A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
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