1. Study 1: Method Demographics 346 men and 299 women 41.1% Dating, 18.2% Cohabiting, 4.2% Engaged or 18.9 Married Mean age of sample was 31.7 years Procedure Participants self-esteem, traits and their relationship was assessed using: Trait self-esteem Frequency of criticism from the partner and authenticity doubts (beliefs that partner hides negative evaluations and feigns positive evaluations) In 15 domains (e.g., physical appearance, intelligence, social skills, athletic ability, sense of humor) Introduction General Discussion Negative feedback produced significant decreases in reported authenticity doubts of LSEs compared to when they receive positive feedback. LSEs reported less suspicion about partners’ dishonesty when they reported receiving frequent criticism in at least one other domain (Study 1). In addition, LSEs were able to trust subsequent positive feedback if they first received negative feedback, proving to them that their partner is honest (Study 2). Criticism helped LSEs take praise at face value rather than searching for concealed motives. However, the negative feedback must be tactfully delivered so that LSEs do not feel upset or rejected. When LSEs received frequent negative feedback in all domains, they reported more authenticity doubts and insecurity (Study 1). When they received criticism in important domains, they also reported more negative affect and reduced attraction to partners (Study 2). Partners of LSEs may need to walk a knife edge when trying to maintain LSEs’ trust and affection. Feedback cannot be overly negative or overly positive. Overly positive feedback will cause LSEs to doubt partners’ honesty. Overly negative feedback will cause LSEs to feel rejected. Earning the Right to Be Nice: How Feedback Affects Authenticity Doubts in Interpersonal Relationships References Gable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E. A., & Asher, E. R. (2004). What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 228-245. Lemay, E. P., Jr., & Clark, M. S. (2008a). "Walking on eggshells": How expressing relationship insecurities perpetuates them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 420-441. Lemay, E. P., Jr., & Clark, M. S. (2008b). "You're just saying that." Contingencies of self-worth, suspicion, and authenticity in the interpersonal affirmation process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1376-1382. Lemay, E. P., Jr., & Dudley, K. L. (2009). Implications of reflected appraisals of interpersonal insecurity for suspicion and power. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol.35, 1672-1686. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (2000). Self-esteem and the quest for felt security: How perceived regard regulates attachment processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 478-498. Pelham, B. W., & Swann, W. B. (1989). From self-conceptions to self-worth: On the sources and structure of global self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 672-680. Stroebe, W., Eagly, A., & Stroebe, M. S. (1974). Self-esteem and the perceived cause of friendly and unfriendly acts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1, 387-389. Study 1: Results and Discussion Increases in Maximum Criticism (maximum frequency of criticism received from the partner across the 15 domains) tended to predict reduced authenticity doubts for LSEs and increased authenticity doubts for HSEs (see Figure 1) Study 2: Method Demographics 145 dyads consisting of159 females and 116 males Mean age 19 years 56% friendships, 19% roommates, 18% dating Writer describes event 1 Evaluator provides manipulated feedback Writer reads manipulated feedback and completes measures Event 1 Writer reads feedback 2 and completes measures Evaluator freely provides feedback for event 2 Writer describes event 2 Event 2 Figure1 p<.10 Individuals with low self-esteem (LSEs) may believe that their partners see them as negatively as they see themselves (Murray, Holmes, Griffin, 2000). However, partners of LSEs claim to see them positively. How do LSEs maintain the belief that they are devalued despite the contradictory evidence? One possibility is that they attribute affection and praise to an external source, such as their relationship partners “just being nice,” rather than to their partners’ true sentiments (Stroebe, Stroebe Eagly, 1977; Lemay & Clark, 2008a, 2008b; Lemay & Dudley, 2009). The purpose of this research is to test a model of how LSEs’ may become more trusting of their partners’ authenticity. Our model posits that providing negative feedback to LSEs should provide proof that their partners are willing to provide negative feedback and are not “just being nice.” We call it the Negativity-as-Honesty Credentials hypothesis. However, criticism also carries the potential to be seen as a sign of rejection which may decrease relationship security and commitment to partners and cause increased negative emotions. Criticism limited to just a few areas, especially areas that are unimportant to the self or relationships, will be more effective, as it should reduce authenticity doubts and not have these costs. Study 2: Overview The suspicion of ulterior motives behind positive feedback described in Study 1 also may apply to what is known as capitalization interactions. Capitalization is the communication of support and interest in response to partner’s positive event disclosure, which predicts personal and relational well-being (Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher, 2004). Our model predicts that LSE’s (but not HSEs) will trust supportive feedback they receive from their partner if they first receive unsupportive feedback. However, unsupportive feedback carries risk of increasing negative feelings towards the relationship. Affective reactions may be determined by the importance of the event. The more important the event disclosed, the more effect feedback will have on affective reactions and attraction to partners. These results suggest that LSEs felt more trust of partners’ honesty when they received some criticism. Other findings: Increases in average criticism (averaged across all 15 domains) did not have the same effect. Average criticism predicted higher authenticity doubts for LSEs. Hence, criticism across multiple domains seemed to undermine trust. Authenticity doubts predicted reduced feelings of relationship security (beliefs that the partner does not value the relationship). p <.05 Figure 2 p <.10 Figure 3 p <.01 Study 2: Results and Discussion LSEs exhibited less suspicion of partners’ honesty after receiving negative (relative to positive) event 1 feedback, both with regard to event 1 feedback (see Figure 2) and event 2 feedback (see Figure 3). These results suggest that LSEs felt more trust of partners’ honesty when they received some criticism, both with regard to that criticism and with regard to subsequent feedback. However, LSEs exhibited more negative affective reactions to criticism (relative to praise and HSEs; Figure4). Additional analyses suggested this was primarily the case when the event was important to LSEs (Figure 6). Figure 5 p <.001 Figure 4 These results suggest that criticism can have both positive and negative consequences for LSEs. It reduced their authenticity doubts but made them upset. However, criticism in an unimportant domain reduced authenticity doubts and did not make them upset. Other findings: Criticism also reduced LSEs interpersonal attraction, but only if it occurred in a high-investment domain. Measures Event specific authenticity doubts (partner is hiding negative thoughts and feigning positive thoughts), affect (“hurt”; “angry”; “sad), event importance (e.g., impact on life; important part of self), and attraction to evaluators (liking, closeness) Kevin O’Leary Edward P. Lemay, Jr.