Calibrating the sociometer: The relationship between interpersonal appraisals and the state self-esteem.

Abstract

Four experiments examined the functional relationship between interpersonal appraisal and subjective feelings about oneself. Participants imagined receiving one of several positive or negative reactions from another person (Experiments 1, 2, and 3) or actually received interpersonal evaluations (Experiment 4), then completed measures relevant to state self-esteem. All 4 studies showed that subjective feelings were a curvilinear, ogival function of others' appraisals. Although trait self-esteem correlated with state reactions as a main effect, it did not moderate participants' reactions to interpersonal feedback.

Self-esteem reactions to social interactions: Evidence for sociometer mechanisms across days, people, and nations.

“…For example, in a series of four experiments, Leary et al (1998) exposed participants to imagined or real social rejection and found that this led to a decrease in SE This supports the claim that cues of social inclusion are causally associated with changes in the sociometer.…”

“…Some of this evidence is based on experimental manipulations of people's sense of social inclusion in the laboratory that have been shown to cause corresponding changes in SE (Leary, Haupt, Strausser, & Chokel, 1998). In addition, the association between social inclusion and SE has been shown in naturalistic settings, such as in romantic relationships (Murray, Griffin, Rose, & Bellavia, 2003).…”

All you need is love: Is the sociometer especially sensitive to one's mating capacity?

“…Whereas state self-esteem provides momentary information about how well one is doing as a mate, trait self-esteem may be a more stable representation of one's relational potential over time, being determined by one's past experiences of inclusion and rejection, and by one's presumed standing on and perceived importance of socially desirable traits such as physical attractiveness or social status (Anthony et al, 2007;Leary & Baumeister, 2000;MacDonald, Saltzman, & Leary, 2003). Fluctuations in state self-esteem may occur around individually different, more stable levels of trait self-esteem (Leary, Haupt, et al, 1998), so that the effect of capacity rejection on state self-esteem would be much lower for participants high on trait self-esteem. However, we expected that for capacity rejection in the mating domain, even a high level of trait self-esteem would not buffer the blow to state self-esteem.…”

“…For example, in order to evoke feelings of rejection, Leary, Haupt, et al (1998) had participants imagine that a date had answered questions about them with regard to their social desirability (e.g., wanting to sit next to participant, wanting to go to dinner or movie with participant). Negative answers would indicate rejection in that instant.…”

Ironic effects of feedback on contingency of self-worth: Why self-reports of contingency are biased

“…In that sense, participants' self-reported contingency may, at least partially, reflect a lack of insight into their own internal processes. A similar image arises from findings by Leary and his colleagues, who demonstrated that social rejection or disapproval produced sharp declines in participants' state self-esteem; these effects occurred regardless of their initial self-esteem level (Leary, Haupt, Strausser, & Chokel, 1998) and regardless of whether they themselves initially indicated that their self-esteem depended on others (Leary et al, 2003). Considering all of these findings jointly, the emerging picture is that we are all highly fragile when it comes to our self-worth; and that some of us -in particular, those with self-esteem concerns -are more aware of this than others.…”