ArticlePDF Available

Acceptance Is in the Eye of the Beholder: Self-Esteem and Motivated Perceptions of Acceptance From the Opposite Sex

July 2010
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99(3):513-29

DOI:10.1037/a0018558

Source
PubMed

Authors:

Jessica J. Cameron

University of Manitoba

Danu Anthony Stinson

University of Victoria

Social risk elicits self-esteem differences in signature social motivations and behaviors during the relationship-initiation process. In particular, the present research tested the hypothesis that lower self-esteem individuals' (LSEs) motivation to avoid rejection leads them to self-protectively underestimate acceptance from potential romantic partners, whereas higher self-esteem individuals' (HSEs) motivation to promote new relationships leads them to overestimate acceptance. The results of 5 experiments supported these predictions. Social risk increased activation of avoidance goals for LSEs on a word-recall task but increased activation of approach goals for HSEs, as evidenced by their increased use of likeable behaviors. Consistent with these patterns of goal activation, even though actual acceptance cues were held constant across all participants, social risk decreased the amount of acceptance that LSEs perceived from their interaction partner but increased the amount of acceptance that HSEs perceived from their interaction partner. It is important to note that such self-esteem differences in avoidance goals, approach behaviors, and perceptions of acceptance were completely eliminated when social risk was removed.

Risk assessment for singles as a function of self-esteem and condition (Study 4). Note that results are graphed for individuals one standard deviation below the mean on self-esteem (i.e., LSEs lower self-esteem individuals) and one standard deviation above the mean (i.e., HSEs higher self-esteem individuals).

…

Figures - uploaded by Danu Anthony Stinson

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Danu Anthony Stinson

Content may be subject to copyright.

Acceptance Is in the Eye of the Beholder: Self-Esteem and Motivated

Perceptions of Acceptance From the Opposite Sex

Jessica J. Cameron

University of Manitoba

Danu Anthony Stinson

University of Victoria

Roslyn Gaetz and Stacey Balchen

University of Manitoba

Social risk elicits self-esteem differences in signature social motivations and behaviors during the relationship-

initiation process. In particular, the present research tested the hypothesis that lower self-esteem individuals’

(LSEs) motivation to avoid rejection leads them to self-protectively underestimate acceptance from potential

romantic partners, whereas higher self-esteem individuals’ (HSEs) motivation to promote new relationships

leads them to overestimate acceptance. The results of 5 experiments supported these predictions. Social risk

increased activation of avoidance goals for LSEs on a word-recall task but increased activation of approach

goals for HSEs, as evidenced by their increased use of likeable behaviors. Consistent with these patterns of

goal activation, even though actual acceptance cues were held constant across all participants, social risk

decreased the amount of acceptance that LSEs perceived from their interaction partner but increased the

amount of acceptance that HSEs perceived from their interaction partner. It is important to note that such

self-esteem differences in avoidance goals, approach behaviors, and perceptions of acceptance were com-

pletely eliminated when social risk was removed.

Keywords: self-esteem, goals, motivated perception, acceptance, relationship formation

Initiating relationships is an inherently perilous process. Success

could lead to the formation of new social bonds, but failure could

result in a painful rejection experience. Therein lies the rub:

Although people are highly motivated to seek new relationships

that will satisfy their need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995;

Reis, Collins, & Berscheid, 2000), they are equally, if not more

strongly, motivated to avoid the pain that accompanies rejection

(Leary, 2004; MacDonald & Leary, 2005).

Individuals vary in their propensity to err on the side of seeking

belonging or avoiding rejection (e.g., Gable, 2006; Gable, Reis, &

Elliot, 2000). In particular, self-esteem seems to act as an inter-

personal guidance system, influencing people’s signature social

motivations and behaviors (e.g., Anthony, Wood, & Holmes,

2007; Leary, 2004; Murray, Derrick, Leder, & Holmes, 2008;

Murray, Holmes, & Collins, 2006). Individuals with higher self-

esteem (HSEs) are particularly motivated to seek rewarding social

relationships, whereas individuals with lower self-esteem (LSEs)

are particularly motivated to avoid the pain of rejection. In the

present research, we investigate the influence of self-esteem on

people’s signature social motivations and behaviors by examining

people’s perceptions of acceptance from novel opposite-sex inter-

action partners. As we detail shortly, in this social context, we

propose that LSEs’ signature social motivations cause them to

cautiously underdetect acceptance from their interaction partner,

whereas HSEs’ signature social motivations cause them to opti-

mistically overdetect acceptance. Ultimately, we argue that LSEs’

and HSEs’ differing signature social motivations and behaviors

serve to maintain their self-esteem by causing them to perceive,

and perhaps even experience, the very rejection or acceptance that

they anticipate.

Self-Esteem and Signature Social Motivations

Chronic feelings of higher or lower self-esteem influence one’s

interpersonal beliefs and social behaviors. For example, LSEs

believe that they are less valuable interaction partners than do

HSEs (e.g., Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995), have less

confidence in their romantic partners’ regard (Murray, Holmes, &

Griffin, 2000), and anticipate less acceptance from novel interac-

This article was published Online First July 12, 2010.

Jessica J. Cameron, Roslyn Gaetz, and Stacey Balchen, Department of

Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada; Danu

Anthony Stinson, Department of Psychology, University of Victoria, Vic-

toria, British Columbia, Canada.

Jessica J. Cameron and Danu Anthony Stinson made equal contributions

to this work. This research was funded by Social Sciences and Humanities

Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Grant 410-2005-0103 to Jessica J.

Cameron and by Ontario Graduate Scholarships and an SSHRC Post-

Doctoral Fellowship to Danu Anthony Stinson. We thank Jeremy Cone,

Larisa Cornelius, Melanie Damphousse, Tara Galaugher, Jackie McGinnis,

Lisa Reddoch, Kelley Robinson, Lindsay Schaefer, Sara Spragge, Lauren

Unik, and Libby Whittington for their help conducting this research.

Studies 1 and 2 were part of Stacey Balchen’s and Roslyn Gaetz’s under-

graduate honors theses, respectively. We also thank John Holmes, Sandra

Murray, and Joanne Wood for their helpful comments on an early draft of

this work.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jessica J.

Cameron, Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg,

Manitoba, Canada, R3T 2N2. E-mail: cameron2@cc.umanitoba.ca

2010, Vol. 99, No. 3, 513–529 0022-3514/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0018558

513

tion partners (Anthony et al., 2007). In accordance with these

pessimistic social expectations, LSEs’ signature social motivation

and behavior reflects a self-protective style aimed at limiting the

pain of anticipated rejection (e.g., Anthony et al., 2007; Baumeis-

ter, Tice, & Hutton, 1989; Heimpel, Elliot, & Wood, 2006; Murray

et al., 2006). In contrast, HSEs’ social confidence acts as a psy-

chological insurance policy that allows them to adopt a risky, but

potentially rewarding, relationship-promoting interpersonal style

aimed at fostering closeness with others.

The different social motivations of LSEs and HSEs are perva-

sive, occurring in diverse social contexts such as social comparison

(e.g., Wood, Giordano-Beech, Taylor, Michela, & Gaus, 1994),

seeking self-relevant feedback (e.g., Bernichon, Cook, & Brown,

2003), group-joining behavior (e.g., Anthony et al., 2007), and

within romantic relationships (e.g., Murray et al., 2006). Recent

research by Murray et al. (2008) provides an explanation for such

self-esteem differences: The risk of rejection automatically acti-

vates both the motivation to seek belonging and the motivation to

protect the self from the pain of rejection, creating a fundamental

approach–avoid conflict that must be resolved. Given their de-

pleted reserves of self-worth and pessimistic social expectations,

LSEs’ signature strategy is to override belongingness needs in

favor of self-protection. In contrast, given their psychological

insurance policy against the pain of rejection and their optimistic

social expectations, HSEs’ signature strategy is to override self-

protective needs in favor of seeking belonging. Although Murray

et al. tested their model within the context of ongoing romantic

relationships, we suspect that these basic risk-regulation processes

operate similarly in any social context where the risk of rejection

is salient (see Anthony et al., 2007).

In the present research, we examine self-esteem differences in

signature social motivation and behavior in a totally new social

domain: the initiation of new romantic relationships. Given the

high level of risk that is inherent to first-meeting situations, we

expect that LSEs’ and HSEs’ markedly different interpersonal

styles will be abundantly clear in this context.

Self-Esteem and Social Motivations During

Relationship Initiation

It is presumable that self-esteem differences in social motivation

are evident at many different points in the relationship-initiation

sequence. In the present research, we choose to focus our attention

on the very first step in the initiation process: detecting a potential

romantic partner’s acceptance. Although people are remarkably

adept at detecting verbal and nonverbal acceptance or rejection

cues (Downey & Feldman, 1996; Gardner, Pickett, & Brewer,

2000; Leary et al., 1995; Tooby & Cosmides, 1996), social moti-

vation can still bias the processing of social information (Strach-

man & Gable, 2006). Hence, we suggest that people’s perceptions

of social cues are often biased by their signature social strategies

for dealing with interpersonal risk.

When the risk of rejection is present, LSEs’ signature social

strategy is to override their connectedness motivation, causing

their self-protective motivation to become paramount (Murray et

al., 2008). In relationship-initiation situations, we suggest that this

self-protective motivation causes LSEs to become particularly

cautious when assessing a potential interaction partner’s social

cues. Perceiving acceptance when it is not actually present, termed

afalse alarm in signal-detection terms (Gable, Reis, & Downey,

2003; Green & Swets, 1966), could lead to social embarrassment,

disappointment, and hurt feelings. LSEs’ self-protective motiva-

tion should cause them to try to avoid these negative outcomes at

all costs, even if that cost is overlooking acceptance cues that are

actually present. Thus, we propose that when the risk of rejection

is present, LSEs will show a perceptual bias that causes them to

underdetect acceptance cues from their interaction partner.

In contrast, when the risk of rejection is present, HSEs’ signa-

ture strategy is to override their self-protective motivation, causing

their connectedness motivation to become paramount (Murray et

al., 2008). In relationship-initiation situations, we suggest that this

connectedness motivation causes HSEs to become particularly

optimistic when assessing a potential interaction partner’s social

cues. Overlooking acceptance when it is actually present, termed a

miss in signal-detection terms (Green & Swets, 1966; Gable et al.,

2003), could lead to missed social opportunities, lost friendship or

romance, and overlooked opportunities for fun. HSEs’ connected-

ness motivation should cause them to try to avoid these lost

opportunities at all costs, even if that cost is an increased possi-

bility of social pain resulting from false alarms. Thus, we propose

that when the risk of rejection is present, HSEs will show a

perceptual bias that causes them to overdetect acceptance cues

from their interaction partner.

Combining these two arguments results in our first hypothesis

(H1): HSEs will perceive greater acceptance than will LSEs when

social risk is present. But what will happen when social risk is

reduced or eliminated? We anticipate that manipulating social risk

will influence both LSEs’ and HSEs’ perceptions of acceptance.

Hence, our second hypothesis (H2) is that, compared with a risky

social context, the goal to protect the self from hurt will be less

active for LSEs when the risk of rejection is reduced, causing them

to become less cautious in their perception of acceptance. Con-

versely, our third hypothesis (H3) is that, compared with a risky

social context, the goal of seeking belonging will be less active for

HSEs when the risk of rejection is reduced, causing them to

become less optimistic in their perceptions of acceptance cues.

Hence, we expect to find evidence of a perceptual bias for both

HSEs and LSEs. Interpersonal risk will bias LSEs to underdetect

acceptance relative to HSEs in similarly risky social conditions

(H1) and relative to LSEs in low-risk social conditions (H2). In

contrast, interpersonal risk will bias HSEs to overdetect acceptance

relative to LSEs in similarly risky social conditions (H1) and

relative to HSEs in low-risk social conditions (H3).

Although we predict that self-esteem will be positively associ-

ated with perceptions of acceptance when risk is present, we also

predict that this association will change under risk-limited social

conditions. The nature of this change could take one of two forms.

The first possibility is that LSEs and HSEs will detect similar

levels of acceptance under risk-limited social conditions (H4a). In

such social circumstances, the competing goals of seeking connec-

tion versus self-protection will not be activated or will be activated

to a lesser degree, and thus, self-esteem differences in the resolu-

tion of the goal conflict will not be evident in people’s detection of

acceptance cues. Instead, idiosyncratic factors may determine peo-

ple’s interest in pursuing a new relationship (e.g., perceived at-

tractiveness of the target, baseline cue-detection abilities). Because

such idiosyncratic factors may not vary systematically with self-

esteem, it is plausible to predict that self-esteem will be unrelated

514 CAMERON, STINSON, GAETZ, AND BALCHEN

to perceptions of acceptance under risk-limited social conditions.

Indeed, this hypothesis is consistent with some previous research

examining self-esteem differences in thoughts and behaviors under

risk-limited social conditions (e.g., Anthony et al., 2007). How-

ever, the second possibility is that when the risk of rejection is

reduced or eliminated, then LSEs will actually detect greater

acceptance than HSEs (H4b). When situational risk is removed,

the remaining idiosyncratic influences on social goals and percep-

tions of acceptance may not be independent from self-esteem:

LSEs’ chronically higher need to belong (e.g., Leary & Baumeis-

ter, 2000) may cause them to find the safe social context particu-

larly appealing. As a result, in risk-limited social situations, LSEs

may become more approach oriented than HSEs, and thus, may

perceive greater acceptance than HSEs. This possibility is also

suggested by the results from risk-regulation research that included

a low-risk experimental condition (e.g., Anthony et al., 2007,

Study 5; Marigold, Holmes, & Ross, 2007, Study 2).

Overview of Studies

In multiple studies, we test our hypothesis that the risk of

rejection causes LSEs to cautiously underdetect acceptance from

novel interaction partners but causes HSEs to optimistically over-

detect acceptance. In Studies 1, 2, and 5, we use the same novel

and highly rigorous experimental design: Single participants intro-

duce themselves via video camera to an attractive, ostensibly

single, opposite-sex participant, watch their interaction partner’s

videotaped response, and then report their perceptions of accep-

tance. In reality, all participants receive the exact same taped

response from a trained confederate. Study 3 uses a similar para-

digm, but participants have a face-to-face interaction with a trained

confederate. To our knowledge, our use of these paradigms rep-

resents the first attempt to hold acceptance cues completely con-

stant across participants while still maintaining a meaningful social

context.

Study 1 examines whether LSEs perceive less acceptance than

HSEs in a risky social context when acceptance cues are held

constant across participants. Study 2 asks participants to detect

acceptance cues directed at the self or another person, thereby

testing whether the self-esteem difference in perceptions of accep-

tance is a motivated process, or whether it reflects self-esteem

differences in social skill. In Studies 3, 4, and 5, we use two

distinct methods to experimentally reduce or eliminate the risk of

rejection that is typically present in the relationship-initiation

context. We then examine the effect of these risk manipulations on

goals and perceptions of acceptance. Taken together, the results of

these diverse studies converge to demonstrate that social risk

indeed elicits self-esteem differences in signature social motiva-

tions and behaviors during the relationship-initiation process.

Study 1: Does Self-Esteem Predict Perceptions of

Acceptance When Social Risk is Present?

Two previous studies have demonstrated that LSEs think they

are less accepted by novel interaction partners than do HSEs

(Brockner & Lloyd, 1986; Campbell & Fehr, 1990). In these

previous studies, actual acceptance by the participants’ interaction

partner was not related to participants’ self-esteem, suggesting that

the self-esteem effect may actually represent motivated perception,

consistent with our hypotheses. However, even though self-esteem

did not influence interaction partners’ explicit reports, it might still

have influenced the interaction partners’ social behavior. Thus, the

possibility remains that LSE and HSE participants in these studies

actually received different social cues from their interaction part-

ners. If this is the case, then the self-esteem effect on perceptions

of acceptance in these previous studies may have reflected real

differences in social cues.

Hence, this first study was designed to test H1 by examining

whether self-esteem predicts perceptions of acceptance when so-

cial risk is present. It is important to note that we test this

hypothesis when social cues from one’s interaction partner are

held completely constant across participants. Even in such con-

trolled conditions, we predict that LSEs will perceive less accep-

tance than HSEs from an attractive, single, opposite-sex stranger,

presumably because of self-esteem differences in signature social

motivations in response to the social risk inherent to such a

first-meeting situation. Moreover, we sought to measure the per-

vasiveness of the self-esteem effect on perceptions of acceptance

by examining participants’ perceptions of acceptance when social

cues reflect low and high levels of acceptance.

Method

Participants. Seventy-nine undergraduate students (58

women, 21 men) enrolled in introductory psychology classes at the

University of Manitoba participated in exchange for partial course

credit. Participants ranged from 18 to 25 years of age (M⫽18.77

years, SD ⫽1.43). The majority of participants were not involved

in romantic relationships (i.e., single; n⫽62), and all participants

reported that they were heterosexual.

Procedure. Upon arriving for their individual lab sessions,

participants completed a preliminary survey in which they indi-

cated their self-esteem using the 10-item Rosenberg (1965) Self-

Esteem Inventory (␣⫽.86), which was adapted to use a 9-point

response format (1 ⫽very strongly disagree,9⫽very strongly

agree), rather than the original 4-point response format. This

version of Rosenberg’s scale was used throughout the studies

reported in this article. The preliminary survey also included

demographic questions (e.g., age) and filler items intended to

disguise our focus on self-esteem (e.g., scales assessing morning

vs. evening personality types).

We devised an elaborate cover story that allowed us to expose

all participants to identical social cues while also maintaining the

believability of the interpersonal context. When participants ar-

rived for their individual lab sessions, they were informed that the

present study was investigating compatibility between opposite-

sex strangers. Hence, participants thought that there was a second,

opposite-sex participant in the lab room next to theirs. Participants

were also informed that because the study was interested in ex-

amining “constrained communication,” the participants would be

communicating with their interaction partner via video camera. To

enhance the personal relevance of the experiment and the impor-

tance of the participants’ communication, the researcher informed

the participants that there might also be the opportunity for them to

meet their interaction partner later in a face-to-face interaction.

In the constrained communication task that participants com-

pleted, the participants first introduced themselves to their inter-

515

ACCEPTANCE IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER

action partner by recording a video. Their interaction partner

supposedly watched this introductory statement on a closed-circuit

television in the room next door. To ensure consistency across

participant introductions, the participants all discussed the same

list of seven general conversation topics, adapted from Aron,

Melinat, Aron, Vallone, and Bator’s (1997) closeness-generating

procedure (e.g., “What is your dream job?”). After their interaction

partner had supposedly watched the participants’ introductory

tape, participants watched a “response” from their interaction

partner, in which the interaction partner answered the same seven

questions that the participants had answered. Once the participants

had finished watching their interaction partner’s response tape,

they completed a final survey that contained the dependent mea-

sures.

Although participants anticipated that they would meet their

interaction partner face to face following the constrained commu-

nication task, no second interaction ever took place, because there

was actually no second participant in the next room. The taped

response from the participants’ interaction partner was a prere-

corded videotape of an attractive opposite-sex confederate. The

content of the confederate’s taped response represented the exper-

imental manipulation in this study. Hence, after watching the

confederate’s response and completing the dependent measures,

participants were thoroughly debriefed.

Materials and measures.

Confederate responses. The confederates, one male and one

female, were recruited and filmed at the University of Waterloo,

ensuring that the University of Manitoba participants did not

recognize them. To ensure both the believability of the tapes and

to increase the likelihood that participants would want to meet the

confederate, both confederates had minor acting experience and

were above average in attractiveness. Each confederate filmed two

responses. A summary of the confederates’ behavior and the

confederate scripts in the two experimental conditions are pre-

sented in Table 1. In the response used for the low-acceptance

condition, the confederate answered the same seven questions that

the participant initially answered but engaged in minimal self-

disclosure, did not make any reference to the participant’s video-

tape, and expressed minimal nonverbal liking cues (e.g., no smil-

ing, no laughing, little eye contact). In the high-acceptance

condition, the majority of the informative content of the response

was the same as the low-acceptance condition, but in this case, the

confederate agreed with some of the participant’s responses (e.g.,

“I’m with you on this one”), self-disclosed personal information,

expressed strong nonverbal liking cues (e.g., smiling, eye contact),

and finally displayed a verbal overture of interest (i.e., “So, I hope

to see you in the second part of the study!”).

Summary perceptions of acceptance. In the final survey, par-

ticipants reported their perceived acceptance from the confederate

with five items (i.e., “The other participant probably likes me,”

“The other participant probably wants to meet me again,” “The

other participant probably enjoyed the interaction with me,”

“The other participant is probably willing to spend time with

me,” “The other participant probably wants to have another

interaction with me”), using a 7-point response format (1⫽

strongly disagree,7⫽strongly agree). These items were averaged

to form a reliable index of summary perceptions of acceptance

(␣⫽.83).

Table 1

Confederates’ Behavior and Scripted Responses in the Low-Acceptance and High-Acceptance Conditions in Study 1

Low-acceptance condition High-acceptance condition

Behavior: Little facial expression, no smiling, little eye contact

with the camera, little vocal inflection.

Behavior: Animated facial expression, lots of smiling and laughing, leaning

towards the camera (male only), touching hair and face (female only),

lots of eye contact with camera, enthusiastic vocal inflection.

So I guess I’ll give my answers now... Hi!So, Iguess I’ll give my answers now!

What is my favorite class? Nothing in particular—I like them

all about the same.

Question 1...I’mwith you on this one! Are we in the same class? I’m

surprised I don’t know you...

My favorite type of movies...hmm, I like a lot of different

kinds. I guess I mostly watch comedies and action movies.

My favorite type of movies...hmm, I like a lot of different kinds. I guess

I mostly watch comedies and action movies...whodoesn’t! I thought

Kill Bill was pretty cool.

The last concert I saw was...Sum41 here on campus. It was

a really good show.

The last concert I saw was...Sum41 here on campus. It was a really good

show! Those guys are crazy!

What is my favorite holiday and why? Definitely Christmas,

no question. Everyone’s in a good mood, you get to eat

great food...plus you get presents.

. . . what is my favorite holiday and why? Definitely Christmas, no

question. Everyone’s in a good mood...youget toeat great food, plus

you get presents!

I’d like to do something with kids—like teaching, or social

work maybe? My brother, he teaches Grade 5, and it seems

like something I could do. But I’d want to work with junior

high kids, maybe doing science.

...mydream job...being rich! No...I’d like to do something with

kids—like...teaching, or social work maybe? My brother, he teaches

Grade 5, and it seems like something I could do. But I’d want to work

with junior high kids, maybe doing science?

Well, I’ve always worked full time, so that’s what I do during

the day, during the week. But I hang out with friends after

work, go to clubs, have fun. On the weekends, we’ll take

day trips, go to the lake, the beach, play volley ball.

How do I usually spend my summers? Well, I’ve always worked full-time,

So that’s what I do during the day, during the week. But I hang out with

friends after work...goto clubs, have fun. On the weekends, we’ll take

day trips, go the lake, the beach, play volleyball.

Ummm, if I could go anywhere in the world...?I guess I

would go to Australia, I’ve heard Aussies are cool. I like

beaches and I could learn to surf.

Anywhere in the world eh? Well I’d like to go lots of places, but if I had

to pick I’d say Australia...Iwent on a Contiki tour in Europe after

graduation, and all the Aussies we met were awesome! And I can work

on my tan, I like beaches...andI canlearn to surf.

Ok, so that’s the end of the questions. Ok, so that’s the end of the questions. Now we can meet right? Cuz I think

that you’re in the very next room! Bye!

516 CAMERON, STINSON, GAETZ, AND BALCHEN

Results and Discussion

Preliminary analyses indicated that gender and relationship sta-

tus did not moderate the following results, so these variables were

not included in the reported analyses.

To test whether self-esteem predicted differences in perceptions

of acceptance, we conducted a hierarchical multiple regression in

which self-esteem (mean centered; M⫽7.20,SD⫽1.09), con-

dition (dummy coded: low acceptance ⫽0, high acceptance ⫽1),

and the interaction between the variables were used to predict

perceptions of acceptance (M⫽4.25; SD ⫽0.97). In this hierar-

chical procedure, which we used in all of the regressions that we

report in this article, we entered main effects at Step 1, and the

two-way interaction was added to the equation at Step 2. We

interpreted the main effects from Step 1 of the analysis and

interpreted the interaction obtained at Step 2. Moreover, in all of

the studies in this article, when a significant interaction emerged at

Step 2 of the regression, tests of simple effects were conducted

according to Aiken and West’s (1991) recommendations.

Results revealed a main effect of condition, ␤⫽.41, t(76) ⫽

4.14, p⬍.001, such that participants perceived less acceptance in

the low-acceptance condition (M⫽3.78, SD ⫽0.92) than in the

high-acceptance condition (M⫽4.65, SD ⫽0.82). Also, a main

effect of self-esteem, ␤⫽.23, t(76) ⫽2.32, p⫽.023, indicated

that across conditions, LSEs (i.e., participants scoring one standard

deviation below the mean; M

est

⫽3.59) detected much less ac-

ceptance than did HSEs (i.e., participants scoring one standard

deviation above the mean; M

est

⫽4.04). The interaction between

self-esteem and condition was not significant (␤⫽.08, t⬍1).

Thus, it appears that self-esteem predicted perceptions of accep-

tance at both higher and lower levels of acceptance.

This result replicates previous research by Brockner and Lloyd

(1986) and Campbell and Fehr (1990), which demonstrated that

LSEs also perceive less acceptance than HSEs from an interaction

partner in a naturalistic, face-to-face interaction. However, our

results are the first to demonstrate that self-esteem moderates

perceptions of acceptance, even when acceptance cues are held

constant across participants. In naturalistic social interactions, it is

possible that LSEs’ social doubts lead them to behave in a cold

manner, which in turn causes their interaction partner to behave in

a reciprocal fashion, leading LSEs to (perhaps accurately) perceive

less acceptance. On the other hand, HSEs’ confidence allows them

to behave in a friendly manner, which in turn may cause their

interaction partner to reciprocate, leading HSEs to (perhaps accu-

rately) perceive greater acceptance. Hence, self-esteem differences

in anticipated acceptance could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy

(e.g., Stinson, Cameron, Wood, Gaucher, & Holmes, 2009). Such

potential “actor effects” were controlled in the present study,

which suggests that the observed self-esteem differences in the

perception of acceptance were indeed the result of motivated

perception.

The present results also suggest that the biasing influence of

self-esteem does not overwhelm actual situational differences in

acceptance cues, because everyone, regardless of self-esteem, per-

ceived more acceptance from the high-acceptance confederate than

from the low-acceptance confederate. This condition effect sug-

gests that LSEs’ relative underdetection of acceptance may not be

a skill deficit: LSEs were capable of differentiating between higher

and lower levels of acceptance. Study 2 was designed to explore

further the skill-deficit hypothesis.

Study 2: Are Perceptions of Acceptance Motivated?

The present study seeks to extend Study 1 in four important

ways. First, we want to determine whether LSEs underdetect

acceptance relative to HSEs when social risk is present because of

a skill deficit or whether such differences reflect motivated per-

ception. Therefore, we used the same method as Study 1, but

participants watched only the high-acceptance confederate re-

sponse. In addition, half of the participants believed that the taped

response was directed at them, and the other half thought that the

taped response was directed at a different participant. Thus, par-

ticipants were either the subject of acceptance cues, or they were

the observer of acceptance cues directed at someone else. If LSEs’

relative underdetection of acceptance is the result of a skill deficit,

then LSEs will detect less acceptance than HSEs in both experi-

mental conditions. However, we predict that self-esteem differ-

ences in the detection of acceptance cues result from a perceptual

bias that is caused by self-esteem differences in social motivation

in response to risk. Hence, when the acceptance cues are directed

at the self, we expect LSEs to perceive less acceptance than HSEs,

replicating Study 1 and supporting H1. We do not expect to

observe such a self-esteem difference in the other-directed condi-

tion.

Second, by comparing the self-directed acceptance cues condi-

tion with the other-directed cues condition, we will be able to

determine the direction of the potential perceptual bias. We antic-

ipate that both LSEs and HSEs show a perceptual bias. Consistent

with H2, LSEs will self-protectively underdetect acceptance when

the risk of rejection is present, and thus will detect less acceptance

when cues are directed at the self than when they are directed at

another person. In contrast, consistent with H3, HSEs will opti-

mistically overdetect acceptance when the risk of rejection is

present, and thus will detect more acceptance when cues are

directed at the self than when they are directed at another person.

Third, in the other-directed condition, we test whether LSEs will

either perceive the same amount of acceptance as HSEs, consistent

with H4a, or LSEs will detect more acceptance than HSEs, con-

sistent with H4b.

Finally, in addition to assessing participants’ perceptions of

acceptance, as in Study 1, we also assess participants’ perceptions

of specific verbal and nonverbal acceptance cues (e.g., smiling).

Acceptance is considered to be so central to well-being and sur-

vival that the perception of acceptance cues is thought to be

hardwired (Tooby & Cosmides, 1996). Reflecting the importance

of such acceptance cues, people constantly monitor their environ-

ment for acceptance cues (Leary & Downs, 1995), and the detec-

tion of nonverbal cues occurs automatically (Choi, Gray, & Am-

bady, 2005). By including both measures of acceptance, we are

able to examine whether the biasing influence of self-esteem is

evident only at a summary level (i.e., “He really likes me!”), or

whether the perceptual bias is pervasive enough to affect partici-

pants’ perceptions of specific behaviors.

Method

Participants. Seventy-nine undergraduate students (54

women, 25 men) enrolled in introductory psychology classes at the

517

ACCEPTANCE IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER

University of Manitoba participated in exchange for partial course

credit. Participants ranged in age from 17 to 25 years of age (M⫽

19 years, SD ⫽1.93). All participants were single, heterosexual,

and reported English as a first language.

Procedure, materials, and measures. As in Study 1, partic-

ipants first completed a preliminary survey that included the self-

esteem measure (␣⫽.81). For participants in the self condition,

the procedure was identical to that used in Study 1: Participants

taped an introductory video and then watched the high-acceptance

confederate response, believing the confederate’s acceptance cues

were directed at the self. Participants in the observer condition

were informed that they would be watching a response made by

the interaction partner of the previous participant. To keep the

conditions as similar as possible, however, prior to watching the

response, participants in the observer condition were asked to

make an introductory videotape to give them “some insight into

what the participant before them had to do.” They believed that no

one would watch this introductory tape. After they made their

introductory tape, they watched the confederate’s response to the

“previous participant.” Thus, participants in the observer condition

thought that the confederate’s acceptance cues were directed at

someone else. Moreover, these participants did not think that they

were ever going to meet the confederate.

Summary perceptions of acceptance. Participants indicated

their perceptions of acceptance using the same five items that were

used in Study 1. The wording of the items in the observer condition

was adjusted to reflect the experimental context in that condition.

For example, the item “The other participant is probably willing to

spend time with me” was changed to read “The other participant is

probably willing to spend time with his/her assigned partner.”

These items were averaged to form a reliable index of perceptions

of acceptance (␣⫽.90).

Perceiving acceptance cues. We also assessed participants’

perceptions of specific verbal and nonverbal acceptance cues.

Participants rated the frequency with which the confederate en-

gaged in eight acceptance cues during his or her response (i.e.,

smiling, eye contact, crossing legs, laughter, flirtatious glances,

fixing hair, agreeing with something the participant said, express-

ing interest in meeting the participant again), which were adapted

from previous research (e.g., Simpson, Gangestad, & Biek, 1993).

Frequencies were rated using a 5-point scale (1 ⫽not at all,5⫽

most of the time). To reduce suspicion, participants also rated the

frequency of some behaviors that were not displayed by the

confederates (e.g., sighing, winking, frowning). Frequencies for

each of the eight acceptance cues were averaged to form a per-

ceived cues index.

Results and Discussion

One female participant in the self condition indicated that she

suspected that her assigned partner was a videotaped confederate

before the final survey was given. This skeptical participant’s data

were excluded from the analyses.

We conducted two hierarchical regressions in which self-esteem

(mean centered; M⫽7.16, SD ⫽1.00), sex (dummy coded: 0 ⫽

male,1⫽female) and experimental condition (dummy coded: 0 ⫽

self condition,1⫽observer condition) and the interactions between

the variables were used to predict summary perceptions of acceptance

(M⫽4.98, SD ⫽0.99) and perceived cues (M⫽2.45, SD ⫽0.58).

Summary perceptions of acceptance. Results revealed a

main effect of gender, ␤⫽.32, t(74) ⫽3.43, p⫽.001, such that

men perceived more acceptance from the female confederate (M⫽

5.53, SD ⫽0.96) than women perceived from the male confederate

(M⫽4.72, SD ⫽0.90).

Also, a main effect of condition, ␤⫽.48,

t(74) ⫽5.12, p⬍.001, indicated that people perceived more

acceptance in the observer condition (M⫽5.79, SD ⫽0.75) than

in the self condition (M⫽4.47, SD ⫽0.95). However, this

condition effect was qualified by the predicted interaction between

self-esteem and condition, ␤⫽–.25, t(71) ⫽–2.61, p⫽.011. No

other significant effects emerged from the analysis. The interaction

between self-esteem and experimental condition is depicted in the

top panel of Figure 1. Replicating Study 1 and consistent with H1,

in the self condition, LSEs detected much less acceptance than did

HSEs, ␤⫽.38, t(71) ⫽3.10, p⫽.002. In addition, as predicted

by H2, LSEs were strongly influenced by the experimental ma-

nipulation, ␤⫽.91, t(71) ⫽9.40, p⬍.001, detecting much more

acceptance when the confederate’s behavior was directed at some-

one else than when it was directed at the self. In contrast, H3 was

not supported; HSEs’ perceptions of acceptance were not influ-

enced by the experimental manipulation, ␤⫽.15, t(71) ⫽–1.53,

p⫽.130, although the means were in the anticipated direction.

Results for the observer condition supported H4b: In the observer

condition, LSEs detected much more acceptance than HSEs, ␤⫽

–.31, t(71) ⫽–2.33, p⫽.022.

Perceiving acceptance cues. Once again, results revealed a

main effect of gender, ␤⫽.67, t(74) ⫽7.59, p⬍.001, such that

men (M⫽2.98, SD ⫽0.58) perceived more acceptance cues than

women (M⫽2.17, SD ⫽0.35).

In addition, the predicted

interaction between self-esteem and condition emerged, ␤⫽–.36,

t(71) ⫽–2.64, p⫽.010. This interaction is depicted in the bottom

panel of Figure 1. As with perceptions of acceptance, H1 was

supported in the self condition such that LSEs perceived fewer

acceptance cues than HSEs, ␤⫽.32, t(71) ⫽2.15, p⫽.034.

Moreover, LSEs in the observer condition also detected substan-

tially more acceptance cues that LSEs in the self condition, ␤⫽

.44, t(71) ⫽4.74, p⬍.001, and in this case, the interaction was a

true crossover, in that HSEs perceived fewer acceptance cues in

the observer condition than in the self condition, ␤⫽–.31, t(71) ⫽

This gender difference appears to be a result of differences between the

male and female confederate’s behavior rather than an effect of the par-

ticipants’ gender. In a follow-up study, 15 single female undergraduate

students (M

age

⫽19, SD ⫽1.89) participated in the observer condition but

believed that the study session involved same-sex pairs. Hence, these

women watched the female confederate’s tape as observers and indicated

perceptions of acceptance. When these female participants’ perceptions of

acceptance were compared with those of the female participants in the

observer condition in Study 2, who watched the male confederate’s re-

sponse, results indicated that female outside observers reported that the

female confederate expressed greater acceptance than the male confeder-

ate, ␤⫽–.37, t(36) ⫽–2.36, p⫽.024.

Once again, this gender difference seems to be a confederate effect,

rather than an effect of the participants’ gender. In the follow-up study

described in Footnote 1, the female outside observers also rated their

perception of acceptance cues from the female confederate. Once again,

results indicated that female outside observers perceived more acceptance

cues from the female confederate than from the male confederate, ␤⫽

–.74, t(38) ⫽– 6.44, p⬍.001.

518 CAMERON, STINSON, GAETZ, AND BALCHEN

–3.34, p⬍.001. Hence, for this dependent variable, both H2 and

H3 were supported. Finally, as with summary perceptions of

acceptance, H4b was supported such that in the observer condition,

LSEs detected many more acceptance cues than HSEs, ␤⫽–.37,

t(71) ⫽–2.28, p⫽.025.

Results also revealed an interaction between self-esteem, con-

dition, and gender, ␤⫽–.43, t(71) ⫽–2.29, p⫽.025. This

three-way interaction emerged because the pattern of simple ef-

fects reported for the self-esteem by condition effect, above, were

identical for men and women, but the magnitude of each of the

simple effects was stronger for men than for women.

Conclusions. These results suggest that LSEs are as capable

as HSEs of detecting acceptance, but they do so only when their

self-protective motive is reduced. In the observer condition, LSEs

were completely protected from any negative consequences of

incorrectly overdetecting acceptance by simply being a “fly on the

wall” observing someone else’s acceptance cues. Being a “fly on

the wall” had a very different effect on HSEs. Consistent with our

motivated-perception hypothesis, when the risk of rejection was

experimentally eliminated in the observer condition, HSEs per-

ceived less acceptance than in the self condition. Taken together,

these results support our proposal that both LSEs and HSEs exhibit

a perceptual bias as a function of social risk. Moreover, LSEs and

HSEs appear to exhibit motivated perception for summary percep-

tions of acceptance and in their perceptions of specific cues that

signify acceptance (e.g., smiles), suggesting that the biasing influ-

ence of self-esteem on perceptions of acceptance is quite perva-

sive.

These results also suggest that LSEs and HSEs live in very

different social worlds. LSEs’ self-protective perceptual bias

means that in daily life, a man with lower self-esteem will be

extremely likely to notice that his friend has lots of admirers and

that his brother attracts the attention of all the cutest dates. How-

ever, this same individual will remain relatively blind to accep-

tance cues directed at the self, even when those acceptance cues

are strong and blatant, as they were in the confederate tapes used

in the present study. In contrast, HSEs’ relationship-promoting

risk-regulation strategy of overdetecting acceptance means that

they might actually notice more acceptance directed at the self and

less acceptance directed at other people. So a man with higher

self-esteem might notice that he has more admirers than does his

friend, and he might think that he attracts more female attention

than his brother. As a result, HSEs’ perceptual bias serves to

confirm their belief that they are valuable interpersonal partners,

whereas LSEs’ perceptual bias makes it more likely that LSEs will

perceive the very rejection that they are motivated to avoid.

Study 3: Does Risk Affect Perceptions of Acceptance

in a Face-to-Face Interaction?

This study was designed to address two questions. First, would

our model generalize to a more naturalistic setting? Thus, instead

of using prerecorded tapes of confederates as a method of convey-

ing acceptance cues, participants had a face-to-face interaction

with an attractive, and ostensibly single, opposite-sex confederate

who was trained to treat all participants in exactly the same

manner. Second, would a subtle manipulation of interpersonal risk

alter perceptions of acceptance for LSEs and HSEs? Hence, par-

ticipants either interacted with the confederate after receiving only

general demographic information about the confederate, or, prior

to the interaction, the confederate disclosed in writing a personal

flaw (i.e., that he/she experiences social anxiety). We predict that

this disclosure will reduce interpersonal risk in a number of pos-

sible ways. For example, (a) it may reduce the self-focused atten-

tion and evaluation that so often accompanies social worries (e.g.,

Mor & Winquist, 2002), and this reduced self-focus may decrease

participants’ awareness of the risk of personal hurt from rejection;

(b) the disclosure suggests that the confederate, who experiences

social anxiety, may not negatively judge the participants’ own shy

or nervous behavior; or (c) the confederate’s admission of a

personal flaw may cause participants to feel superior to the con-

federate. For a number of possible reasons, then, we predict that

Results from the follow-up study again suggest that this Gender ⫻

Self-Esteem ⫻Condition interaction was a confederate effect, rather than

a result of the participants’ gender. In a second set of analyses, we

compared female outside observers who watched the female confederate

with male outside observers who watched the female confederate. A main

effect for self-esteem emerged, ␤⫽–.35, t(28) ⫽–1.91, p⫽.066,

indicating that higher self-esteem was associated with perceiving less

acceptance from the female confederate, and this effect was not moderated

by participant gender (t⬍1).

2.50

2.75

3.00

3.25

3.50

revresbOfleS

Condition

Cue Detection

3.50

3.75

4.00

4.25

4.50

4.75

5.00

5.25

5.50

5.75

6.00

revresbOfleS

LSEs HS Es

Perceptions of

Acceptance

Figure 1. A: Perceptions of acceptance as a function of self-esteem and

experimental condition (Study 2). B: Detection of acceptance cues as a

function of self-esteem and condition (Study 2). Note that results are

graphed for individuals one standard deviation below the mean on self-

esteem (i.e., LSEs ⫽lower self-esteem individuals) and one standard

deviation above the mean (i.e., HSEs ⫽higher self-esteem individuals).

519

ACCEPTANCE IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER

this disclosure will decrease the risk of rejection, and we test this

hypothesis in a pilot study described shortly.

Hence, as observed in Study 2, we predict that LSEs will

perceive less acceptance than HSEs when the risk of rejection is

present (H1), but when the risk of rejection is reduced by the

confederate’s disclosure of a personal flaw, LSEs will detect more

acceptance than HSEs (H4b). Moreover, we expect that LSEs will

self-protectively underdetect acceptance in the risky context but

will detect increased levels of acceptance when the risk of rejec-

tion is reduced (H2). In contrast, we hypothesize that HSEs will

overdetect acceptance in the risky context but will detect decreased

levels of acceptance when the risk of rejection is reduced (H3).

These predictions are consistent with prior research in the domain

of ongoing romantic relationships, which suggests that the discov-

ery of a partner’s personal flaw decreases LSEs’ use of self-

protective risk-regulation strategies and also decreases HSEs’ use

of relationship promoting strategies (Murray et al., 2005).

Method

Participants. Twenty-eight men from the University of Wa-

terloo were recruited to participate in the present study (eight were

recruited from the introductory psychology classes, and 20 were

recruited from the campus student center).

Participants received

partial course credit or an $8 gift certificate and two chocolate bars

(or a stationery set) in appreciation for their time. Participants were

between 18 and 24 years of age (M⫽20.1 years, SD ⫽1.64), all

were single, and all reported being fluent in English.

Procedure and measures. Participants were recruited for a

study about “communication styles and media.” Participants were

informed that they would watch an excerpt from a television

program and then discuss the television program and other topics

with another participant, who turned out to be a very attractive

woman. Unbeknownst to the participants, the other “participant”

was actually a confederate. To bolster the believability of the

confederate’s participant identity, the research assistant met both

the confederate and the participant in the same location prior to the

study, and then separated them into different rooms for the first

part of the study.

In his individual lab room, each participant first completed the

preliminary survey that included the same measure of self-esteem

(␣⫽.90) as in Studies 1 and 2. Next, the participant watched an

8-min clip from a television documentary about the international

coffee industry under the premise that he would discuss this clip

with the other participant.

After watching the documentary, the participant was given an

information sheet about the confederate, constituting the experi-

mental manipulation. Participants were randomly assigned to one

of two conditions, and because a second researcher prepared the

envelopes, the researcher running the experimental session was

blind to the participant’s assigned condition. It is important to note

that the confederate was also blind to the participants’ self-esteem

and experimental condition. In the risk condition participants were

provided with information about the confederate indicating that

she was a 20-year old, single, Canadian woman whose first lan-

guage was English. In essence, this information indicated that she

was similar to the participant (in terms of language, age, and

citizenship) and potentially available for a relationship (i.e., sin-

gle). In the lower risk condition, in addition to reading the basic

demographic information about the confederate, participants read

her ostensibly hand-written answers to two additional questions:

“What are your best qualities?” and “What are some things you’d

like to improve about yourself?” Her answer to the first question

was: “I’m pretty good at creative writing, especially short stories.

And I’m open to trying new things.” Her answer to the second

question disclosed a personal flaw: “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.”

Pilot study. We validated this experimental manipulation in a

pilot study. One hundred twenty participants (62 women, 58 men;

age

⫽24.4 years, SD ⫽7.61; 49 single, 71 in relationships)

completed the self-esteem scale (␣⫽.89; M⫽7.11, SD ⫽1.21)

and then read one of two hypothetical scenarios that asked partic-

ipants to imagine participating in either the risk condition or the

lower risk condition of the present study. Participants then reported

their perceived risk of rejection by answering two questions: “In

this scenario, how likely is it that your interaction partner would

reject you?” and “In this scenario, how likely is it that your

interaction partner would dislike you?” Both items used a 9-point

response format (1 ⫽not at all;9⫽extremely) and were averaged

to form a reliable index (␣⫽.63; M⫽3.77, SD ⫽1.60).

Participants’ gender did not moderate the results that follow. As

intended, participants in the risk condition (M⫽4.07,SD⫽1.64)

thought that the risk of rejection was higher than did participants

in the lower risk condition (M⫽3.44,SD⫽1.52), ␤⫽–.19,

t(113) ⫽–2.15, p⫽.033. In addition, LSEs (M

est

⫽4.27) believed

rejection was more likely than did HSEs (M

est

⫽3.72), ␤⫽–.23,

t(113) ⫽–2.57, p⫽.011. Thus, the risk manipulation influenced

both HSEs and LSEs in a similar manner, although LSEs thought

rejection was more likely overall.

After participants in the present lab study finished reading the

information about the confederate, the researcher brought the

confederate to the participant’s lab room. The researcher then gave

the participant and the confederate their instructions for the inter-

action task: “[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 ques-

tions and then listen to his answers.” In actuality, the participant

was always assigned the role of communicator, and the confeder-

ate was always assigned the role of listener.

For all participants, the confederate was trained to act in a warm,

attentive manner with the goal of making the other participant feel

comfortable. She was required to lean toward the participant as he

spoke, and to smile, nod, maintain eye contact, and to not cross her

legs. In addition, she responded to some of the participant’s

comments with scripted lines (see Table 2). In part because she

spoke very little, the confederate’s behavior was more reserved

than the female confederate’s behavior in Studies 1 and 2.

To reduce the possibility of confederate effects, we limited our design

to only male participants. We selected male participants because current

social norms dictate that men bear the major responsibility of initiating

romantic relationships (Cameron et al., 2010).

520 CAMERON, STINSON, GAETZ, AND BALCHEN

After the interaction, participants completed a questionnaire that

assessed the dependent variables of perceived acceptance. Partic-

ipants reported their summary perceptions of acceptance and their

perceived cues. Summary perceptions of acceptance were assessed

with the same five items that were used in Studies 1 and 2 (␣⫽

.79). Because the confederate in the present study had been trained

to engage in certain behaviors to convey acceptance, we measured

participants’ detection of acceptance cues using only those five

items that were actually represented in the confederate’s behavior:

smiling, flashing eyebrows, flirting, touching her face, and touch-

ing her hair. Frequencies for each of the five acceptance cues were

averaged to form a perceived cue index.

Results and Discussion

Five participants did not believe that the female confederate was

a real participant. These skeptical participants’ data were not

included in the analyses that follow.

We used the same analysis strategy as in the previous studies.

We conducted two hierarchical regressions in which self-esteem

(mean centered; M⫽7.24, SD ⫽0.98), experimental condition

(dummy coded: 0 ⫽risk,1⫽lower risk) and the interaction

between the variables were used to predict summary perceptions of

acceptance (M⫽4.65, SD ⫽0.63) and perceived cues (M⫽2.07,

SD ⫽0.38).

Summary perceptions of acceptance. This variable was not

influenced by self-esteem, condition, or the interaction between

the variables (all ts⬍1).

Perceiving acceptance cues. Results revealed the predicted

interaction between self-esteem and condition, ␤⫽–.69, t(20) ⫽

–2.14, p⫽.047 (see Figure 2). In the risk condition, consistent

with H1, LSEs detected much fewer acceptance cues than HSEs,

␤⫽.76, t(20) ⫽2.25, p⫽.037. In addition, although H2 was not

supported whereby the condition effect for LSEs was not statisti-

cally significant, ␤⫽.35, t(20) ⫽1.47, p⫽.154, it was in the

expected direction such that LSEs tended to detect less acceptance

in the risk condition than in the lower risk condition.

Moreover,

consistent with H3, the condition effect for HSEs was significant,

such that HSEs detected more acceptance cues in the risk condition

than in the lower risk condition, ␤⫽–.63, t(20) ⫽–2.71, p⫽.037.

Unlike in Studies 2 and 3, H4b was not supported, ␤⫽–.21, t⬍

1, although the direction of the association between self-esteem

and perceptions of acceptance cues was in the anticipated direc-

tion.

Hence, as in Study 2, when interpersonal risk was present

(i.e., in the self condition), HSEs perceived greater acceptance

than did LSEs. However, when interpersonal risk was reduced

by the confederate’s disclosure, the self-esteem difference in

perceptions of acceptance cues was eliminated. Unlike Studies

1 and 2, we did not find evidence for motivated perceptions of

acceptance on the summary measure. It is possible that only

very strong and clear manipulations of risk, such as the manip-

ulation used in Study 2, influence summary assessments of

acceptance. In contrast, participants may encode acceptance

cues like smiling quickly and automatically (e.g., Choi et al.,

2005), and thus, perception of such cues may be more influ-

enced by subtle manipulations of interpersonal risk, such as the

method used in the present study.

The suspicious participants were recruited from the general campus

where we could not screen for previously being in a deception study. All

suspicious participants reported previously participating in psychology

studies. None of the naı¨ve participants that had been recruited from

introductory psychology (where we could screen for previous deception

experience) detected the deception.

Self-esteem in Study 3 was negatively skewed compared with the

typical distribution of self-esteem in the population from which the sample

was drawn, thus Aiken and West’s (1991) technique of centering self-

esteem at one standard deviation below the mean to test the simple slope

for LSEs actually tested the simple slope for a moderate level of self-

esteem (M⫽6.30). When we centered self-esteem at two standard devi-

ations, which is a more typical level of self-esteem for LSEs (M⫽5.36),

the simple slope of the condition effect for this true LSE group was

significant, ␤⫽.80, t(20) ⫽3.44, p⫽.003.

Table 2

Confederates’ Questions and Scripted Responses in Study 3

Question Scripted response

1. What message do you think the filmmakers were

trying to communicate in the documentary that

you watched?

Agree with whatever answer the participant

provides.

2. Did you learn anything new by watching the

documentary?

No scripted response

3. How do North American attitudes towards coffee

differ from Ethiopian attitudes?

Say “That’s a hard question!” as soon as you

finish reading this question.

4. What are your favorite types of movies? No scripted response

5. What is your favorite class this semester? Why? Say “That sounds interesting!” to the participant’s

response. Be sure to ask the “why” question if

the participant doesn’t volunteer a reason.

6. What is your favorite holiday? Why? Say “That’s definitely my favorite holiday too”

when he is finished.

7. What is your dream job? Why? No scripted response

8. How do you usually spend your summers? No scripted response

9. If you could travel to anywhere in the world,

where would you go? Why?

After he answers, say “Cool! I really want to visit

Russia.”

521

ACCEPTANCE IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER

Study 4: Does Risk Affect Goal Activation During

Relationship Initiation?

In the present study, we seek to determine whether social risk

influences goal activation in the manner that we propose. We again

return to the constrained-communication paradigm that we used in

our first two studies, but this time we use a very face-valid

manipulation of social risk. Murray et al. (2008) define risky

situations as “[situations] of dependence where one partner’s ac-

tions constrain the other’s capacity to satisfy important needs and

goals” (p. 430). In a typical relationship initiation context, people

are indeed dependent upon one another: Each person depends upon

the other’s acceptance to fulfill their need to belong. Hence, in the

high-risk condition of the present study, we exaggerate this de-

pendence by telling participants that they would have a face-to-

face meeting with their interaction partner if their interaction

partner decided that he or she was interested in such a meeting.

Hence, the participant’s social outcomes were completely depen-

dent on his or her interaction partner. In the no-risk condition,

participants were told that they would never meet their interaction

partner again. Hence, the participant’s social outcomes were not at

all dependent on his or her interaction partner’s acceptance or

rejection. As in Study 3, we conducted a pilot study to validate this

manipulation.

When the participants’ social outcomes are dependent on their

interaction partners’ decision, this risky social context should

activate self-protective avoidance goals for LSEs, whereas HSEs

should show no such activation of avoidance goals. Hence, we

expect that in the risky condition, LSEs will show greater activa-

tion of avoidance goals than HSEs (H1), and LSEs’ activation of

avoidance goals will decrease when the risk of rejection is elimi-

nated (H2). In contrast, consistent with H1, we expect that HSEs

will show greater activation of approach goals than LSEs when the

risk of rejection is present, and HSEs’ activation of approach goals

will decrease when the risk of rejection is eliminated, supporting

H3.

Method

Participants. Sixty-seven individuals (31 women; 36 men)

from introductory psychology courses at the University of Mani-

toba participated in exchange for partial course credit. Participants

were between 17 and 25 years of age (M⫽19.1 years, SD ⫽1.47),

all were single or casually dating, and all reported English as their

first language.

Procedure and measures. We used the same basic procedure

and materials described in Studies 1 and 2. First, participants

completed the demographic questionnaire including the self-

esteem scale (␣⫽.79). However, immediately before participants

filmed their introductory video, participants in the high-risk con-

dition (n⫽29) were told the following:

Sometimes participants wonder if they will get to meet their interac-

tion partner face to face after making these videos. The good news is

that you two can meet each other face to face, but only if the other

participant decides that he/she wants to meet you. So after watching

each others’ tapes, I’ll ask the other participant if he/she is interested

in meeting you face-to-face. If he/she says “Yes,” I’ll bring him/her to

this room and you can meet. If he/she says no, then that will be the end

of the study.

Participants in the no-risk condition were told the following:

Sometimes participants wonder if they will get to meet their interac-

tion partner face to face after making these videos. Regulations for

running studies here actually mean that I can’t let you meet face to

face, so there isn’t any possibility of meeting the other participant,

even if you wanted to. Watching each other’s videos will be the only

contact that you have with each other.

After receiving these instructions, participants were then asked to

complete two measures that assessed their current approach and

avoidance goals. After participants completed the surveys, the

researcher informed the participants that this was the end of the

study. Participants were then probed for suspicion and fully de-

briefed.

Pilot study. Once again, we conducted a pilot study to validate

our experimental manipulation. Ninety-four participants (49 fe-

male, 45 male; M

age

⫽21.2 years, SD ⫽2.52; 40 single, 54 in

relationships) completed the self-esteem scale (␣⫽.90; M⫽7.11,

SD ⫽1.47) and then read one of two hypothetical scenarios that

asked participants to imagine participating in either the high-risk

condition or the no-risk condition of the present study. Participants

reported perceived risk by rating how “risky,” “dangerous,” “dis-

tressing,” and “difficult” the situation described in the scenario

would be, using a 9-point scale (1 ⫽not at all,9⫽extremely).

These items were averaged to form a reliable index of risk (␣⫽

.76; M⫽3.10, SD ⫽1.64). A significant three-way interaction

between self-esteem, condition, and relationship status emerged,

␤⫽–.53, t(75) ⫽–2.85, p⫽.006.

For those currently in

committed relationships, the interaction between self-esteem and

In addition, women (M⫽3.36,SD⫽1.64) rated the scenario as more

risky than did men (M⫽2.62,SD⫽1.47), ␤⫽–.18, t(85) ⫽–2.03, p⫽

.045, and LSEs (M

est

⫽4.55) rated the scenario as more risky than did

HSEs (M

est

⫽2.72), ␤⫽–.51, t(85) ⫽–5.67, p⬍.001. A significant

two-way interaction between relationship status and gender, ␤⫽.43,

t(79) ⫽2.73, p⫽.008, revealed that men and women did not differ when

they were currently in relationships (M

women

⫽2.90,M

men

⫽2.80; t⬍1),

but single women (M⫽4.08,SD⫽1.65) perceived the situation as more

risky than did single men (M⫽2.90,SD⫽1.52), ␤⫽.20, t(79) ⫽2.98,

p⫽.004.

2.00

2.25

2.50

2.75

3.00

ksiR rewoLksiR

Condition

LSEs HSE s

Cue Detection

Figure 2. Detection of acceptance cues as a function of self-esteem and

condition (Study 3). Note that results are graphed for individuals one

standard deviation below the mean on self-esteem (i.e., LSEs ⫽lower

self-esteem individuals) and one standard deviation above the mean (i.e.,

HSEs ⫽higher self-esteem individuals).

522 CAMERON, STINSON, GAETZ, AND BALCHEN

condition was not significant, ␤⫽–.03, t⬍1. However, for single

individuals, the interaction between self-esteem and condition was

significant, ␤⫽.36, t(75) ⫽2.41, p⫽.022 (see Figure 3). In the

high-risk condition, LSEs thought the scenario was more risky

than did HSEs, ␤⫽–.68, t(75) ⫽3.89, p⬍.001, whereas in the

no-risk condition, LSEs and HSEs did not reliably differ, ␤⫽

–.01, t⬍1. In addition, LSEs viewed the high-risk scenario as

riskier than the no-risk scenario, ␤⫽–.42, t(75) ⫽–2.38, p⫽

.019, whereas HSEs’ perceptions of risk were not influenced by

the manipulation, ␤⫽.24, t(75) ⫽1.36, p⫽.178, although HSEs’

responses were in the expected direction. Hence, it appears that our

manipulation affected perceptions of risk for the intended

participants–single participants, but this effect was moderated by

self-esteem.

Explicit measure of goals. To assess explicit approach and

avoid motivations, participants completed the eight-item measure

of social motivation used by Andersen, Reznik, and Manzella

(1996). Participants responded to five items meant to tap their

motivation to approach the other participant (e.g., “How much are

you willing to share your feelings with your interaction partner?”)

and three items designed to indicate their motivation to avoid the

other participant (e.g., “How much do you want to distance your-

self emotionally from your interaction partner?”). The approach

items were averaged into a single score representing explicit ap-

proach goals (␣⫽.85) and avoidance items were averaged into a

single score representing explicit avoidance goals (␣⫽.72).

Measuring cognitive accessibility of goals. When a person is

given a list of words to study and then is asked to recall as many

words as possible, the number of words recalled from a given

category is an indicator of the cognitive accessibility of those

concepts—more frequent recall indicates greater cognitive acces-

sibility (e.g., Higgins, King, & Mavin, 1982). Hence, we created a

memory task to assess the cognitive accessibility of approach and

avoidance words and reasoned that the cognitive accessibility of

approach and avoid words would reflect the cognitive accessibility

of approach and avoid goals. Participants were asked to study a list

of 22 words for 1 min. This list included seven approach words

(approach,closer,reveal,share,disclose,advance,near), seven

avoidance words (distance,conceal,protect,avoid,away,hide,

withdraw), and eight filler words (asleep,armchair,puppy,cup-

board,reading,grass,writing,table). The order in which these

words were presented was randomized for each participant. After

1 min, the list of words was taken from the participant, and the

participant was given another minute to write down as many words

as he or she could recall. The number of approach words recalled

represented the approach accessibility score and the number of

avoid words recalled represented the avoid accessibility score.

Results and Discussion

Seven participants were eliminated from the analyses. Two

participants (one female and one male) indicated during debriefing

that they did not believe that there was another participant in the

other room, one male participant opted not to finish the study after

completing the first survey, and four participants (three male and

one female) displayed response styles that called into question the

validity of their data (e.g., one participant recalled more than twice

as many words as any other participant and more than the original

word list).

Analysis strategy. We conducted four hierarchical regres-

sions in which self-esteem (mean centered; M⫽7.50, SD ⫽0.88),

gender (dummy coded: 0 ⫽female;1⫽male), experimental

condition (dummy coded: 0 ⫽high risk,1⫽no risk) and the

subsequent two-way interactions and three-way interaction be-

tween the variables were used to predict explicit approach (M⫽

4.02, SD ⫽1.48) and avoid (M⫽5.88, SD ⫽1.52) goals, and

cognitive accessibility of approach (M⫽2.17, SD ⫽1.06) and

avoid (M⫽2.43, SD ⫽1.41) words.

Explicit goals. When explicit approach goals were entered as

the criterion, there were no significant effects (all ts⬍1.3). When

explicit avoidance goals were entered as the criterion, there were

significant main effects for self-esteem and gender. LSEs reported

greater avoidance goals (M

est

⫽6.87) than HSEs (M

est

⫽5.64),

␤⫽–.41, t(56) ⫽–3.43, p⫽.001. In addition, women reported

greater avoidance goals (M⫽6.28, SD ⫽1.49) than men (M⫽

5.51, SD ⫽1.47), ␤⫽–.30, t(56) ⫽–2.57, p⫽.01. All other

effects were not significant (all ts⬍1).

Cognitive accessibility. Participants in the high-risk condition

were marginally more likely to recall approach words than were

participants in the no-risk condition, ␤⫽–.23, t(56) ⫽–1.77, p⫽

.080. However, self-esteem moderated the association between

condition and accessibility of avoid words, ␤⫽.50, t(52) ⫽2.38,

p⫽.021 (see Figure 4). In the high-risk condition, consistent with

H1, LSEs recalled more avoid words than HSEs, ␤⫽–.45, t(52) ⫽

–2.02, p⫽.048. In addition, consistent with H2, LSEs recalled

more avoid words in the high-risk condition than in the no-risk

condition, ␤⫽.44, t(52) ⫽2.36, p⫽.022, whereas the recall of

avoid words for HSEs was unaffected by condition, ␤⫽–.22,

t(52) ⫽–1.16, p⫽.251. Taken together, these results support our

hypothesis that risk activates avoid goals for LSEs but not HSEs.

However, we failed to find support for our hypothesis that risk

activates approach goals for HSEs. This result perhaps is not

surprising given that HSEs’ ratings of risk in the pilot study were

not affected by the dependence manipulation: If HSEs’ perceptions

of risk were not affected by the manipulation, their activation of

approach goals also would not be affected by the manipulation.

Risk Assessment

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

High Ris k No Risk

Con dition

LSEs HSE s

Figure 3. Risk assessment for singles as a function of self-esteem and

condition (Study 4). Note that results are graphed for individuals one

standard deviation below the mean on self-esteem (i.e., LSEs ⫽lower

self-esteem individuals) and one standard deviation above the mean (i.e.,

HSEs ⫽higher self-esteem individuals).

523

ACCEPTANCE IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER

However, it is also possible that our explicit measures both of risk

and of approach goal activation were not sensitive enough to detect

subtle, perhaps nonconscious activation of risk and approach goals

for HSEs. Hence, in the next study, we examine the effect of our

manipulation on indirect, behavioral indicators of goals, in addi-

tion to perceptions of acceptance.

Study 5: Does Risk Affect Goals and Perceptions

of Acceptance?

In our final study, we first sought to determine whether our clear

manipulation of social risk would indeed lead to the expected

biases in perceptions of acceptance. Hence, we used the same

constrained communication paradigm that we used in Studies 1

and 2 to examine the effect of the dependence manipulation on

participants’ perceptions of acceptance from the highly accepting

confederate. As in Study 3, we anticipate that in the high-risk

social context (i.e., the dependence condition), HSEs will detect

much more acceptance than LSEs (H1), but that this self-esteem

effect will be reversed in the no-risk social context (H4b). More-

over, we anticipate that LSEs will detect more acceptance in the

no-risk condition than in the high-risk condition (H2), whereas

HSEs will detect less acceptance in the no-risk condition than in

the high-risk condition (H3).

Second, we wanted to assess indirect, behavioral indicators of

approach goal activation. To this end, we asked participants

whether or not they engaged in specific behaviors during their

taped introduction that reflect relationship promotion. Moreover,

we asked observers to watch the participants’ taped introductions

and rate how likeable and attractive the participants seemed. Stin-

son et al. (2009) demonstrated that observers’ liking for partici-

pants is almost completely determined by participants’ prosocial

behavior. Hence, we thought that observers’ liking for participants

in the present study could reflect participants’ actual use of rela-

tionship promoting, prosocial behaviors and, thus, would be an

indirect behavioral indicator of the activation of participants’ ap-

proach goals. On both the participants’ reports and the observers’

reports of prosocial behavior, we expect to see more relationship-

promoting behavior from HSEs than from LSEs in the high-risk

condition (H1), but we expect this self-esteem difference to be

reversed when the risk of rejection is ameliorated (H4b). More-

over, in reflection of the activation of their approach goals in

response to social risk, we expect that risk will dampen LSEs’

prosocial behavior (H2) but will heighten HSEs’ prosocial behav-

ior (H3), relative to the no-risk condition.

Method

Participants. Thirty-nine men from introductory psychology

courses at the University of Manitoba participated in exchange for

partial course credit. Participants were between 18 and 21 years of

age (M⫽19.9 years, SD ⫽0.91), all were single or causally

dating, and all reported English as their first language.

Procedure and measures. We used the same basic procedure

and materials described in the lab study in Study 4. Participants

first completed the preliminary questionnaire that included the

self-esteem assessment (␣⫽.84). Before participants actually

introduced themselves to their interaction partner, participants in

the high-risk condition were informed that they might meet their

interaction partner for a second, face-to-face interaction, but only

if she wanted to meet them. Participants in the no-risk condition

were informed that they would not meet their interaction partner

for a second, face-to-face interaction. After receiving these instruc-

tions, participants filmed their introductory video, and then

watched the same female confederate’s acceptance video that was

used in Studies 1 and 2. This video was edited to remove the

confederate’s final statement (i.e., “So, I hope to see you in the

second part of the study or maybe in the hallway because I think

you’re in the room next to me!”) so as not to contradict the risk

manipulation.

After viewing the response video, participants completed assess-

ments of summary perceptions of acceptance and perceived cues.

These measures were modified from those used in Study 2 to

reflect the cover story of the present study. Specifically, any items

referring to possible future interactions (“The other participant

probably wants to meet me,” “The other participant is probably

willing to spend time with me,” and “The other participant prob-

ably wants to have a face-to-face interaction with me”) were cut.

After completing these measures, participants were thoroughly

debriefed.

After participants had completed the dependent measures they

were then asked to rate their own behavior in their video message.

To assess participants’ approach goal–relevant behavior, partici-

pants indicated how much they had engaged in two important

prosocial behaviors (i.e., smiling and leaning toward the camera),

which were interspersed amongst nondiagnostic filler items (e.g.,

cleared throat). Participants rated their behavior using a 5-point

scale (1 ⫽not at all,5⫽most of the time).

At a later date, three trained female coders watched the first

minute of participants’ taped introductions and rated each partic-

ipant on two prosocial variables: “likeable” and “attractive.” Cod-

ers rated how well each dimension described the participants using

a 7-point scale (1 ⫽not at all,7⫽extremely). We chose to have

observers watch only a 1-min “slice” of participants’ behavior,

because research suggests that such slices are highly predictive of

impressions formed over a longer period of time (Ambady &

Rosenthal, 1993). Interrater agreement for both variables was high

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

High Ris k No Risk

Con dition

LSEs HSE s

Number of Avoidance

Words Recalled

Figure 4. Accessibility of avoidance words as a function of self-esteem

and condition (Study 4). Note that results are graphed for individuals one

standard deviation below the mean on self-esteem (i.e., LSEs ⫽lower

self-esteem individuals) and one standard deviation above the mean (i.e.,

HSEs ⫽higher self-esteem individuals).

524 CAMERON, STINSON, GAETZ, AND BALCHEN

(intraclass rs⫽.62 and .60, respectively; both ps⬍.001). Thus,

ratings for likeability and attractiveness were combined to create

an index that represented the participants’ likeability (␣⫽.76).

Results and Discussion

Two participants indicated during debriefing that they did not

believe that there was actually a female participant watching their

taped introduction. These skeptical participants were excluded

from the analyses that follow.

Detecting acceptance. We conducted two hierarchical regres-

sions in which self-esteem (mean centered; M⫽7.24, SD ⫽1.05),

experimental condition (dummy coded: 0 ⫽high risk,1⫽no risk)

and the interaction were used to predict perceptions of acceptance

(M⫽4.37, SD ⫽0.64) and perceived cues (M⫽2.09, SD ⫽0.42).

Summary perceptions of acceptance. As in Study 3, this

variable was not influenced by self-esteem, condition, or the

interaction between the variables (all ts⬍1).

Perceiving acceptance cues. Results revealed the predicted

interaction between self-esteem and condition, ␤⫽–.66, t(33) ⫽

–2.27, p⫽.030 (see Figure 5). In the high-risk condition, consis-

tent with H1, LSEs tended to detect fewer acceptance cues than

HSEs, ␤⫽.52, t(33) ⫽1.76, p⫽.088. In addition, consistent with

H2 and H3, LSEs detected fewer acceptance cues in the high-risk

condition than in the no-risk condition, ␤⫽.45, t(33) ⫽1.47, p⫽

.008, whereas HSEs detected more acceptance cues in the high-

risk condition than in the no-risk condition, ␤⫽–.36, t(33) ⫽

–2.22, p⫽.032. H4b was not supported in the safe condition, ␤⫽

–.28, t(33) ⫽–1.44, p⫽.158, but the direction of the self-esteem

effect was in the expected direction.

Using a face-valid manipulation of social risk (i.e., manipulating

dependence on one’s social partner), we thus replicated the biasing

influence of social risk observed in Studies 2 and 3. Compared

with the high-risk condition, when the possibility of rejection was

removed from the situation, LSEs actually detected more accep-

tance cues and HSEs detected fewer acceptance cues, a result that

supports our motivational account of self-esteem differences in

perceptions of acceptance.

Behavioral indicators of goals. The frequency of smiling

(M⫽2.35, SD ⫽0.92) was not predicted by self-esteem or the

interaction between the variables (ts⬍1). However, for leaning

toward the camera (M⫽1.92, SD ⫽1.12), there was a significant

interaction between self-esteem and condition, ␤⫽–.53, t(33) ⫽

3.08, p⫽.004 (see Figure 6). As anticipated, in the high-risk

condition, consistent with H1, LSEs reported leaning toward the

camera less than did HSEs, ␤⫽–.56, t(33) ⫽–3.23, p⫽.003. In

addition, consistent with H2, LSEs reported leaning toward the

camera less in the high-risk condition than in the no-risk condition,

␤⫽–.74, t(33) ⫽–5.12, p⬍.001. HSEs’ reports did not vary by

condition, ␤⫽.23, t(33) ⫽1.61, p⫽.116, although the means

were in the direction predicted by H3. Results for the leaning

variable were also consistent with H4b, such that in the no-risk

condition, LSEs reported leaning toward the camera more than did

HSEs, ␤⫽.40, t(33) ⫽2.29, p⫽.028.

Next, we used our standard regression to predict observers’

ratings of participants’ likeability (M⫽4.03, SD ⫽1.09). Results

revealed a main effect for self-esteem, ␤⫽.39, t(34) ⫽2.42, p⫽

.021, such that observers found HSEs more likeable (M

est

⫽4.41)

than LSEs (M

est

⫽3.70). However, this effect was qualified by the

predicted interaction between self-esteem and condition, ␤⫽–.60,

t(33) ⫽–2.22, p⫽.034 (see Figure 7). Consistent with H1, in the

high-risk condition, observers liked HSEs much more than LSEs,

␤⫽.89, t(33) ⫽3.26, p⫽.003. Moreover, consistent with H2 and

H3, the experimental manipulation influenced impressions of both

LSEs and HSEs: Compared with the high-risk condition, observers

perceived LSEs to be more likeable, ␤⫽.36, t(33) ⫽2.36, p⫽

.022, and HSEs to be less likeable, ␤⫽–.38, t(33) ⫽–2.45, p⫽

.018, in the no-risk condition. On this variable, we did not find

support for H4b: When the risk of rejection was experimentally

eliminated, observers were equally attracted to LSEs and HSEs

(␤⫽.16, t⬍1).

These behavioral results offer support for our motivational

account of participants’ perceptions of acceptance. When risk was

present, LSEs’ self-protective orientation was evident in their

inhibited reports of leaning toward the camera and also in observ-

ers’ codes of their likeability. Because actual liking is strongly

dependent on people’s warm and friendly behavior (e.g., Ambady

& Rosenthal, 1993; Stinson et al., in press), this latter result

suggests that when risk is present, LSEs self-protectively inhibited

their prosocial behaviors. Ironically, the observers’ actual liking

results also suggest that LSEs’ self-protective cognitions and be-

haviors ultimately lead to the very rejection they were trying to

avoid. In contrast, HSEs seem to “pull out all the stops” when

social risk is present. In the high-risk condition, HSEs’ drive to

seek out new relationships was evident in their reports of leaning

toward the camera and in their use of likeable behaviors. However,

when the risk of rejection was eliminated, these self-esteem effects

were also eliminated or even reversed, resulting in LSEs behaving

more prosocially than HSEs.

General Discussion

In the present research, we investigated the influence of self-

esteem on people’s signature social motivations and behaviors by

examining people’s perceptions of acceptance from novel

opposite-sex interaction partners. We proposed that LSEs’ signa-

ture self-protective social motivations cause them to cautiously

Cue Detection

2.20

2.45

2.70

2.95

3.20

High Ris k No Risk

Condition

LSEs HSE s

Figure 5. Detection of acceptance cues as a function of self-esteem and

condition (Study 5). Note that results are graphed for individuals one

standard deviation below the mean on self-esteem (i.e., LSEs ⫽lower

self-esteem individuals) and one standard deviation above the mean (i.e.,

HSEs ⫽higher self-esteem individuals).

525

ACCEPTANCE IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER

underdetect acceptance from their interaction partners, whereas

HSEs’ signature relationship-promoting social motivations cause

them to optimistically overdetect acceptance. The results of three

experiments that varied the risk of rejection using very different

manipulations (i.e., Studies 2, 3, and 5) strongly supported our

predictions. Results of a meta-analysis of the condition effects for

LSEs and HSEs in these three studies indicated that social risk

reduces perceptions of acceptance for LSEs (Z⫽–3.81, p⬍.001)

but increases perceptions of acceptance for HSEs (Z⫽2.63, p⬍

.01). Although the biasing influence of interpersonal risk on per-

ceptions of acceptance was stronger for LSEs (d⫽–2.28) than for

HSEs (d⫽0.81), risk exerted a strong influence on perceptions of

acceptance for everyone. To our knowledge, these results are

among the first to demonstrate that the risk-regulation system also

operates outside of ongoing romantic relationships (see also An-

thony et al., 2007), and our results are the first to demonstrate that

the risk-regulation system can bias the very manner in which

people perceive concrete social cues like smiles, eye-contact, and

laughter.

The results of the present research also demonstrate that self-

protective motivations and behaviors can have generally perni-

cious ramifications for the process of relationship initiation. LSEs’

self-protective response to risk sensitizes them to the possibility of

rejection (Study 4), increases their avoidance-goal activation

(Study 4), decreases their use of prosocial, approach behaviors

(Study 5), and inhibits their perceptions of acceptance (Studies 2,

3, and 5). Taken together, this pattern of self-protective behaviors

means that in a relationship-initiation context, LSEs are very likely

to perceive and even experience the very rejection that they so

desperately want to avoid. In contrast, HSEs’ signature

relationship-promoting motivations and behaviors have generally

positive effects on the process of relationship initiation. HSEs are

generally less sensitive to the possibility of rejection than LSEs

(Studies 3 and 4), and the risk of rejection increases their use of

prosocial, approach behaviors (Study 5), as well as exaggerating

their perceptions of acceptance (Studies 2, 3, and 5).

An Alternative Explanation

People believe they are viewed in the same manner in which

they view themselves (Shrauger & Schoeneman, 1979), and they

believe that others like them as much as they like themselves

(Kenny & DePaulo, 1993). Consequently, LSEs, who have poor

regard for themselves, may project those doubts onto others and

therefore perceive that others do not like them. In contrast, HSEs,

who believe they possess high relational value, may project their

confidence and therefore perceive that others accept them. The

literature on motivated self-perception (Kunda, 1990) also sug-

gests that LSEs may be motivated to see less acceptance from

others, whereas HSEs may be motivated to see more acceptance,

because such perceptions would be congruent with their respective

self-perceptions. Although projection and the motivation to per-

ceive feedback as being consistent with one’s self-concept may

contribute to the self-esteem main effect on perceptions of accep-

tance observed in Study 1, and these alternative accounts may also

help to explain the self– observer differences observed in Study 2,

these mechanisms cannot explain our key finding that social risk

moderates the effect of self-esteem on perceptions of acceptance,

as demonstrated in Studies 3 and 5.

Mechanisms to Explain the Self-Esteem Effects

Although our results are consistent with our risk-regulation

perspective, one may still wonder why self-esteem is related to

people’s responses to social risk. One possible answer to this

question concerns the personality variables that are associated with

self-esteem. In particular, extroversion has been linked to brain

systems implicated in guiding approach motivations, whereas neu-

roticism has been linked to brain systems implicated in guiding

avoidance motivations (e.g., Elliot & Thrash, 2002). In turn, ex-

troversion is positively related to self-esteem and neuroticism is

negatively related to self-esteem (e.g., Robins et al., 2001). Hence,

it is possible that LSEs’ relatively higher levels of neuroticism and

lower levels of extroversion predispose them to favor avoidance

motivations, whereas HSEs’ relatively higher levels of extrover-

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

High Ris k No Risk

Con dition

LSEs HSE s

Participant Leans

Toward the Camera

Figure 6. Participants’ reports of leaning toward the camera as a function

of self-esteem and condition (Study 5). Note that results are graphed for

individuals one standard deviation below the mean on self-esteem (i.e.,

LSEs ⫽lower self-esteem individuals) and one standard deviation above

the mean (i.e., HSEs ⫽higher self-esteem individuals).

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

High Ris k No Risk

Con dition

LSEs HSE s

Participants’ Likeableness

Figure 7. Participants’ likeableness as a function of self-esteem and

condition (Study 5). Note that results are graphed for individuals one

standard deviation below the mean on self-esteem (i.e., LSEs ⫽lower

self-esteem individuals) and one standard deviation above the mean (i.e.,

HSEs ⫽higher self-esteem individuals).

526 CAMERON, STINSON, GAETZ, AND BALCHEN

sion and lower levels of neuroticism predispose them to favor

approach motivations.

We suspect that these personality influences are active ingredi-

ents in the processes that we observed in the studies we presented.

Indeed, we observed main effects of self-esteem that are consistent

with such a personality account (e.g., in contrast to HSEs, LSEs

perceived greater risk in Studies 3 and 4, reported greater explicit

avoidance goals in Study 4 and exhibited less prosocial behavior in

Study 5). However, the interaction between self-esteem and social

risk is not easily explained by a personality account: If LSEs are

chronically higher in avoid motivations than HSEs, then why do

they appear to be so approach motivated in the risk-limited social

conditions? The same question in the reverse may be asked about

HSEs. Given these issues, we propose that self-esteem differences

in extroversion and neuroticism may influence baseline prefer-

ences for avoid or approach goals across social situations, but

self-esteem is still the ultimate arbiter of social goals because it is

sensitive to social risk. Depending on the riskiness of the social

context, self-esteem and risk-regulation processes may cause peo-

ple to rely on their baseline preferences, or self-esteem may

override such preferences in favor of other goals. Future research

should explore these possibilities by examining the links between

personality, self-esteem, social risk, and goals.

A second mechanism that may explain the influence of self-

esteem on perceptions of acceptance and social behavior concerns

the differing self-concepts that characterize individuals with higher

and lower self-esteem. Anthony et al. (2007) demonstrated that

LSEs’ self-doubts tend to center on their possession of qualities

that are particularly valued in first-impression situations, such as

their physical attractiveness, social skills, and their social status. In

contrast, HSEs feel very confident in their possession of these

valued social commodities. Hence, in the types of socially risky

first impression situations examined in the present research, LSEs’

poor self-views of their social commodities may have driven their

avoidance motivations. After all, if LSEs think that they do not

possess desired qualities, then they would anticipate rejection and

thus wish to avoid the social situation. In contrast, HSEs’ confi-

dence in their possession of social commodities may have allowed

them to blithely approach the risky social situations with little fear

of rejection.

If self-esteem differences in self-views are a mechanism to

explain self-esteem differences in social goals and behavior, then

it is important to ask whether these self-views are indeed accurate.

If LSEs are actually lower in social commodities than HSEs, then

perhaps LSEs’ social insecurities and HSEs’ social confidence are

warranted. If this is the case, then LSEs’ use of self-protective

social strategies may be adaptive in the sense that such strategies

may actually help LSEs to avoid real rejection; conversely, per-

haps HSEs’ use of relationship-promoting strategies is adaptive in

the sense that it really is safe for HSEs to approach new relation-

ships because acceptance is highly likely.

Research suggests that self-esteem differences in self-views

about social commodities like physical attractiveness are not gen-

erally accurate (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003).

However, despite the objective similarities between LSEs’ and

HSEs’ social commodities, the results of our Study 5 indicated that

when social risk was present, LSEs were indeed less liked than

their HSEs counterparts. Although we suspect that this social

outcome was the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy resulting from

self-esteem differences in social expectations and social behavior

(e.g., Stinson et al., 2009), rather than the result of objective

differences between LSEs’ and HSEs’ possession of social com-

modities, the result is the same: Self-esteem differences in a priori

social expectations may contain a kernel of truth in risky social

situations. However, we suspect that neither group is aware of the

role that their own behavior plays in creating the social outcomes

that they anticipate. This misattribution of the root cause of social

outcomes—to one’s own traits and characteristics rather than to

one’s social behavior—may serve to further undermine LSEs’

depleted self-worth and support HSEs’ self-confidence.

Conclusions

Although socially risky contexts highlight self-esteem differ-

ences in signature social motivations and behaviors, in each of the

studies that we presented, reducing or eliminating social risk also

eliminated, and in some cases even reversed, such self-esteem

differences. These results put to rest any notion that LSEs are

socially apathetic or socially unskilled. Instead, social risk seems

to lead to self-protective motivations that simply outweigh ap-

proach motivations for LSEs, resulting in an apparent lack of

interest in forming new social bonds and an apparent skill deficit

in detecting acceptance or behaving in a likeable manner.

Unfortunately for LSEs, the everyday, normative, relationship-

initiation context appears to be a context of social risk, bound to

elicit LSEs’ self-protective motives. Given this, our findings sug-

gest a rather grim situation for LSEs desiring new social bonds:

Boy meets girl, boy underestimates acceptance, boy feels rejected,

boy acts inhibited, and boy actually gets rejected. Underestimating

acceptance might be particularly detrimental to LSEs’ emotional

well-being (Nezlek, Kowalski, Leary, Blevins, & Holgate, 1997),

and their relatively cold interpersonal behavior might actually

create the very rejection they fear (Stinson et al., 2009). Such

experiences would only serve to reinforce LSEs’ doubts about

their social value (Leary et al., 1995), perhaps even increasing their

self-protective motivations and reducing their likelihood of trying

to initiate relationships with others (Cameron, Stinson, Wood, &

Holmes, 2010). Although the heightened risk LSEs experience in

forming social bonds might encourage them to fulfill their need to

belong with less risky, less interpersonal means (Gardner et al.,

2000), a lack of real social bonds with others could have real

negative consequences for their health (Stinson et al., 2008) and

well-being (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). In contrast, the everyday,

normative, first-meeting context appears to benefit HSEs, who

favor connectedness goals over self-protection. Although this sig-

nature social strategy leads HSEs to overdetect acceptance, which

potentially could lead to awkward social interactions, their likeable

behavior under such risky circumstances may offset this risk

because it ultimately creates real acceptance from others, as evi-

denced by our results in Study 5. Consequently, the social risk

inherent in day-to-day life leads HSEs to shine and receive actual

acceptance from others, thus bolstering their already secure sense

of self.

On a hopeful note for LSEs, when interpersonal risk is reduced,

their perceptions of acceptance increase, and they act in a more

likeable manner. This suggests that interventions designed to build

the social networks of LSEs should focus on reducing perceptions

of interpersonal risk. The manipulation of social risk used in Study

527

ACCEPTANCE IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER

3 may be a readily applicable intervention. Highlighting for LSEs

that other people also experience social anxiety may be an effec-

tive tool to help LSEs put aside their self-protective motives so that

they can see, and potentially create, the acceptance that they crave.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and

interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1993). Half a minute: Predicting teacher

evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attrac-

tiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 431– 441.

Andersen, S. M., Reznik, I., & Manzella, L. M. (1996). Eliciting transient

affect, motivation, and expectancies in transference: Significant-other

representations in social relations. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 71, 1108 –1129.

Anthony, D. B., Wood, J. V., & Holmes, J. G. (2007). Testing sociometer

theory: Self-esteem and the importance of acceptance for social

decision-making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 425–

432.

Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J. (1997).

The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure

and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-

letin, 23, 363–377.

Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003).

Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success,

happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public

Interest, 4, 1– 44.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for

interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psycho-

logical Bulletin, 117, 497–529.

Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Hutton, D. G. (1989). Self-presentational

motivations and personality differences in self-esteem. Journal of Per-

sonality, 57, 547–579.

Bernichon, T., Cook, K. E., & Brown, J. D. (2003). Seeking self-evaluative

feedback: The interactive role of global self-esteem and specific self-

views. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 194 –204.

Brockner, J., & Lloyd, K. (1986). Self-esteem and likability: Separating

fact from fantasy. Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 496 –508.

Cameron, J. J., Stinson, D. A., Wood, J. V., & Holmes, J. G. (2010).

Making the first move: The influence of men’s and women’s self-esteem

on initiating romantic relationships. Manuscript in preparation.

Campbell, J. D., & Fehr, B. (1990). Self-esteem and perceptions of con-

veyed impressions: A negative affectivity associated with greater real-

ism? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 122–133.

Choi, Y. S., Gray, H. M., & Ambady, N. (2005). The glimpsed world:

Unintended communication and unintended perception. In R. R. Hassin,

J. S. Uleman, & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The new unconscious (pp. 309 –333).

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity

for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

70, 1327–1343.

Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in

personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 804 – 818.

Gable, S. L. (2006). Approach and avoidance social motives and goals.

Journal of Personality, 74, 175–222.

Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., & Downey, G. (2003). He said, she said: A

quasi-signal detection analysis of daily interactions between close rela-

tionship partners. Psychological Science, 14, 100 –105.

Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Behavioral activation and

inhibition in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 78, 1135–1149.

Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2000). Social exclusion

and selective memory: How the need to belong influences memory for

social events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 486 – 496.

Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psycho-

physics. New York, NY: Wiley.

Heimpel, S. A., Elliot, A. J., & Wood, J. V. (2006). Basic personality

dispositions, self-esteem, and personal goals: An approach-avoidance

analysis. Journal of Personality, 74, 1293–1319.

Higgins, E., King, G. A., & Mavin, G. H. (1982). Individual construct

accessibility and subjective impressions and recall. Journal of Person-

ality and Social Psychology, 43, 35– 47.

Kenny, D. A., & DePaulo, B. M. (1993). Do people know how others view

them? An empirical and theoretical account. Psychological Bulletin,

114, 145–161.

Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bul-

letin, 108, 480 – 498.

Leary, M. R. (2004). The sociometer, self-esteem, and the regulation of

interpersonal behavior. In R. F. Baumeister & K. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook

of self-regulation. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of

self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in

experimental social psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 1– 62). San Diego, CA:

Academic Press.

Leary, M. R., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Interpersonal functions of the

self-esteem motive: The self-esteem system as a sociometer. In M.

Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 123–144). New

York, NY: Plenum.

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.

MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt?

The relationship between social and physical pain. Psychological Bul-

letin, 131, 202–223.

Marigold, D. C., Holmes, J. G., & Ross, M. (2007). More than words:

Reframing compliments from romantic partners fosters security in low

self-esteem individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

92, 232–248.

Mor, N., & Winquist, J. (2002). Self-focused attention and negative affect:

A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 638 – 662.

Murray, S. L., Derrick, J. L., Leder, S., & Holmes, J. G. (2008). Balancing

connectedness and self-protection goals in close relationships: A levels-

of-processing perspective on risk regulation. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 94, 429 – 459.

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Collins, N. L. (2006). Optimizing assur-

ance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin,

132, 641– 666.

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (2000). Self-esteem and the

quest for felt security: How perceived regard regulates attachment pro-

cesses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 478 – 498.

Murray, S. L., Rose, P., Holmes, J. G., Derrick, J., Podchaski, E. J.,

Bellavia, G., & Griffin, D. W. (2005). Putting the partner within reach:

A dyadic perspective on felt security in close relationships. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 327–347.

Nezlek, J. B., Kowalski, R. M., Leary, M. R., Blevins, T., & Holgate, S.

(1997). Personality moderators of reactions to interpersonal rejection:

Depression and trait self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 23, 1235–1244.

Reis, H. T., Collins, W. A., & Berscheid, E. (2000). The relationship

context of human behavior and development. Psychological Bulletin,

126, 844 – 872.

Robins, R. W., Tracy, J. L., Trzesniewski, K. H., Gosling, S. D., & Potter,

J. (2001). Personality correlates of self-esteem. Journal of Research in

Personality, 35, 463– 482.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press.

528 CAMERON, STINSON, GAETZ, AND BALCHEN

Shrauger, J. S., & Schoeneman, T. J. (1979). Symbolic interaction view of

self-concept: Through the looking glass darkly. Psychological Bulletin,

86, 549 –573.

Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., & Biek, M. (1993). Personality and

nonverbal social behavior: An ethological perspective of relationship

initiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 434 – 461.

Stinson, D. A., Cameron, J. J., Wood, J. V., Gaucher, D., & Holmes, J. G.

(2009). Deconstructing the “reign of error”: A risk-regulation account of

the self-fulfilling prophecy of acceptance. Personality and Social Psy-

chology Bulletin, 35, 1165–1178.

Stinson, D. A., Logel, C., Zanna, M. P., Holmes, J. G., Cameron, J. J.,

Wood, J. V., & Spencer, S. J. (2008). The cost of lower self-esteem:

Testing a self-and-social-bonds model of health. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 94, 412– 428.

Strachman, A., & Gable, S. L. (2006). What you want (and do not want)

affects what you see (and do not see): Avoidance social goals and social

events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1446 –1458.

Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1996). Friendship and the banker’s paradox:

Other pathways to the evolution of adaptations for altruism. Proceedings

of the British Academy, 88, 119 –143.

Wood, J. V., Giordano-Beech, M., Taylor, K. L., Michela, J. L., & Gaus,

V. (1994). Strategies of social comparison among people with low

self-esteem: Self-protection and self-enhancement. Journal of Person-

ality and Social Psychology, 67, 713–731.

Received August 25, 2008

Revision received April 17, 2009

Accepted May 15, 2009 䡲

Call for Nominations

The Publications and Communications (P&C) Board of the American Psychological Association

has opened nominations for the editorships of Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology,

Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Journal of Comparative Psychology, Journal of Counseling

Psychology, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Journal of Experimental Psychol-

ogy: Human Perception and Performance, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology:

Attitudes and Social Cognition, PsycCRITIQUES, and Rehabilitation Psychology for the years

2012–2017. Nancy K. Mello, PhD, David Watson, PhD, Gordon M. Burghardt, PhD, Brent S.

Mallinckrodt, PhD, Fernanda Ferreira, PhD, Glyn W. Humphreys, PhD, Charles M. Judd, PhD,

Danny Wedding, PhD, and Timothy R. Elliott, PhD, respectively, are the incumbent editors.

Candidates should be members of APA and should be available to start receiving manuscripts in

early 2011 to prepare for issues published in 2012. Please note that the P&C Board encourages

participation by members of underrepresented groups in the publication process and would partic-

ularly welcome such nominees. Self-nominations are also encouraged.

Search chairs have been appointed as follows:

●Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, William Howell, PhD

●Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Norman Abeles, PhD

●Journal of Comparative Psychology, John Disterhoft, PhD

●Journal of Counseling Psychology, Neil Schmitt, PhD

●Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Peter Ornstein, PhD

●Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,

Leah Light, PhD

●Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Attitudes and Social Cognition,

Jennifer Crocker, PhD

●PsycCRITIQUES, Valerie Reyna, PhD

●Rehabilitation Psychology, Bob Frank, PhD

Candidates should be nominated by accessing APA’s EditorQuest site on the Web. Using your

Web browser, go to http://editorquest.apa.org. On the Home menu on the left, find “Guests.” Next,

click on the link “Submit a Nomination,” enter your nominee’s information, and click “Submit.”

Prepared statements of one page or less in support of a nominee can also be submitted by e-mail

to Emnet Tesfaye, P&C Board Search Liaison, at emnet@apa.org.

Deadline for accepting nominations is January 10, 2010, when reviews will begin.

529

ACCEPTANCE IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER

Dating Violence Continuity: The Protective Role of Self-Esteem Against Revictimization by Multiple Partners

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2024
J INTERPERS VIOLENCE

Dating violence is a deleterious relational dynamic that affects around one-third of adolescents. It is well documented that dating violence can persist over time, occurring within the same relationship or across multiple relationships. Self-esteem could be a key factor in understanding the mechanisms of violence continuity, potentially acting as a protective factor during adolescence. Exploring its role in the continuity of dating violence and the potential differences based on whether the violence occurs within the same relationship or across different relationships could inform interventions aimed at preventing repetitive violence and revictimization by multiple partners. This study aimed to (1) examine the association between dating violence measured at two distinct time points, (2) investigate the moderating role of self-esteem in this association, and (3) explore potential variations in the protective role of self-esteem based on whether the violence reoccurred within the same relationship or across different relationships. Sex differences were also examined. A subsample of 1,018 adolescents who reported being involved in a dating relationship at two time points completed self-reported questionnaires. A moderation analysis revealed that dating violence at Time 1 predicted dating violence at Time 2 (6 months later) for both boys and girls. Among girls, self-esteem acted as a protective factor when considering the effect of partner change. Hence, girls who experienced dating violence victimization at Time 1 but had higher self-esteem were more inclined to engage in a subsequent relationship devoid of dating violence at Time 2. However, self-esteem did not emerge as a significant protective factor among boys. Self-esteem appears to be a pivotal factor in promoting engagement in subsequent positive relationships following experiences of dating violence among girls. These findings offer valuable insight that can inform preventive measures and interventions, ultimately contributing to healthier relationship dynamics and improving the well-being of dating violence victims during adolescence.

Like Yourself, and Others Will Follow: The Role of Target Self-Esteem in the Association Between Being Seen Accurately and Being Liked in Platonic and Romantic First Impressions

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2024

When meeting people for the first time, we often strive to perceive others and express our own personalities accurately. Does this benefit social connection by promoting greater perceiver liking of targets, or might it instead hinder liking for some targets and in some contexts? In the present studies, we examined whether the links between accuracy and perceiver liking differ as a function of target self-esteem across two first impression contexts: a speed-dating context (N = 378, N = 4,797 dyads) and a platonic getting-acquainted context (exploratory sample: N = 557, N = 2,924 dyads; preregistered direct replication sample: N = 306, N = 1,683 dyads). In all samples and contexts, target self-esteem significantly moderated the association between accuracy and perceiver liking, such that accuracy was either positively related (platonic context) or unrelated (romantic context) to perceiver liking when targets were higher in self-esteem, yet accuracy was negatively related to perceiver liking when targets were lower in self-esteem, regardless of context. In sum, being seen accurately may have negative social implications for some targets and, especially, in higher stakes getting-acquainted contexts.

Self-Esteem and Sexual Experiences

Article

Sep 2024

There is evidence that people with higher self-esteem tend to have more satisfying sexual relationships, but little is known about how changes in people’s self-esteem and sexual experiences are related over time. Several theories predict reciprocal effects between self-esteem and sexual experiences. The present study tested these theories using 12-wave longitudinal data from more than 11,000 participants of a representative sample in Germany. Data were analyzed using Random Intercept Cross-lagged Panel Models. Results indicated significant between-person associations between stable levels of self-esteem and both the frequency and the quality of sexual experiences. Moreover, we found reciprocal within-person transactions between self-esteem and sexual satisfaction but not sexual frequency. Overall, the present pattern of results provides evidence for theories that consider self-esteem as both a source and consequence of intimate sexual relationships.

Pursuing Safety in Social Connection: A Flexibly Fluid Perspective on Risk Regulation in Relationships

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2023
ANNU REV PSYCHOL

People are fundamentally motivated to be included in social connections that feel safe, connections where they are consistently cared for and protected, not hurt or exploited. Romantic relationships have long played a crucial role in satisfying this fundamental need. This article reconceptualizes the risk-regulation model to argue that people draw on experiences from inside and outside their romantic relationships to satisfy their fundamental need to feel safe depending on others. We first review the direct relational cues (i.e., a partner's affectionate touch, responsive versus unresponsive behavior, and relative power) and indirect cues (i.e., bodily sensations, collective value in the eyes of others, and living conditions) that signal the current safety of social connection and motivate people to connect to others or protect themselves against them. We then review how people's chronic capacity to trust in others controls their sensitivity and reactivity to the safety cues. The article concludes with future research directions. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Psychology, Volume 75 is January 2024. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Love beyond gluten: self-esteem, illness identity, and social support in romantic rejection concerns among adolescents with celiac disease

Article

Full-text available

May 2024

Introduction Fear of stigmatization, high perceived partner burden, or refraining from self-disclosure may manifest in romantic rejection concerns among adolescents with celiac disease (CD), potentially impacting their health-related quality of life (HRQOL). This study examined the prevalence, predictors, and consequences of romantic rejection concerns among adolescents and young adults with CD. Methods A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among 165 German adolescents and young adults (aged 14–22) with self-reported CD. Participants completed measures of romantic rejection concerns, illness identity, self-esteem, peer support, and CD-specific HRQOL. Results Participants reported moderate levels of concerns about the impact of CD on their romantic relationships, with no significant gender differences. Participants involved in romantic relationships expressed lower concerns of rejection, but similar preference for a “gluten-free partner.” Hierarchical regression analysis revealed that higher illness acceptance and peer support predicted lower rejection concerns. Significant interactions emerged between self-esteem and illness acceptance, and between self-esteem and peer support. Higher illness acceptance predicted fewer rejection worries only among those with high self-esteem, while peer support played a mitigating role only for those with low self-esteem. Romantic rejection concerns significantly predicted lower CD-specific HRQOL across all domains. Discussion Anxieties about CD's impact on romantic relationships are prevalent among adolescents and may hinder their HRQOL. The findings highlight the complex interplay between self-esteem, illness identity, and social support in shaping romantic concerns. Targeted interventions focusing on peer support and fostering positive illness identity are recommended to alleviate rejection fears and improve HRQOL among youth with CD.

Unmet expectations: social inclusion and the interaction between social anxiety and ambiguous or positive feedback

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2023

Introduction This study explores the impact of preferential inclusion on fulfilling basic needs following ambiguous or positive social feedback, considering the moderating effect of social anxiety. Methods Participants (N = 438) received either positive or ambiguous social feedback and engaged in a social participation or preferential social inclusion task. They completed measures of the fulfillment of their fundamental needs, social anxiety, and other personality traits. Results The results indicate that preferential social inclusion (Uberball condition) enhances the fulfillment of fundamental needs compared to social participation (Cyberball inclusion condition). Furthermore, receiving positive social feedback considerably strengthens the negative relationship between social anxiety and fundamental need fulfillment when followed by ordinary social participation relative to preferential social inclusion presumably because these individuals react more strongly to unmet expectations of extreme social acceptance. Discussion This research suggests that individuals with high social anxiety may not experience the usual benefits of social participation unless they experience extreme social inclusion.

The content and application of the lay theory of self-esteem

Article

Dec 2024
SELF IDENTITY

Happy couples “see” helpful partners: Relationship quality predicts biased perceptions of partner instrumentality to one's goals

Article

Oct 2024

Perceiving a romantic partner as instrumental to one's goals predicts myriad desirable relationship outcomes. However, little is known about the origins of perceived partner instrumentality (PPI)—particularly about factors that may bias PPI. In two studies, we provide evidence supporting the hypothesis that relationship quality predicts biased PPI. In a dyadic correlational study (Study 1) and an imagined scenario study in which we experimentally manipulated partner instrumentality levels (Study 2), participants reporting higher relationship quality perceived their partners as more instrumental to their goals—even when controlling for depressive symptoms, and when controlling for partner‐reported (Study 1) or enacted partner (Study 2) instrumentality. Additionally, in Study 1 (but not Study 2), relationship quality attenuated a negative association between depressive symptoms and PPI. Study 2 also revealed that perceiving a partner as more instrumental predicted greater intentions to provide instrumental support to that partner in the future. These findings fill important gaps in the instrumentality and relationships literature, identifying antecedents of PPI and offering insights into how PPI may predict relationship functioning.

Communication in Interfaith Romantic Relationships

Chapter

Oct 2024

References

Chapter

Aug 2023

Why do people fall in love? Does passion fade with time? What makes for a happy, healthy relationship? This introduction to relationship science follows the lifecycle of a relationship – from attraction and initiation, to the hard work of relationship maintenance, to dissolution and ways to strengthen a relationship. Designed for advanced undergraduates studying psychology, communication or family studies, this textbook presents a fresh, diversity-infused approach to relationship science. It includes real-world examples and critical-thinking questions, callout boxes that challenge students to make connections, and researcher interviews that showcase the many career paths of relationship scientists. Article Spotlights reveal cutting-edge methods, while Diversity and Inclusion boxes celebrate the variety found in human love and connection. Throughout the book, students see the application of theory and come to recognize universal themes in relationships as well as the nuances of many findings. Instructors can access lecture slides, an instructor manual, and test banks.

Multiple Regression: Testing And Interpreting Interactions

Article

Full-text available

Dec 1999

This study investigated 3 broad classes of individual-differences variables (job-search motives, competencies, and constraints) as predictors of job-search intensity among 292 unemployed job seekers. Also assessed was the relationship between job-search intensity and reemployment success in a longitudinal context. Results show significant relationships between the predictors employment commitment, financial hardship, job-search self-efficacy, and motivation control and the outcome job-search intensity. Support was not found for a relationship between perceived job-search constraints and job-search intensity. Motivation control was highlighted as the only lagged predictor of job-search intensity over time for those who were continuously unemployed. Job-search intensity predicted Time 2 reemployment status for the sample as a whole, but not reemployment quality for those who found jobs over the study's duration. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Half a Minute: Predicting Teacher Evaluations From Thin Slices of Nonverbal Behavior and Physical Attractiveness

Article

Full-text available

Mar 1993

The accuracy of strangers' consensual judgments of personality based on "thin slices" of targets' nonverbal behavior were examined in relation to an ecologically valid criterion variable. In the 1st study, consensual judgments of college teachers' molar nonverbal behavior based on very brief (under 30 sec) silent video clips significantly predicted global end-of-semester student evaluations of teachers. In the 2nd study, similar judgments predicted a principal's ratings of high school teachers. In the 3rd study, ratings of even thinner slices (6 and 15 sec clips) were strongly related to the criterion variables. Ratings of specific micrononverbal behaviors and ratings of teachers' physical attractiveness were not as strongly related to the criterion variable. These findings have important implications for the areas of personality judgment, impression formation, and nonverbal behavior. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Society and the adolescent self-image

Article

Jan 1965

M. Rosenberg

The sociometer, self-esteem, and the regulation of interpersonal behavior

Article

Jan 2011

Behavioral activation and inhibition in everyday life

Article

Jun 2000
J PERS SOC PSYCHOL

Joint effects of daily events and dispositional sensitivities to cues of reward and punishment on daily positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) were examined in 3 diary studies. Study 1 showed that positive events were strongly related to PA but not NA, whereas negative events were strongly related to NA but not PA. Studies 2 and 3 examined how the dispositional sensitivities of independent appetitive and aversive motivational systems, the Behavioral Activation System (BAS) and the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS), moderated these relationships. Participants in Study 2 with higher BAS sensitivity reported more PA on average; those with more sensitive BIS reported more NA. Also, BIS moderated reactions to negative events, such that higher BIS sensitivity magnified reactions to negative events. Study 3 replicated these findings and showed that BAS predisposed people to experience more positive events. Results demonstrate the value of distinguishing within-person and between-person effects to clarify the functionally independent processes by which dispositional sensitivities influence affect.

Self-Esteem as an Interpersonal Monitor: The Sociometer Hypothesis

Article

Mar 1995
J PERS SOC PSYCHOL

Five studies tested hypotheses derived from the sociometer model of self-esteem according to which the self-esteem system monitors others' reactions and alerts the individual to the possibility of social exclusion. Study 1 showed that the effects of events on participants' state self-esteem paralleled their assumptions about whether such events would lead others to accept or reject them. In Study 2, participants' ratings of how included they felt in a real social situation correlated highly with their self-esteem feelings. In Studies 3 and 4, social exclusion caused decreases in self-esteem when respondents were excluded from a group for personal reasons, but not when exclusion was random, but this effect was not mediated by self-presentation. Study 5 showed that trait self-esteem correlated highly with the degree to which respondents generally felt included versus excluded by other people. Overall, results provided converging evidence for the sociometer model.

Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions

Article

Jan 1994
J OPER RES SOC

Seeking self-evaulative feedback: The interactive role of global self-esteem and specific self-views

Article

Jan 2003

People who verify a negative self-view expose themselves to criticism and rejection. Because people with low global self-esteem are hurt more by negative feedback than are people with high global self-esteem, the authors predicted that they would be less apt to verify a negative self-view in a more specific domain. Three investigations found support for this hypothesis. In all 3 investigations, high self-esteem participants sought (or tended to seek) self-verifying feedback, even if it was negative, but low self-esteem participants sought (or tended to seek) positive feedback, even if it was nonself-verifying. These findings show that low self-esteem people are especially concerned with self-protection and that global self-esteem and specific self-views interact to guide people's responses to self-evaluative feedback. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

The Experimental Generation of Interpersonal Closeness: A Procedure and Some Preliminary Findings

Article

Apr 1997
Pers Soc Psychol Bull

A practical methodology is presented for creating closeness in an experimental context. Whether or not an individual is in a relationship, particular pairings of individuals in the relationship, and circumstances of relationship development become manipulated variables. Over a 45-min period subject pairs carry out self-disclosure and relationship-building tasks that gradually escalate in intensity. Study 1 found greater postinteraction closeness with these tasks versus comparable small-talk tasks. Studies 2 and 3 found no significant closeness effects, inspite of adequate power, for (a) whether pairs were matched for nondisagreement on important attitudes, (b) whether pairs were led to expect mutual liking, or (c) whether getting close was made an explicit goal. These studies also illustrated applications for addressing theoretical issues, yielding provocative tentative findings relating to attachment style and introversion/extraversion.

Self-Presentational Motivations and Personality Differences in Self-Esteem

Article

Sep 1989

Discusses the interpersonal motivations associated with different levels of self-esteem (SE). Although SE refers to an intrapsychic attitude, SE scales often measure self-presentational orientation. High SE scores are associated with a tendency to present one's self in a self-enhancing fashion characterized by willingness to accept risks, focus on outstandingly good qualities, strategic ploys, and calling attention to one's self. Low SE scores are associated with a tendency to present one's self in a self-protective fashion characterized by unwillingness to accept risks, focus on avoiding outstandingly bad qualities, avoidance of strategic ploys, and reluctance to draw attention to one's self. Evidence shows that most people rate themselves as above average on SE scales. Measures emphasizing social SE may be more sensitive to interpersonal and self-presentational issues than nonsocial SE measures. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Acceptance Is in the Eye of the Beholder: Self-Esteem and Motivated Perceptions of Acceptance From the Opposite Sex

Abstract and Figures

Recommended publications

Perceptions of Social Behavior and Peer Acceptance in Kindergarten

Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Çiftler Arası Şiddeti Kabullerinin Çeşitli Değişkenler Açısından İncelenme...

Multi-level Analysis of Distracted Drivers’ Glances: Enhancing the Robustness of the NHTSA Acceptanc...

Acceptance of a Volunteer First-Responder System in Rural Communities: A Field Experiment