The quantitative analysis involved a survey questionnaire, the qualitative analysis involved repertory grid interviews and follow-up interviews. Results of the quantitative analysis show overall medium basic need satisfaction, high autonomy support and high self-determined forms of motivation. There are no significant differences between departments, undergraduate and postgraduate students and between male and female students. Whilst the case study findings support the results with regard to basic needs satisfaction, in six of the nine case studies, aspects of performance environments emerged which are not autonomy supportive and led students to experience introjected avoidance motivation in the form of fear of failure and not living up to the perceived expectations of important others. This is particularly the case in performance classes, assessment situations and auditions. The discrepancy between findings on the domain and situation levels question SDT’s top-down model of motivation. The qualitative case studies suggest that this institution’s concept of a proto-professional environment might in some instances contribute to the creation of ego-involving climates. Finally, SDT’s teleological outlook with its emphasis on self-actualization, reflected in the conservatoire’s drive for excellence, might itself be a source of stress. In the case studies this is evident in participants’ experience of pressure with regard to achieving integrated motivation. SDT’s newer strand of Integrative Emotion Regulation (IER) and a pedagogical framework based on Acceptance and Commitment Coaching (ACC) are introduced as noteworthy recent developments which might go some way in alleviating the pressures experienced at music conservatoires by students and staff alike.
Article
Introduction Learning and growth in postgraduate medical education (PGME) often require vulnerability, defined as a state of openness to uncertainty, risk, and emotional exposure. However, vulnerability can threaten a resident's credibility and professional identity. Despite this tension, studies examining vulnerability in PGME are limited. As such, this study aims to explore residents' experiences of vulnerability, including the factors that influence vulnerability in PGME. Methods Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, individual semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 15 residents from 10 different specialities. Interview transcripts were coded and analysed iteratively. Themes were identified and relationships among themes were examined to develop a theory describing vulnerability in PGME. Results Residents characterised vulnerability as a paradox represented by two overarching themes. ‘Experiencing the tensions of vulnerability’ explores the polarities between being a fallible, authentic learner and an infallible, competent professional. ‘Navigating the vulnerability paradox’ outlines the factors influencing the experience of vulnerability and its associated outcomes at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and systems levels. Residents described needing to have the bandwidth to face the risks and emotional labour of vulnerability. Opportunities to build connections with social agents, including clinical teachers and peers, facilitated vulnerability. The sociocultural context shaped both the experience and outcomes of vulnerability as residents faced the symbolic mask of professionalism . Conclusion Residents experience vulnerability as a paradox shaped by intrapersonal, interpersonal, and systems level factors. These findings capture the nuance and complexity of vulnerability in PGME and offer insight into creating supportive learning environments that leverage the benefits of vulnerability while acknowledging its risks. There is a need to translate this understanding into systems‐based change to create supportive PGME environments, which value and celebrate vulnerability.
Article
Increasing demands to be seen as authentic at work have created a paradox of self-presentation for employees: the desire to be seen as simultaneously true to self and professionally appropriate in workplace interactions. The present paper introduces one way in which individuals may navigate this tension: strategic authenticity, a self-presentational approach that involves enacting behaviors intended to increase colleagues’ perceptions of one’s authenticity while accounting for individual and contextual factors that influence one’s professional image. I propose that the behavioral signals of social deviations (nonconformity and spontaneity) and self-expressions (transparency and vulnerability) increase colleagues’ perceptions of a worker’s authenticity but pose a threat to their professional image. Next, I highlight how felt authenticity and the degree of perceived violation of social expectations (i.e., benign versus taboo signal content and aligning with communal versus agentic norms) moderate the impact of signals on perceptions of authenticity and professional image, suggesting that strategic authenticity can be achieved via a careful selection of behaviors based on individual and contextual factors. Last, I consider how the enactment of strategic authenticity leads to high-quality connections at work, which over time, may lead to the formation of positive relationships (enhanced by an actor’s felt authenticity). This paper extends prior scholarship on authenticity, professional image construction, and high-quality connections by highlighting how to balance interpersonal goals to appear authentic and at the same time, maintain a desirable professional image in workplace interactions.
Article
Communicating personal experiences is crucial for fostering close relationships, but people can be reluctant to self-disclose. The current research assessed the extent to which relationship-specific (RS) and global attachment avoidance limit self-disclosure of personal events in close relationships. Critically, we also identified the types of personal events that people will selectively share in relationships characterized by higher attachment avoidance. Participants (N = 609 in the aggregated sample) reported whether they shared up to four positive and four negative events that happened to them recently with up to eight close network-members. We found that a one scale-point increase in RS or global attachment avoidance (7-point scales) predicted a 68% decrease or a 28% decrease in the odds of sharing, respectively. Nevertheless, people in more avoidant relationships did share personal events selectively: they uniquely prioritized sharing positive events, events that conveyed personal competence, and events that avoided vulnerability. Our findings shed light on the underlying factors contributing to the low likelihood of sharing personal experiences in more avoidant relationships and offer insights for future intervention work.
Article
Full-text available
Self-disclosure plays a central role in the development and maintenance of relationships. One way that researchers have explored these processes is by studying the links between self-disclosure and liking. Using meta-analytic procedures, the present work sought to clarify and review this literature by evaluating the evidence for 3 distinct disclosure–liking effects. Significant disclosure–liking relations were found for each effect: (a) People who engage in intimate disclosures tend to be liked more than people who disclose at lower levels, (b) people disclose more to those whom they initially like, and (c) people like others as a result of having disclosed to them. In addition, the relation between disclosure and liking was moderated by a number of variables, including study paradigm, type of disclosure, and gender of the discloser. Taken together, these results suggest that various disclosure–liking effects can be integrated and viewed as operating together within a dynamic interpersonal system. Implications for theory development are discussed, and avenues for future research are suggested.
Article
Full-text available
Although individuals can derive substantial benefits from exchanging information and ideas, many individuals are reluctant to seek advice from others. We find that people are reticent to seek advice for fear of appearing incompetent. This fear, however, is misplaced. We demonstrate that individuals perceive those who seek advice as more competent than those who do not. This effect is moderated by task difficulty, advisor egocentrism, and advisor expertise. Individuals perceive those who seek advice as more competent when the task is difficult rather than when it is easy, when people seek advice from them personally rather than when they seek advice from others and when people seek advice from experts rather than from nonexperts or not at all. This paper was accepted by Yuval Rottenstreich, judgment and decision making.
Article
Construal level theory We started with how the value of outcomes changes over temporal distance and ended up with what we hope is a step toward a general theory of psychological distance. There are different psychologies for the different dimensions of psychological distance – temporal, spatial, social, and hypotheticality. Without denying the uniqueness of each of these dimensions and more specific aspects comprising those dimensions, we believe they all entail transcending the present through constructing mental models of what is not directly experienced. The farther removed an object is from me on any distance dimension, the higher (more abstract) the level of mental construal of that object. Psychological distance thus expands or contracts depending on level of construal. Consistent with this proposal, research conducted in the framework of construal level theory (CLT) suggests that (1) different distance dimensions are mentally associated, (2) that distance on any of these dimensions influences ...
Article
Much of the existing literature on psychological distance has focused on cognitive outcomes, such as changes in construal level, largely framing affective processes out of the discussion. The current research examines the distinct influences of psychological distance and construal level on affect-based evaluation. In a first set of experiments, psychological distance (vs. closeness) reduces the intensity of felt affect, while abstract (vs. concrete) thinking increases the positivity of one’s thoughts. In a second set of experiments, psychological distance improves evaluations of negative experiences by reducing the intensity of negative affect but hurts evaluations of positive experiences by reducing the intensity of positive affect. By contrast, abstract thinking increases positivity, improving evaluations for both positive and negative experiences alike. These findings have implications for marketing communication strategy and existing theories of psychological distance.
Article
Background: Mistakes are an inevitable part of the practice of medicine. While the frequency and severity of medical errors are documented, little is known about patients' attitudes toward physician mistakes. Objective: To examine patient attitudes about physician errors. Design: A survey instrument assessed attitudes to 3 levels of physician mistakes (minor, moderate, and severe) and 2 fundamental physician responses: disclosure or nondisclosure. One hundred forty-nine study subjects were randomly selected from an academic general internal medicine outpatient clinic. Results: Virtually all patients (98%) desired some acknowledgment of even minor errors. Patient's desire for referral to another physician ranged from 14% following a minor mistake to 65% following a severe mistake. For both moderate and severe mistakes, patients were significantly more likely to consider litigation if the physician did not disclose the error. In the moderate mistake scenario, 12% of patients would sue if informed by the physician vs 20% if the physician failed to disclose the error and they discovered it by some other means (P<.001). Conclusions: Patients desire an acknowledgment from their physicians of even minor errors, and doing so may actually reduce the risk of punitive actions. These findings reinforce the importance of open communication between patients and physicians.Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:2565-2569
Article
Cramer's (1999) model of self‐concealment and willingness to seek counseling was extended to examine the role of positive and negative social experiences in a sample of 235 college students reporting a psychological, academic, or career issue. Structural equation modeling indicated that self‐concealment predicted willingness through the mediators of negative social experiences and psychological distress. Forty‐eight percent of the variance in psychological distress and 6% of the variance in willingness were accounted for in the model.
Article
People’s thoughts often go beyond what is right in front of them. In so doing, they mentally traverse psychological distance: They think about the past or the future, other places, other people, and wonder about the impossible. These four dimensions all tap into the same common construct of distancing from immediate experience. As a result, people associate each type of distance with the others and infer that anything far in one way will be far in all the other ways. Furthermore, distance causes further distance to shrink in the mind’s eye, even if in a different form than the first. We consider potential differences whereby certain distances might be understood in terms of other distances, and then we evaluate additional contenders that might qualify as distinct dimensions of distance in their own right. Throughout, we highlight implications of these principles for everyday judgment and decision making.