Implicit theories shape responses to social-evaluative threat

It is important to understand factors that make one more or less vulnerable to the harmful effects of social threat. This study focuses on the role of implicit theories (also referred to as mindsets) in shaping responses to a potent form of social threat, namely social-evaluative threat (SET). 124 individuals participated in an experimental study in which they were induced to have an incremental theory or an entity theory about their social skills. Next, they were exposed to SET in the laboratory. Psychological and physiological responses were assessed including social self-esteem, rumination, spontaneous mentions of concerns about one’s social skills, and heart-rate variability. Compared to those induced to have entity theories, those induced to have incremental theories were buffered from the typical harmful effects of SET on social self-esteem, rumination, and concerns about their social skills. The association between implicit theories and heart-rate variability fell just short of significance

Effects of Daily Rejection on Health and Well-being

A daily diary methodology was used to investigate the effects of rejection on daily health and wellbeing as well as the moderating role of self-esteem. Participants completed an online diary for two weeks, reporting on rejection, mental well-being/resources, risky health behaviors, and healthrelated outcomes. Overall, daily rejection was associated with decreases in mental well-being/ resources but not with health behaviors or health-related outcomes. Additionally, self-esteem played an important moderating role. On high rejection days low self-esteem individuals were more likely to engage in risky health behaviors, and on the day following a high rejection day they reported decrements in health and well-being. Discussion centers on possible self-regulatory explanations for these findings and implications for the health of individuals with low self-esteem. Keywords: Daily diary; Health; Interpersonal rejection; Self-esteem; Self-regulation. People of all ages are most likely to thrive when they feel valued and accepted by others; but social acceptance is not always attainable. Even the most socially skilled people have experienced times when they felt socially excluded or rejected by others. These feelings of rejection are a common human experience that can lead to negative psychological consequences Despite the fact that rejection is normatively distressing, individuals differ in their responses to rejection, with some individuals displaying relative resilience following rejection and others displaying vulnerability to the poor outcomes associated with rejection. One factor that has been associated with resilience/vulnerability in the face of rejection is an individual's self-view. There is growing evidence that individuals with negative self-views (such as those with low self-esteem) respond to rejection in ways that are harmful to their psychological well-being (e.g., Responses to Rejection A number of theories assert that humans have a fundamental need to belong and that rejection is aversive because it threatens the fulfillment of this need Potential Pathways Linking Rejection and Health What are the mechanisms through which rejection might impact health and wellbeing? Rejection may impact health and well-being in at least three ways: (1) by triggering adverse cognitive, emotional, and physiological responses; (2) by shaping health-related behaviors; and (3) by interfering with restorative behaviors. Of these three possible mechanisms only the first one has received research attention. Thus, the goal of the current study was to extend research in two ways. First, we investigated the effects of rejection on health-related behaviors (pathway 2) and restorative behaviors (pathway 3). Second, we investigated the role of self-esteem in shaping health-related behaviors and restorative behaviors following rejection. Why might rejection influence health-related behaviors? A small number of laboratory studies have shown that rejection reduces self-regulatory ability Rejection may also impact health by affecting restorative behaviors, such as sleep. Although the association between rejection and sleep quality has not been explored there is evidence that other experiences that signify social devaluation, such as perceptions of social isolation and loneliness, are associated with poor sleep quality Self-esteem as a Moderator of Responses to Rejection Although rejection is normatively distressing, not everyone responds to it in the same way. There are important individual differences in sensitivity to subtle or ambiguous rejection cues, which are prevalent in everyday life. Some individuals have a lower threshold for appraising rejection cues as threatening to the self and are therefore more reactive to rejection. One variable that seems to play an important role in shaping reactivity to rejection is self-esteem. Specifically, individuals with low selfesteem (LSE) are more likely to see rejection as evidence of a flawed self Research findings are beginning to suggest that the response patterns exhibited by LSE individuals following rejection may make them vulnerable to both decrements in emotional well-being and poor health. For example, a recent longitudinal study of college students revealed that LSE was associated with poor health outcomes and that the association between LSE and poor health was mediated by interpersonal stressors The Present Study The current investigation had two main goals: (1) to examine the relationship between daily rejection and health and well-being; and (2) to examine the moderating role of SE on this relationship. To accomplish these goals we utilized a daily diary methodology in which participants answered questions about daily rejection, psychological well-being/resources (depressed mood, perceived stress, perceived ability to self-regulate behaviors), daily health-related responses (overeating, unsafe sex, substance use), and daily health outcomes (sleep quality, physical symptoms, and general feelings of health) each evening for two weeks. This methodology enabled us to conduct both within-person and between-person analyses. At the within-person level, we examined the normative effects of rejection on health by comparing participant's levels of health and well-being on their high rejection days versus their low rejection days. We predicted that rejection would be associated with decrements in psychological well-being, health behaviors, and health outcomes. At the between-person level, we examined SE differences in reactivity to rejection. We Self-esteem, Daily rejection, and Health 1

Self-Models and Relationship Threat

This study investigated a key claim of risk regulation theory, namely, that psychological internalizing of a relationship threat will serve as a mediator of the link between self-models (self-esteem and attachment anxiety) and relationship responses (moving closer to a partner vs. distancing from a partner). Participants (N = 101) received feedback that threatened their current romantic relationship (or no feedback) and then completed measures of internal–external focus, relationship closeness–distancing, and acceptance–rejection of the feedback. Results showed that participants with negative self-models responded to the relationship threat by becoming more internally focused and by distancing from their partners, whereas those with positive self-models became more externally focused and moved closer to their partners. Mediation analyses indicated that the link between self-models and relationship closeness–distancing was partially explained by internal focus

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Working Models of Attachment and Attribution Processes in Intimate Relationships Working Models of Attachment and Attribution Processes in Intimate Relationships

Two studies examined the link between working models of attachment and social construal processes in romantic relationships. In Study 1, individuals high in attachment-related anxiety responded to hypothetical partner transgressions by endorsing relationship-threatening attributions, experiencing emotional distress, and endorsing behavioral intentions that were likely to result in conflict. These effects emerged after controlling for pessimistic explanatory style, depressed mood, and selfesteem. In addition, the association between anxiety and emotional distress was mediated by attributions and attachmentrelated needs. In Study 2, anxious individuals endorsed relationship-threatening attributions for their partner's transgressions but less so for their partner's positive behaviors, and these effects occurred primarily among those in unhappy relationships. In contrast, avoidant individuals endorsed pessimistic attributions for their partner's positive behavior but less so for their partner's transgressions, and these effects occurred regardless of their level of relationship satisfaction. Keywords: attachment; attributions; emotion; social cognition; close relationships The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven. -John Milton (1608-1674 Close relationships are filled with ambiguity, and understanding the behavior of others can sometimes be difficult and frustrating. Nevertheless, most people manage to navigate their interpersonal lives with relative ease, guided by their past experiences and existing social knowledge. Indeed, a large body of research indicates that many aspects of social perception are guided by topdown, theory-driven processes in which people's existing goals, schemas, and expectations shape the way they view new information Adult Attachment Theory Adult attachment theory begins with the assumption that adults enter relationships with a history of interpersonal experiences and a unique set of memories, beliefs, and expectations that shape how they think and feel about their relationships and how they behave in at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on January 25, 2010 http://psp.sagepub.com Downloaded from those relationships. Although there are many mental structures that are relevant to relationship functioning in adulthood (e.g., sex role schemas, social exchange scripts), attachment theory is concerned with mental representations that center on the regulation and fulfillment of attachment-related needs, namely, the maintenance of closeness and felt security in valued relationships. Attachment theorists refer to these cognitiveaffective representations as internal working models of attachment, and they are thought to be rooted, at least in part, in the quality of one's early relationships with caretakers and other important attachment figures Much of the adult attachment literature has focused on individual differences in styles of attachment. These styles refer to chronic patterns of thinking, feeling, and behaving in close relationships, and they are thought to reflect differences in internal working models of attachment. Adult attachment researchers typically define four prototypic attachment styles derived from two underlying dimensions: attachment-related anxiety and attachment-related avoidance. The anxiety dimension refers to one's sense of relational self-worth and acceptance (vs. rejection) by others. The avoidance dimension refers to one's degree of comfort (or discomfort) with intimacy and interdependence with others. Secure individuals are low in both anxiety and avoidance. They feel valued by others and worthy of affection, and they perceive attachment figures as trustworthy and responsive. Secure individuals are comfortable with closeness and able to depend on others when needed. Preoccupied individuals are high in anxiety but low in avoidance. They are comfortable with closeness but worried about being rejected and unloved. Preoccupied individuals depend greatly on acceptance by others for a sense of personal well-being but they lack confidence in others' regard for them and responsiveness in times of need. Fearful individuals are high in both anxiety and avoidance. Although they desire social contact, their distrust of others and expectations of rejection result in discomfort with intimacy and avoidance of close relationships. Finally, dismissing individuals are low in anxiety but high in avoidance. They feel confident and tend to view themselves as invulnerable to negative feelings; however, they perceive attachment figures as unreliable and uncaring. Dismissing individuals attempt to maintain a positive self-image in the face of potential rejection by denying attachment needs, distancing themselves from others, and restricting expressions of emotionality As noted above, individual differences in attachment style are presumed to reflect fundamental differences in working models of self and others. Support for this assumption is provided by a number of studies that show that secure adults have more favorable images of themselves and more optimistic expectations about the social world compared to insecure adults (e.g., Working Models and Social Perception There are many mechanisms that may explain why people with different attachment styles experience different relationship outcomes, but one mechanism that may be especially important is the impact of working models on social perception processes. Working models of attachment are highly accessible cognitive-affective structures that, once activated, should play an important role in shaping how individuals construe their social experiences PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on January 25, 2010 http://psp.sagepub.com Downloaded from they may be apt to experience emotional distress and to choose maladaptive behavioral strategies that contribute to poor relationship outcomes Initial support for these ideas was provided in a set of studies reported by Several subsequent studies provide further evidence of a link between insecure attachment and pessimistic attributions. For example, in a sample of married couples, Taken together, these studies provide evidence that compared to secure individuals, insecure individuals are predisposed to make more pessimistic attributions for partner transgressions, although attachment-related anxiety is more consistently associated with negative attributions than is attachment-related avoidance. These studies also suggest that attachment style differences in interpersonal behavior and relationship outcomes (e.g., relationship conflict, relationship satisfaction) may be mediated by these biased cognitive appraisals. The current investigation extends this work in several important ways. STUDY 1 Although the studies reviewed above provide evidence for attachment-style differences in attributions for partner transgressions, it is possible that these differences are an artifact of other chronic factors that covary with attachment style. For example, insecure attachment is associated with increased depression (Carnelley, Pietromonanco, & Jaffe, 1994; Our second goal was to further explore attachmentstyle differences in emotional responses to partner transgressions and to investigate two possible mediators of these differences. On the basis of attachment theory and prior research, we expected that preoccupied and fearful individuals (those high in anxiety) would report the highest levels of emotional distress and that dismissing Collins et al. / WORKING MODELS OF ATTACHMENT 203 at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on January 25, 2010 http://psp.sagepub.com Downloaded from individuals (low in anxiety but high in avoidance) would report the lowest levels of distress. We expected this pattern for two primary reasons. First, because anxious individuals are more likely to construct negative explanations for their partner's transgressions, they are likely to feel more threatened by these events and more concerned about their potential implications The final goal of Study 1 was to examine behavioral intentions. Based on theory and prior research, we expected that fearful and preoccupied individuals (those high in anxiety) would respond to their partner's transgressions in ways that were less adaptive and more likely to result in conflict. There are two primary reasons for expecting this pattern. First, if as hypothesized above, anxious individuals are interpreting their partner's behavior in pessimistic ways (e.g., inferring more malevolent motivation or hurtful intent), they are apt to behave in maladaptive ways such as acting suspicious, hostile, emotionally needy, or emotionally withdrawn A summary of our hypothesized model is presented in Method OVERVIEW Participants were presented with vignettes describing potentially negative partner behaviors. 1 After each vignette, they rated a series of explanations and attributions for their partner's behavior, described how they would feel, predicted the likelihood of conflict, and provided a written description of how they would behave in each situation. Attachment style, self-esteem, pessimistic attributional style, and depression were assessed in a background questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS Participants were 181 introductory psychology students (105 men, 76 women) who were currently involved in a romantic relationship. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 37 (M = 19.6 years), and relationship length ranged from 1 to 85 months (M = 16 months). MATERIALS AND PROCEDURE Stimulus events. Participants read five vignettes describing potentially negative partner behaviors (e.g., imagine that your partner "didn't respond when you tried to cuddle," "didn't comfort you when you were feeling down," "left you standing alone at a party where you didn't know anyone"). These behaviors were chosen because they represented violations of common attachment-related needs. Four of these events were taken from Possible explanations. Following each vignette, participants were presented with four possible explanations for their partner's behavior. Two were designed to be relationship enhancing and two were intended to be relationship threatening. For example, in response to the behavior "Your partner wanted to spend the evening by himself," a relationship-enhancing explanation was, "My partner is tired and just needs some time to relax at home." A relationship-threatening explanation was, "My partner is losing interest in me." Participants rated the extent to which each statement was likely to explain their partner's behavior on a 7-point scale. A principal components analysis with orthogonal rotation suggested a two-factor solution. The 10 positive explanations (2 from each of the 5 vignettes) loaded on the first factor, and the 10 negative ones loaded on the second factor. Thus, we computed an index of relationship-enhancing explanations (a = .71) and an index of relationship-threatening explanations (a = .88). Attribution ratings. For each event, participants rated the cause of their partner's behavior along a series of dimensions used by Emotional distress. Participants described how they would feel in response to each event by rating a series of emotions on a 7-point scale. An index of emotional distress (angry, rejected, hurt, worried, confused, nervous, helpless; a = .81) was computed for the present study. Conflict intentions. Predicted conflict was measured in two ways. First, participants rated the extent to which they thought each event was "likely to result in an argument or a conflict of any kind" on a 7-point scale. An index of predicted conflict was then computed by averaging this rating across the five vignettes (a = .67). Next, participants wrote a brief description of what they would do in response to each situation. Independent coders then rated these descriptions (on 7-point scales) for (a) the degree to which the response was punishing toward the partner and (b) the likelihood that the response would lead to conflict. Each coder rated half of the questionnaires; interrater reliability was assessed by having both coders rate a subset of 20 randomly chosen responses (intraclass correlations were .92 for punishing and .95 for conflict). To provide the most reliable and valid assessment of predicted conflict, we computed an overall index of conflict intentions by combining participants' ratings with the ratings of our independent coders (a = .77). Background questionnaire. Attachment style was measured with the revised version of the Adult Attachment Scal

Many Labs 5: Testing pre-data collection peer review as an intervention to increase replicability

Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect (p \u3c .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3–9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276–3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (Δr = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols (r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols (r = .04) and the original RP:P replications (r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies (r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00–.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19–.50)

Many Labs 5: Registered Replication Report of LoBue & DeLoache (2008)

Across three studies, LoBue and DeLoache (2008) provided evidence suggesting that both young children and adults exhibit enhanced visual detection of evolutionarily relevant threat stimuli (as compared with nonthreatening stimuli). A replication of their Experiment 3, conducted by Cramblet Alvarez and Pipitone (2015) as part of the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P), demonstrated trends similar to those of the original study, but the effect sizes were smaller and not statistically significant. There were, however, some methodological differences (e.g., screen size) and sampling differences (the age of recruited children) between the original study and the RP:P replication study. Additionally, LoBue and DeLoache expressed concern over the choice of stimuli used in the RP:P replication. We sought to explore the possible moderating effects of these factors by conducting two new replications—one using the protocol from the RP:P and the other using a revised protocol. We collected data at four sites, three in Serbia and one in the United States (total N = 553). Overall, participants were not significantly faster at detecting threatening stimuli. Thus, results were not supportive of the hypothesis that visual detection of evolutionarily relevant threat stimuli is enhanced in young children. The effect from the RP:P protocol (d = −0.10, 95% confidence interval = [−1.02, 0.82]) was similar to the effect from the revised protocol (d = −0.09, 95% confidence interval = [−0.33, 0.15]), and the results from both the RP:P and the revised protocols were more similar to those found by Cramblet Alvarez and Pipitone than to those found by LoBue and DeLoache

Many Labs 5: Testing Pre-Data-Collection Peer Review as an Intervention to Increase Replicability

Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect (p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3–9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276–3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (Δr = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols (r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols (r = .04) and the original RP:P replications (r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies (r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00–.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19–.50)

Many Labs 5: Testing Pre-Data-Collection Peer Review as an Intervention to Increase Replicability

Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect (p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3–9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276–3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (Δr = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols (r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols (r = .04) and the original RP:P replications (r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies (r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00–.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19–.50)