Promoting Connection: Perspective-taking Improves Relationship Closeness and Perceived Regard in Participants with Low Implicit Self-Esteem Julie Longua Peterson, Alex Bellows, and Shelby Peterson University of New England, Biddeford, ME, USA INTRODUCTION While research has extensively studied the role of explicit self-esteem (ESE) in regulating relationship dynamics, relatively fewer studies have investigated the role of implicit self-esteem (ISE). The limited studies that have focused on ISE have revealed that low ISE, like low ESE, is associated with behaviors that reduce relationship closeness (e.g., Peterson & DeHart, 2013; DeHart et al., 2011). However, there is reason to believe the negative link between low ISE and relationship closeness can be attenuated.. Because implicit beliefs appear more sensitive to fluctuations in current relationship perceptions than explicit beliefs (DeHart et al., 2004; Peterson & DeHart, 2013), manipulations that increase perceptions of self-other overlap, such as perspective- taking manipulations (e.g., Myers & Hodges, 2012; Galinsky, Ku, & Wang, 2005), may be particularly useful for increasing relationship closeness among people with low ISE. The current study investigated whether perspective-taking can facilitate relationship closeness among low ISE participants. We hypothesized that, in the control condition, participants with low (vs. high) ISE would exhibit less relationship closeness in both self-reported and observer-rated assessments. However, in the perspective-taking condition, participants high and low in ISE should not differ in relationship closeness. These findings would provide both a conceptual replication of previous work suggesting people with low ISE self-protectively distance from relationship partners (e.g., DeHart et al., 2011; Peterson & DeHart, 2013) and a mechanism by which this effect can be eliminated. METHOD Participants 215 undergraduate college students (78.6% female) were recruited for participation. Participants' mean age was years (SD =.98). Overview of Procedure Participants came to the lab and completed a measure of implicit self-esteem. Participants then identified a close relationship partner (e.g., best friend or romantic partner) and rated their relationship satisfaction. Participants were randomly assigned to either the perspective-taking or control conditions. All participants were told they would write about “a typical day in the life” of the close other identified earlier. Participants in the perspective-taking condition were told to “adopt the perspective of this person…looking at the world through his/her eyes…” (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000) Following this manipulation, participants completed measures of closeness and perceived regard. Measures Implicit Self-esteem. The Name-Letter test was used to assess ISE (Kitayama & Karasawa, 1997; Koole et al., 2001; Nuttin, 1985). Participants reported how much they liked each letter of the alphabet. Participants’ evaluation of their own first and last name initials were used to determine their implicit self-evaluation (α =.70). Self-reported Closeness. The Inclusion of Other in Self scale (IOS; Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992) assessed self-reported relationship closeness. Perceived Regard. Participants indicated perceptions of honesty if their close other were to “say something that hinted he or she thought the following about you: That you looked attractive, That he/she enjoyed your company, That you were intelligent, That you were funny.”(α =.83; Lemay & Clark, 2008). Observer-rated closeness. Two coders rated participants’ essays on “How close do you think the participant is to this close other?” and “How much do you think the participant cares about this close other” (ICC’s ranged.66 to.74). Ratings were combined to crease a composite indicator of observer-rated closeness (α =.94).. CONCLUSIONS The results of the current study are exciting for several reasons. First, the results corroborate existing evidence that people with low ISE self-protectively regulate connection in close relationships (DeHart et al., 2011; Peterson & DeHart, 2013). That is, low (vs. high) ISE participants in the control condition exhibited less relationship closeness (as assessed by self-report and observer-ratings) and more uncertainty about their partners’ positive regard. Second, the current study is the first to explore ways in which the negative effects of ISE on relationship functioning can be reduced, suggesting perspective-taking improved feelings of closeness and perceived regard in low ISE participants. These latter findings are especially hopeful considering low ISE predicts decreased connection behavior even when explicit cues signal that connection is safe (e.g., Peterson & DeHart, 2013). Lastly, we believe the current study supports and extends past research. For example, research suggests ISE plays a central role in regulating connection (approach-oriented) behavior in close relationships (Peterson & DeHart, 2013). Similarly, the stereotyping literature suggests perspective-taking provides an approach-oriented strategy for facilitating social connections (Galinsky et al., 2005), which may be the result of implicit cognitive processes (e.g., Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000; Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). The current study seems to merge these two lines of research, revealing perspective-taking is an appealing, and potentially implicit mechanism for promoting connection in the relationships of people with low implicit self-esteem. REFERENCES Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception–behavior link and social interaction. JPSP, 76, DeHart, T., Pelham, B., Fiedorowicz, L., Carvallo, M., & Gabriel, S. (2011). Including others in the implicit self: Implicit evaluations of significant others. Self & Identity, 10(1), DeHart, T., Pelham, B., & Murray, S. (2004). Implicit dependency regulation: Self esteem, relationship closeness, and implicit evaluations of close others. Social Cognition, 22, Galinsky, A. D., Ku, G., & Wang, C. S. (2005). Perspective-taking and self-other overlap: Fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8, Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. JPSP, 78, Peterson, J & DeHart, T. (2013). Regulating connection: Implicit self-esteem predicts positive non-verbal behavior during romantic relationship threat. JESP, 49, Myers, M. W., & Hodges, S. D. (2012). The structure of self-other overlap and its relationship to perspective taking. Personal Relationships, 19(1), RESULTS ISE and Condition predict Self-reported and Observer-rated closeness Multiple regression analyses revealed a significant ISE x Condition interaction predicting IOS (β = -.16, t = -1.04, p<.05) and observer-rated closeness (β = -.22, t = -2.22, p<.05). Simple slope analyses revealed that ISE was positively related to IOS (β =.20, t = 2.26, p =.03) and observer-rated closeness (β =.23, t=2.58, p =.01) in the control condition, but unrelated to IOS (β = -.02, t = -.284, p =.78) and observer-rated closeness (β = -.05, t= -.52, p =.61) in the perspective-taking condition (Figure 1). In addition, at high levels of ISE, condition was unrelated to IOS (β=.01, t=.13, p=.90) and observer-rated closeness (β=.09, t=.93, p=.36). However, at low levels of ISE, participants in the perspective-taking (vs. control) condition reported greater IOS (β=.24, t= 2.86, p =.01) and were rated as closer to their partner (β=.38, t=4.04, p<.001). Figure 1. ISE and Condition predicting IOS Figure 2. ISE and Condition predicting Perceived Regard ISE and Condition predict Perceived Regard Multiple regression analyses revealed a significant ISE x Condition interaction predicting perceived regard (β = -.19, t = -1.99, p<.05). Simple slope analyses revealed ISE was positively related to perceived regard in the control condition (β =.19, t=2.251 p =.03), but unrelated to perceived regard in the perspective-taking condition (β = -.04, t= -.42 p =.68; Figure 2). Again, condition was unrelated to perceived regard for participants high in ISE (β=-.06, t=-.66, p=.51), but positively related to perceived regard for participants low in ISE (β=.20, t=2.15, p=.03). Bootstrapping techniques (Preacher & Hayes, 2004; 2008) revealed that self-reported closeness did not mediate this effect (95% CI [-.10,.002]).