ERROR LOADING HTML FROM SOURCE (http://ncf.sobek.ufl.edu//design/skins/UFDC/html/header_item.html)

Self-Esteem and Interpersonal Perception

Permanent Link: http://ncf.sobek.ufl.edu/NCFE004440/00001

Material Information

Title: Self-Esteem and Interpersonal Perception
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Reischer, Lior
Publisher: New College of Florida
Place of Publication: Sarasota, Fla.
Creation Date: 2011
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Self-Esteem
Interpersonal Perception
IPT
Interpersonal Perception Test
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Is there a relationship between self-esteem and interpersonal perception? The present paper argues that there is. Sociometer theory claims that self-esteem acts as an indicator to the individual of his or her level of social inclusion or exclusion; individuals who are more socially included have higher self-esteem. Being more socially included allows for people to have more interactions with others, and in turn, more practice making judgments about them. Thus, this study tested the hypothesis that individuals with higher self-esteem have more accurate perceptions of others than those with low self-esteem. Forty-nine participants (19 males, 30 females; 79.6% Caucasian, 16.3% Hispanic, 6.1% Asian, 4.1% African American) completed the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, the Interpersonal Perception Task (IPT; 15 short video clips with accompanying questions), the Emotional Sensitivity Subscale (ESS) of the Social Skills Inventory, and answered questions intended to tap levels of social inclusion. Results were consistent with sociometer theory as well as with the present hypothesis. Participants with higher self-esteem scores also reported higher levels of social inclusion; additionally, higher self-esteem was associated with higher IPT scores. Interestingly, however, the ESS and the IPT were not significantly correlated. Limitations of the study and directions for future research are discussed.
Statement of Responsibility: by Lior Reischer
Thesis: Thesis (B.A.) -- New College of Florida, 2011
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO NCF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The New College of Florida, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Local: Faculty Sponsor: Graham, Steven

Record Information

Source Institution: New College of Florida
Holding Location: New College of Florida
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: local - S.T. 2011 R37
System ID: NCFE004440:00001

Permanent Link: http://ncf.sobek.ufl.edu/NCFE004440/00001

Material Information

Title: Self-Esteem and Interpersonal Perception
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Reischer, Lior
Publisher: New College of Florida
Place of Publication: Sarasota, Fla.
Creation Date: 2011
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Self-Esteem
Interpersonal Perception
IPT
Interpersonal Perception Test
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Is there a relationship between self-esteem and interpersonal perception? The present paper argues that there is. Sociometer theory claims that self-esteem acts as an indicator to the individual of his or her level of social inclusion or exclusion; individuals who are more socially included have higher self-esteem. Being more socially included allows for people to have more interactions with others, and in turn, more practice making judgments about them. Thus, this study tested the hypothesis that individuals with higher self-esteem have more accurate perceptions of others than those with low self-esteem. Forty-nine participants (19 males, 30 females; 79.6% Caucasian, 16.3% Hispanic, 6.1% Asian, 4.1% African American) completed the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, the Interpersonal Perception Task (IPT; 15 short video clips with accompanying questions), the Emotional Sensitivity Subscale (ESS) of the Social Skills Inventory, and answered questions intended to tap levels of social inclusion. Results were consistent with sociometer theory as well as with the present hypothesis. Participants with higher self-esteem scores also reported higher levels of social inclusion; additionally, higher self-esteem was associated with higher IPT scores. Interestingly, however, the ESS and the IPT were not significantly correlated. Limitations of the study and directions for future research are discussed.
Statement of Responsibility: by Lior Reischer
Thesis: Thesis (B.A.) -- New College of Florida, 2011
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO NCF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The New College of Florida, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Local: Faculty Sponsor: Graham, Steven

Record Information

Source Institution: New College of Florida
Holding Location: New College of Florida
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: local - S.T. 2011 R37
System ID: NCFE004440:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

SELF ESTEEM AND INTERPERSONAL PERCEPTION BY LIOR REISCHER A Thesis Submitted to the Division of Psychology New College of Florida in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Bachelor of Arts Under the sponsorship of Dr. Steven Grah am Sarasota, Florida May, 2011 Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 2

ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank my sponsor, Dr. Steven Graham, whose time, support recommendations, and insight helped make this research possible. Addit ionally, I deeply appreciate Dr Michelle Barton and Dr. Heidi Harley for being on my committee. I would also like to thank my fellow psychology students, who gave me some wonderful ideas and suggestions for this thesis. Finally, thank you to all who participated in my study — I certainly could not have done it wi thout you. Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 3

iii Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................ ................................ ................... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................ ................................ ....................... iii LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ................................ ................................ ...... v ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... vi INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ 1 Sociometer Theory ................................ ................................ ..................... 1 Self Est eem ................................ ................................ ................................ 8 Interpersonal Perception ................................ ................................ ............. 12 The Present Study ................................ ................................ ...................... 17 METHOD ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 18 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ 18 Materials ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 18 Rose nberg self esteem scale ................................ ........................... 18 Perceived social inclusion/exclusion scale ................................ ...... 18 Emotional sensitivity subscale of the social skills inventory ............ 19 Interpersonal perception task 15 ................................ ..................... 19 Procedure ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 20 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 21 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 22 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 25 FIGURE 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 29 TABLE 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 30 Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 4

iv APPENDI X A ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 31 Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale ................................ ................................ ..... 31 Perceived Social Inclusion/Exclusion Scale ................................ ................ 32 Emotional Sensitivity Subscale of the Social Skills Inventory .................... 33 APPENDIX B ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 35 Interpersonal Perception Task 15 ................................ ............................... 35 Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 5

v List of Figures and Tables FIGURES Figure 1: Theoretic al Model ................................ ................................ ....... 29 TABLES Table 1: Corr elations Between all Measures ................................ ............... 30 Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 6

vi SELF ESTEEM AND INTERPERSONAL PERCEPTION Lior Reischer New College of Florida, 2011 ABSTRACT Is there a relationship between self esteem and interpersonal perception? The pr esent paper argues that there is. Sociometer theory claims that self esteem acts as an indicator to the individual of his or her level of social inclusion or exclusion; individuals who are more socially included have higher self esteem. Being more socially included allows for people to have more interactions with others, and in turn, more practice making judgments about them. Thus, this study tested the hypothesis that individuals with higher self esteem have more accurate perceptions of others than those w ith low self esteem. Forty nine participants (19 males, 30 females; 79.6% Caucasian, 16.3% Hispanic, 6.1% Asian, 4.1% African American) completed the Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale, the Interpersonal Perception Task (IPT; 15 short video clips with accompanyin g questions), the Emotional Sensitivity Subscale (ESS) of the Social Skills Inventory, and answered questions intended to tap levels of social inclusion. Results were consistent with sociometer theory as well as with the present hypothesis. Participants wi th higher self esteem scores also reported higher levels of social inclusion; additionally, higher self esteem was associated with higher IPT scores. Interestingly, however, the ESS and the IPT were not significantly correlated. Limitations of the study an d directions for future research are discussed. Dr. Steven Graham Division of Social Sciences Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 7

1 The present study was conducted in order to answer the following question: is there a relationship between self esteem and interpersonal perception? This paper po sits that there is. We begin with a brief discussion of sociometer theory, which provides the foundation for the hypothesis tested herein Sociometer theory claims that self esteem acts as an indicator to the individual of his or her level of social inclus ion or exclusion; individuals who are more socially included have higher self esteem. B eing more socially included allows for people to have more interactions with others, and in turn, more practice making judgme nts about them. Thus, the current predict ion is that participants with higher self esteem will score higher on a test of interpersonal perception than those with lower self esteem. Sociometer Theory Belongingness theory claims that “a need to belong, that is, a need to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of interpersonal relationships, is innately prepared (and hence nearly universal) among human beings” (Baumeister and Leary, 1995, p. 499). Socio meter theory is derived from this notion that hum ans have a basic need to belong The theory c laims that “self esteem functions as a sociometer that monitors the degree to which the individual is being included versus excluded by other people” (Leary, Tambor, Terdal, and Downs, 1995; emphasis in original) Here i t is important to note the differenc es between trait and state self esteem. Trait self esteem is an individual’s self esteem throughout his or her lifetime and it remains relatively stable; state self esteem, on the other hand, is an individual’s self esteem over a short period of time and i t tends to fluctuate. Sociometer theory posit s that people are motivated to ensure that the sociometer or “fuel gauge” continually reads “included” (i.e., trait self esteem). T hus, Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 8

2 when someone’s sociometer indicates social exclusion (i.e., a change in sta te self esteem) the individual is motivated to change his or her behavior in order to “repair” the social damage and return to baseline Leary et al. ( 1995) found converging evidence in support of sociometer theory with five studies. Across the studies, participants completed various questionnaires as well as various behavioral experiments, all of which examined the relationship between participants’ perceived levels of social inclusion/exclusion and levels of state self esteem (except for Study 5, which focused on trait self esteem). Statistical analyses revealed significant results in all five studies. The effects of an event on an individual’s self esteem were found to parallel his or her level of perceived inclusion/exclusion for hypothetical events as well as actual events. Additionally, social exclusion was found to decrease levels of self esteem when it was based on the preferences of other group members but not when the exclusion was random. Finally, higher levels of trait self esteem were signific antly correlated with individuals’ perception of social inclusion/exclusion in general. Since each study yielded significant results in support of sociometer theory, and each one was conducted with different methods and different participants, this converg ing evidence suggests that an individual’s self esteem does in fact indicate to the person his or her level of social inclusion. Other studies have examined the sociometer in a broader framework, analyzing the correlations between belongingness needs and other variables, suc h as the retention of memory specifically for social events. Gardner et al. (2000) conducted two experiments in which participants interacted with others ( computerized confederates) in a computer chat room The confederates followed scr ipts which indicated either acceptance or Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 9

3 rejection of the participant; there were two rejection conditions — interpersonal and collective rejection. Interpersonal rejection was manipulated by dyads of confederates branching off and having conversations that the participant could not relate to. In the collective rejection condition, the whole group of confederates began a conversation that the participant could not relate to. I n Experiment 1, the chat room always had 4 people in it, whereas in Experiment 2, h alf of the chat rooms were group chats (4 people) and the other half were dyadic (the participant and only one confederate). Both experiments also included a phase in which the participants read someone’s diary, and later were asked to recall as many event s from the diary as possible. Participants in both the interpersonal and collective rejection conditions recalled significantly more social events than those in the acceptance condition. Interestingly, negative events were significantly easier to recall th an positive events across all conditions. Additionally, interpersonal events were significantly easier to recall than collective events. This pattern was found in both experiments, although Experiment 2 included the manipulation of the size of the chat roo m; differences in chat room size did not yield any new patterns of results. Gardner et al. (2000) concluded from these findings that the need to belong does exist, but it may only be triggered at certain times (i.e., after being interpersonally or collecti vely rejected). Furthermore, when the need is triggered, the processing of information becomes biased specifi cally toward social information. These findings clearly illustrate how the sociometer works. The rejection conditions manipulated the participants’ level of perceived inclusion; when they felt excluded, they became motivated to return their sociometer to baseline, which is why social and interpersonal events were easier to recall. Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 10

4 Gardner, Pickett, Jefferis, and Knowles (2005) conducted another simil ar study which yielded evidence that was equally supportive of t he theory. In Study 1, participants completed a loneliness measure, a mood measure, and a social memory task which involved the participants reading someone’s diary and later being asked to re call as many events from the diary as possible. The procedure for Study 2 was slightly different; it included a vocal emotional Stroop task (participants heard emotionally loaded words with a vocal tone that either matched the emotion or did no t match ), th e Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy ( DANVA 2 ; participants view ed pictures of faces depicting specific emotions at varying intensities and rated the accuracy of each ), and an assessment of the participants’ number of close social ties. Statistical analyses conducted on the data from Stud y 1 yielded a significant correlation between loneliness and recollection Participants who scored high on the l oneliness measure had significantly better recall of events from the diaries overall, but it was associa ted most strongly with t he recall of collectively and interpersonally social events (both positive and negative), rather than individual nonsocial events. Additionally, the results from Study 2 strengthened this finding. Individuals who reported having few er friends (i.e., individuals who were less socially included) were significantly more attentive to vocal tone in the emotional Stroop task for both positive and negative vocal tones than those who reported having more friends; individuals with fewer frien ds were also significantly more accurate on the DANVA 2 task (Gardner et al., 2005) Together, these result s suggest that individuals with higher loneliness scores and fewer friends (i.e., socially excluded individuals) are motivated to be socially include d, and this is Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 11

5 manifested in greater attention to interpersonal characteristics such as vocal tone and facial expressions Once strong support for sociometer theory emerged, several studies were conducted to see if sociometer mechanisms could be observed cross culturally. For instance, Denissen, Penke, Schmitt, and van Aken (2008) conducted two studies in which they examined levels of self esteem intraindividually, interindividually, and internationally. Participants filled out questionnaires and kept diar ies for several days; most of the international data (e.g., average self este em scores per country) were archival. On the intraindividual level, self esteem was significantly positively correlated with the quality of social interactions. On the interindivi dual level, participants who reported having high quality relationships had significantly higher self esteem than those with low quality relationships. Finally, on the international level, countries whose citizens regularly interacted with friends had sign ificantly higher nationwide self esteem levels than those who did not report this behavior amongst their citizens. Together, these findings support sociometer theory — having high quality interactions with others (i.e., social inclusion ) is correlated with h aving high self esteem across cultures Howeve r, not every study conducted to test sociometer theory has yielded supportive results For example, Guay, Delisle, Fernet, Julien, and Sencal (2008) found that the effects of perceived level of inclusion on s tate self esteem are only observable if the activity is relatively unimportant to the individual. Participants completed a computer task and received fictitious feedback regarding their performance, which indicated either failure or success (no feedback wa s given in the control condition). S elf esteem was significantly higher for participants in the success condition than in either the failure or Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 12

6 control conditions; additionally, participants in the success condition scored significantly higher on perceived social inclusion than those in the other conditions. Both of these findings provide support for the sociometer hypothesis. How ever, the importa nce of the activity was controlled for in further analyses. When the activity was rated high in importance feed back condition was not correlated with perceived inclusion ; in other words, if the activity was im portant to the participant, his or her level of perceived inclusion remained the same regardless of whether the feedback indicated success or failure On the other hand, when the importance rating was low, there was a significant effect of feedback condition (i.e., if the activity was not important to the participant, he or she felt less included if the feedback indicated failure, and more included if it indica ted success) Considering the finding that for tasks that were important to the participants, the kind of feedback they received did not correlate with p erceived inclusion, perhaps it is because participants felt especially capable or skilled in those task s. It is reasonable to predict that when it comes to tasks in which an individual is highly skilled, he or she feels a sense of dominance in that task. Perhaps, then, this feeling of dominance is accounting for more of the variance in self esteem than perc eived social acceptance. Leary, Cottrell, and Phillips (2001) examined this possibility with three studies. In Study 1, participants were given fake feedback from four other “participants” regarding leadership and membership of the group; measures of self esteem were also administered. Study 2 was virtually identical to Study 1, although it included a pretest phase. In Study 3, participants completed several measures of perceived acceptance, perceived dominance, and self esteem. The results of Study 1 were that high membership and leadership feedback (i.e., Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 13

7 social inclusion) resulted in significantly higher self esteem than low feedback. The same pattern of results was obtained for Study 2. Most importantly, the results of Study 3 revealed that perceived acc eptance accounted for significantly more of the variance (44%) in trait self esteem than perceived dominance (25%). Thus, these findings support the notion that one’s perceived level of social inclusion is not the only factor at work in self esteem, althou gh it still seems to be the most important factor. S ociometer theory has been extensively tested, and for the most part, supported. Much of the evidence in the literature (e.g., Leary and Baumeister, 2000 ) suggests not only that humans do in fact have an innate need to belong, but also that having this need leads individuals to develop a sociometer which indicates how socially included or excluded they are. The theory posits that individuals who are more socially included have higher self esteem. Consideri ng t his, the present claim is that individuals who are more social ly inclu ded ( i.e., have high self esteem) tend to have more interactions with people, and thus more practice making interpersonal judgments than those who are less included (i.e., have lower sel f esteem ) Therefore, the hypothesis that those with higher trait self esteem will score higher on a test of interpersonal perception than those with lower trait self esteem was tested in the present study Although the present predictions do not invol ve state self esteem, it is important to note that an experiment which manipulates state self esteem through social inclusion and exclusion might yield differen t results. When an individual is socially excluded, his or her sociometer fluctuates, motivating the person to return to baseline. As a result, individuals with low state self esteem might be more attentive to social cues, and could score higher than those with high state self esteem on a test of interpersonal perception Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 14

8 following an inclusion/exclus ion manipulation. Because levels of inclusion and exclusion were not manipulated in the present study, predictions have been made regarding trait self esteem. Self Est eem As mentioned above, p sychologists typically distinguish between trait self esteem an d state self esteem One of the most widely used measure s of trait self esteem is the Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1979). Several of the aforeme ntioned studies used this scale (e.g., Leary et al., 1995; Denissen et al., 2008; Leary et al., 2001) and i n the upcoming discussion, it will be evident that several other studies used the scale as well. The scale is a measure of global trait self esteem, including items such as “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself” and “At times I think I am no goo d at all.” However, the scale itself will be discussed in more detail later. T his discussion will cover a small p ortion of the enormous collection of literature on self esteem more broadly Although ego threat is not a variable that directly relates to th e purposes of the pr esent study, one can easily see how a theorist might relate it to perceived social inclusion. Vohs and Heatherton (2001) found evidence to support the idea that threats to one’s ego affect people with high self esteem differently than p eople with low self esteem. They conducted four studies which utilized various methods, including filling out questionnaires, performing an ego threatening task (control participants had an easy version of the task) followed by fake feedback regarding task performance, independent and interdependent primes, and a short structured interview. All four studies yielded several interesting results, including the finding that individuals with high self esteem became more independent following ego threat, Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 15

9 whereas those with low self esteem became more interdependent. Independence and interdependence were assessed by the participants’ self construals, which are “not so much evaluative in nature but rather reflect beliefs and philosophies about self as connected to o thers versus self as separate from others” (Vohs and Heatherton, 2001, p. 1107). In other words, independent self construals indicate a person’s idea of him or herself as separate from others, whereas interdependent self construals reflect a perceived con nection to others. Additionally, those with high self esteem tended to seek out competency feedback after they ha d been threatened, whereas those with low self esteem tended to seek out interpersonal feedback. In Study 3, participants were presented with e ither an independent prime (think about what makes them different from their friends and family), an interdependent prime (think about what they have in common with their friends and family), or a neutral prime (think about the path they will take to get h ome). Independent self construals “emphasize personal aspects of the self, such as personal goals, traits, and accomplishments” (Vohs & Heatheron, 2001, p. 1104) whereas interdependent self construals emphasize interpersonal aspects, such as relationships and group membership ; both types of primes elicited the kind of self construals they were after. Thus, it is not surprising that results revealed that receiving an independent prime was significantly related to lower likability scores, whereas receiving a n interdependent prime was significantly related to high likability scores (Vohs & Heatherton, 2001) Together, these converging results provided strong support for the notion that ego threats differentially affect high and low self esteem individuals on b oth the personal level (i.e., the individual’s self construals) and the interpersonal level (i.e., the extent to which others like the individual). Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 16

10 Interpreting those results from a sociometer perspective, one might consider the possibility that being soci ally excluded could act as a type of ego threat. Consi dering the findings of Vohs and Heatherton’s (2001) study, a sociometer theorist would conclude that i ndividuals with low self esteem exhibit their motivation to be socially included by looking for inte rpersonal feedback and making interdepend ent self construals, which lead others to perceive them with greater likability (i.e., social inclusion). Moreover, individuals with high self esteem tend to exhibit their motivation to be included by looking for co mpetency feedback and making independent self construal s, which ultimately lead others to perceive them as less likeable. Within the sociometer framework, this unsuccessful attempt by high self esteem individuals could be due to a lack of practice. In othe r words, individuals with high self esteem are generally socially included, so the motivational function of their sociometer has not been activated as much as it has for those with low self esteem — they are still motivated to be included, but they are unsur e of which techniques will yield the best result. This interpretation is consistent with Gardner et al.’s (2005) findings and conclusions regarding the motivations of lonely versus non lonely individuals. Moving on to evidence from studies that more d irec tly relat e to the present one some psychologists believe that individuals with low self esteem have more accurate perceptions of social interactions th an those with high self esteem; h owever, Campbell and Fehr (1990) did not find evidence to support this notion. They conducted two studies in which participants with high self esteem and low self esteem were put in various interaction pairs. After interacting for 15 minutes, participants completed questionnaires which included ratings of themselves and their partners, as well as predictions of how Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 17

11 their partners rated them. Regarding the predictions of their partners’ ratings, participants with low self esteem were significantly less accurate than those with high self esteem. Thus Campbell and Fehr (1990) co ncluded that these findings do not support the hypothesis that individuals with low self esteem are more accurate in interpersonal perception than those with high self esteem Conversely, Nezlek, Kowalski, Leary, Blevins, and Holgate (1997) did find evide nce to support this hypothesis. In Experiment 1, depressed and nondepressed participants were either included in or excluded from a group and were told that group membership was decided either randomly or on the basis of the group members’ ratings. Results showed that for depressed participants, perceived acceptance was only affected by inclusion/exclusion when it was based on the other participants’ ratings, not when the inclusion/exclusion was random. This pattern was not observed in nondepressed individu als — they felt less accepted in the exclusion condition, regardless of whether it was random or personal. These findings supported the notion that depressed individuals tend to have a more realistic perspective in these kinds of situations than nondepressed individuals. The participants in Experiment 2 were randomly assigned to experimental conditions without being analyzed for depression; the procedure was virtually identical to Experiment 1, with a few slight changes. The results of Experiment 2 revealed t hat participants with low self esteem perceived less acceptance/more rejection in the exclusion condition than those with high self esteem. Furthermore, the same pattern that was observed in the depressed/ nondepressed sample from Experiment 1 emerged in th e Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 18

12 normative sample from Experiment 2 : low self esteem individuals were more realistic than high self esteem individuals (Nezlek et al., 1997) C ontradictory findings are typically diff icult to interpret; there are many questions to ask. Were the participan ts in one study somehow fundamentally different from those in the other study? Did both studies report their reliability and validity statistics? Are the studies even comparable? The literature that addresses this issue of low self esteem individuals makin g more realistic or accurate judgments than high self esteem individuals has yet to reach a consensus. From the sociometer perspective, one would argue that it is a matter of the trait/state distinction. Individuals with low state self est eem would be moti vated to change that and would make more accurate judgments than those with high state self esteem. On the other hand, individuals who are low in trait self esteem would generally be more socially excluded, and would have fewer opportunities (i.e., less pr actice) to make such judgments, whereas those high in trait self esteem would exhibit the opposite pattern. Thus, in the case of trait self esteem, a sociometer theorist would predict that individuals with high self esteem would be more accurate or realist ic. Interpersonal Perception Essentially, interpersonal perception involves the interpretations one makes of o thers Like self esteem, this concept has been studied in various contexts and has been associated with a wide variety of variables. This section will begin with a discussion of the most commonly used measures of interpersonal perception, and will move on to describe studies that have used the Interpersonal Perception Task (IPT; Costanzo & Archer, 1993). Similarly to the brief review of the self est eem literature, some of the studies that will be presented did not directly examine the variables of interest, but such Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 19

13 studies serve as example s of how the measure can be used by researchers The IPT itself will be discussed in greater detail later. Amba dy, Hallahan, and Rosenthal (1995) examined differences between accuracy scores on two different measures of interpersonal perception: the Profile of Nonverbal Sensitivit y (PONS) and the IPT both of which involve answering questions about several short vi deo clips The PONS consists of 220 two second clips, each of which depicts an individual displaying a posed expression; on an answer sheet is a pair of behaviors accompanying each clip, and participants are asked to indicate in which behavior the individu al is engaging. To make the task shorter, this study used a brief version called the half PONS, which has 1 10 clips. The IPT consists of 30 video clips ranging from 20 to 60 seconds in lengt h. Each clip depicts an interaction between 1 to 4 people and a m ultiple choice question accompanies each clip For example, one clip depicts a man and a woman sitting in a park, talking. The question accompanying the clip asks which person is the other person’s boss. A shorter ver sion of the IPT was used in Ambady et a l.’s (1995) study, which consists of 15 clips. Small groups of participants completed several personality questionnaires, as well as the PONS and the IPT. Statistical analyses revealed that men performed significantly more accurately on the PONS than women whereas women performed significantly more accurately on the IPT than men. Several researchers have attempted to explain this gender difference — Horgan and Smith (2006) hypothesized that men and women have fundamentally different goals when they are inter acting with others. Participants in their study completed the IPT either with the prime that the task was developed to test social workers (feminine purpose goal) or that it was developed to test interrogators (masculine purpose goal); there was also a Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 20

14 con trol condition with no prime. Results revealed that for both genders, participants in the gender incongruent conditions (i.e., men in the feminine condition, women in the masculine condition) were marginally less accurate than those in gender congruent con ditions. Horgan and Smith (2006) pointed out that this difference was not due to improved accuracy in gender congruent conditions; rather, accuracy was diminished in gender incongruent conditions. Although the s tatistical analyses yielded marginally signif icant results, they concluded that differences in perceived purpose goals could partially account for differences in accuracy scores More recently, Smith and Lewis (2009) also examined the reasoning behind the gender difference in IPT scores. In two studi es, they found that affiliation motivation affects interpersonal perception skills in men. Study 1 involved participants recalling a rejection experience either from same sex or cross sex individuals, followed by completion of the IPT which was framed as either a “hunter task” (gender appropriate) or a “helper task” (gender inappropriate). Essentially, the participants in the gender appropriate group were told that the task was generated for hunters, which is stereotypically a masculine profession; those i n the gender inappropriate group were told that the task was created for those in the helping professions (e.g., social workers), which is stereotypically feminine. Statistical analyses revealed that men who recalled being rejected by other men performed b etter on the gender appropriate IPT than those who recalled being rejected by women. In Study 2, participants received fake feedback from a personality test which indicated either rejection or being accident prone (control). Additionally, the experimenter was either a man (in group) or a woman (out group), which helped with the Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 21

15 affiliation manipulation as well as the gender norm preference manipulation. Participants in Study 2 also completed both the DANVA2 AF and the IPT. A fter receiving rejection feedback men performed worse on the IPT and DANVA when a male experimenter derogated girly men (gender norm preference), compared to when a female experimenter did the same thing. This finding supported the notion that when the desire to affilia te was high (due t o rejection), participants assimilate d to the gender norm preference of the in group other. These results are consistent with sociometer theory: a fter being rejected, participants exhibited their motivation to be socially included by assimilating to th e id eas of their in group. R egardless of that finding, Smith ’s and Lewis’ (2009) study, as well as Horgan ’s and Smith’s (2006), point to the significance of context. Scores on the IPT in both studies were different across the priming conditions — it is certainly possible that the same pattern would emerge if the PONS was presented under different prime s as well. Considering that subtle differences in presentation can produce differences in scores, it seems rather difficult to compare the measures to each other. N onetheless, researchers continue to hypothesize about other possible explanation s for finding different scores across the measure s. One possibility might be that the measures themselves are fundamentally different, rather than the participants. Phillips, T unstall, and Channon (2007) conducted a study in which half of their participants completed the PONS, whereas the other half completed the IPT, both including differing levels of cognitive demand. Statistical analyses revealed that social cue decoding on t he IPT could be carried out despite a heavy load on attentional resources. On the other hand, accuracy on the PONS depended heavily on working memory. This finding is intriguing because it suggests the possibility that the PONS and Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 22

16 IPT may be measuring fun damentally different variables, and thus, may not even be comparable measures. Considering this possibility and the fact that the IPT is more directly of interest here, the PONS wi ll no longer be included in this discussion. One study that utilized the IPT in order to examine variables that are not directly related to the interests of the present study was conducted by P atterson and Stockbridge (1998), who examined the effects of cognitive demand on IPT scores. Half of the participants completed the IPT nor mally, whereas half of them completed the task with the video on mute. Additionally, half of the participants in each condition were told to look for specific nonverbal cues (e.g., facial expressions, posture), whereas half of them were told to base their decisions on their first impression. The final manipulation was the level of cognitive demand — in the low demand condition, participants did not receive any further instructions; in the high demand condition, participants were given a grocery list before be ginning the IPT and were asked to recall the list afterwards. Statistical tests revealed that under high cognitive demand, participants had higher accuracy scores on the IPT in the first impression condition than in the nonverbal cues condition. On the oth er hand, under low cognitive demand, participants had higher accuracy scores in the nonverbal cues condition than in the first impression condition. The methodology of this study points to the variety of ways in which the IPT has been manipulated to tap sp ecific phe nomena. Moving on to variables of more direct interest for the present study, Schroeder (1995) examined shyness and social anxiety in relation to accuracy scores on the IPT. Participants completed the IPT along with questionnaires which addressed shyness and sociability. Statistical analyses were conducted according to the five subscales of the IPT: Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 23

17 deception, kinship, competition, intimacy, and status. As such, statistical tests revealed significant negative correlations between shyness and (1) k inship, (2) competition, and (3) status. Significant positive correlations were also found between sociability and (1) competition and (2) status. Additionally, significant negative correlations emerged between social anxiety and (1) kinship, (2) intimacy, and (3) status. Together, these findings suggest that individuals who score high in shyness, as well as those who score high in social anxiety, tend to score low on the IPT. This is consistent with the earlier interpretation of the contradictory findings between Campbell and Fehr (1990) and Nezlek et al. (1997); individuals with low trait self esteem are less accurate judges of others than those with high trait self esteem. Overall, the literature on interpersonal perception has yielded several interesting findings, although it is clear from this brief review that more research in this area is necessary. The Present Study Based on the avai lable evidence the present study was conducted in order to test the hypothesis that individuals with high trait self e steem will have higher IPT scores than those with low trait self esteem (see Figure 1 for a flow chart of the present theoretical model) A s mentioned above, sociometer theory claims that individuals with high self esteem are more socially included than th ose with low self esteem. T his allows individuals with high self esteem to have more opportunities to interact with others than those with low self esteem. Having more opportunities for interaction gives those with high self esteem more practice reading ot hers, and over time, they become more accurate at making such judgments than individuals with low s elf esteem Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 24

18 T he general design of the study simply in volves the administration of the Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale, the IPT, the Perceived Social Inclusion/E xclusion Scale (which was generated from items on other existing scales) and the Emotional Sensitivity Subscale (ESS) of the Social Skills Inventory Method Participants Participants were 49 undergraduate students (19 males, 30 females) at a liberal arts college in the southeastern United States. They were recruited through a student email listserv and by word of mouth. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 24 years old ( M = 19.8 ) ; 39 participants (79.6 % of the sample) were Caucasian 8 participants ( 16.3 %) were Hispanic 3 participants (6.1%) were Asian, and 2 participants (4.1%) were African American Materials Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1979). This is a 10 item measure of trait self esteem th at has been widely used and validat ed in sev eral studies Some examples of items include “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself” and “At times I think I am no good at all ” the latter of which is reverse scored (see Appendix A ). Participants rated their responses on a four point scale (1 = stron gly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree); higher scores indicate higher levels of self esteem. Because this scale is so widely used, it is not surprising that it was reliable (Cronbach’s alpha = .91). Perceived Social Inclusion/Exclusion Scale ( PSIE; Leary et al. 1995; Leary et al. 2001) This 7 item sca le includes some items from the Inclusionary Status Scale Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 25

19 (Spivey, 1990), as well as some items from the Belonging subscale of the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (Cohen, Mermelste in, Kamarck, & Hoberman, 1985) Since the researcher did not have access to the original scales, the items that were selected were adapted from other sources (Leary et al., 1995; Leary et al., 2001). T his scale was generated in an attempt to tap into the p articipants’ level of perceived trait social inclusion/exclusion. One of the items from the Inclusionary Status Scale reads, “People often seek out my company.” One of the items from the Belonging subscale reads, “I don’t often get invited to do things wit h others” (see Appendix A ). The items in this scale were presented in a randomized order to all participants P articipants rated their responses on a 7 point scale (1 = not at all like me; 7 = very much like me) with higher scores indicating higher levels of perceived social inclusion. This scale demonstrated good reliability in the present sample (Cronbach’s alpha = .87). Emotional Sensitivity Subscale (ESS) of the Social Skills Inventory (Riggio, 1986). The ESS is a 15 item self report measure that asse sses the respondents’ perception of his or her social awareness. For example, one item on the scale is, “ When people are speaking, I spend as much time watching their movements as I do listening to them” (see Appendix A ). Similarly to the PSIE Scale, the i tems of this scale were presented in a randomized order. Participants rated their responses on a 5 point scale (1 = not at all like me; 5 = exactly like me). The ESS was also reliable (Cronbach’s alpha = .86). Interpersonal Perception Task 15 (IPT; Costanz o & Archer, 1993). The IPT is a videotape with 15 short scenes, ranging from about 20 to 60 seconds long, which depict one to four people interacting in several situations. The clips cover five different categories: kinship, deception, competition, status, and intimacy (there are three clips for Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 26

20 each category). Before each clip, a question is presented to the participants; after each clip, there is a 6 second pause to allow time for the participants to respond. For example, one scene in the status category depicts a man and a woman sitting down in a park having a conversation. The question accompanying this clip asks, “Which person is the other person’s boss?” (see Appendix B ). Higher accuracy scores (i.e., the number of questions correct out of 15) are indi cative of good interpersonal perception skills. Inter judge reliability on the IPT was reported high (.81) by Costanzo and Archer (1993b), which is indicative of high content validity. Additionally, the measure has h igh reported construct validity; this wa s determined by a study in which participants rated their peers and completed the IPT. Peer ratings and IPT scores were significantly correlated, which suggests that “performance on the IPT 15 is related to social skills important in everyday life” (Costan zo and Archer, 1993b, p. 5). Procedure Participants met the researcher in a lab ind ividually. After consenting to participate th ey completed the ESS, the Ros enberg Self Esteem Scale, and the PSIE Scale on a computer, as well as watched the IPT indicatin g their answers to the accompanying questions on an a nswer sheet which was provided for them. The order of the measures was as follows: ESS, Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale, PSIE Scale, and finally the IPT. However, the ESS was not included in the procedure at the beginning of the study. It was included in order to have both a self report measure of perceived interpersonal perception as well as a behavioral measure of interpersonal perception. As a result, the first ten participants did not complete the ESS, an d thus will not be included in any analyses of that measure. After completing the experiment, participants were given Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 27

21 their score on the IPT and then they were debriefed and compensated either with five dollars in cash, chocolate, a col orful permanent mar ker, or extra participation consideration in one of their classes. The types of compensation are varied because the method for recruiting participants changed (with IRB approval) after t he first few weeks of data collection Results Participants’ scores o n the Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale ranged from 16 to 40 ( M = 30.8; SD = 5.9) ; scores on the PSIE ranged from 13 to 48 ( M = 34.2; SD = 7.9); scores on the ESS ranged from 28 to 66 ( M = 47.5; SD = 10.3); finally, scores on the IPT ranged from 5 to 14 ( M = 9. 9; SD = 2.0). H igher self esteem was associated with higher IPT scores ( r = .29, p = .046) which supports the researcher’s hypothesis (See Table 1) Although no hypotheses were made regarding the relationship between the Self Esteem Scale and the ESS, ana lyses revealed that self esteem was not associated with self reported emotional sensitivity ( r = .15, p > .05). However, higher self esteem was associated with higher levels of perceived inclusion ( r = .55, p < .001), which supports sociometer theory. IPT scores were not associated with emotional sensitivity ( r = .21, p > .05), which is an unexpected finding, although no hypotheses were made regarding the relationship between these two measures of interpersonal perception. Additionally, IPT scores were not associated with perceived levels of inclusion; however, the correlation approached significance ( r = .25, p = .078). No significant gender differences emerged among any of the measures that were used Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 28

22 Discussion The current hypothesis, that higher self e steem would be associated with better interpersonal perceptivity, was supported in this study. Considering that the PSIE Scale was adapted by the researcher using existing measures the finding that the scale wa s highly reliable is important Additionally, the findings that self esteem was associated with perceived levels of inclusion, as well as with interpersonal perceptivity, are significant. The positive relationship between self esteem and perceived social inclusion supports the claims made by sociomet er theory. Furthermore, the positive relationship between self esteem and scores on the IPT supports the researcher’s hypothesis: participants with higher self esteem had better interpersonal perceptivity, based on their IPT scores, than their lower self e steem counterparts. Additionally, no significant gender differences were found among any of the measures. This finding is important because it suggests that gender does not play a role in participants’ scores, which is not what Ambady et al. (1995) found when comparing the IPT to the Profile of Nonverbal Sensitivity (PONS). However, it is important to note that this could be due to the small sample size. Interestingly, IPT scores were not correlated with responses on the ESS. This finding is unexpected, s ince both measures are meant to assess the same conceptual variable, but in different ways (the ESS is a self report measure of perceived interpersonal perceptivity, while the IPT is a behavior al measure of interpersonal perceptivity). Considering that the correlation was not even approaching significance, the researcher posits that perhaps people do not have a good sense of how interpersonally perceptive they are. Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 29

23 However, there were some limitations to the present study. The data was collected on a small liberal arts college campus, with a relatively homogenous student body (both ethnically and in their attitudes). Thus, this is not a generalizable sample. Additionally, the researcher did not have access to the full Perceived Inclusionary Status Scale, wh ich led to the generation of a new scale. Although the face validity and reliability of the new scale were high, it would have been better to have a scale that had been used and validated in previous research, like the other measures used in the present st udy. Finally, one other limitation of the study was that certain aspects of the study were changed after the first ten volunteers had a lready participated The recruitment motivation for the first ten participants was the choice of chocolate or a permanent marker, and it was then changed to either five dollars in cash or extra consideration on an evaluation for a n intermediate level psychology course. Also, the ESS was not included in the study until after the first ten volunteers had already participated. These slight changes did not affect the outcomes of the statistical analyses, although generally, one should keep everything consistent throughout the entirety of any study. In future research, it is recommend ed that experimenters collect data from a larg er, more diverse sample so that it is generalizable. Additionally, use of the PSIE Scale used in the present study should not cause any problems, now that its reliability has been tested. However, use of the full Perceived Inclusionary Status Scale is pref erred. Finally, the last suggestion is to keep one’s recruitment procedures and measures consistent across all participants. Now that trait self esteem has been shown to be related to interpersonal perceptivity, it would be interesting to see how the rela tionship between state self esteem Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 30

24 and interpersonal perceptivity differs. For instance, inducing inclusion or exclusion (e.g., Cyberball) could raise or lower state self esteem. Afterwards, participants could take the IPT and see how the scores differ. Pe rhaps those who experienced exclusion might even score higher than those who experienced inclusion because, according to sociometer theory, when our self esteem is lowered, we are motivated to return it to baseline. Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 31

25 References Ambady, N., Hallahan, M., & Rosenthal, R. (1995). On judging and being judged accurately in zero acquaintance situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69 (3), 518 529. doi:10.1037/0022 3514.69.3.518 Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117 (3), 497 529. doi:10.1037/0033 2909.117.3.497 Campbell, J. D., & Fehr, B. (1990). Self esteem and perceptions of conveyed impressions: Is negative affectivity asso ciated with greater realism? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58 (1), 122 133. doi:10.1037/0022 3514.58.1.122 Cohen, S., Mermelstein, R., Kamarck, T., & Hoberman, H. (1985). Measuring the functional components of social support. In I. G. Saraso n & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Social support: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 73 94). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff. Costanzo, M. & Archer, D. (1993 a ). The Interpersonal Perception Task 15 (IPT 15) [Videotape]. Berkeley: University of Ca lifornia Extension Media Center. Costanzo, M. & Archer, D. (1993b). The interpersonal perception task 15 (IPT 15): A guide for researchers and teachers Berkeley: University of California Extension Media Center. Denissen, J. J. A., Penke, L., Schmitt, D. P ., & van Aken, Marcel A. G. (2008). Self esteem reactions to social interactions: Evidence for sociometer mechanisms Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 32

26 across days, people, and nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95 (1), 181 196. doi:10.1037/0022 3514.95.1.181 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 (4), 486 496. doi:10.1177/ 0146167200266007 Gardner, W. L., Pickett C. L., Jefferis, V., & Knowles, M. (2005). On the outside looking in: Loneliness and social monitoring. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31 (11), 1549 1560. doi:10.1177/0146167205277208 Guay, F., Delisle, M., Fernet, C., Julien, ., & Sencal, C. (2008). Does task related identified regulation moderate the sociometer effect? A study of performance feedback, perceived inclusion, and state self esteem. Social Behavior and Personality, 36 (2), 239 254. doi:10.2224/sbp.2008.36.2.239 Horgan, T. G., & Smith, J. L. (2006). Interpersonal reasons for interpersonal perceptions: Gender incongruent purpose goals and nonverbal judgment accuracy. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30 (3), 127 140. doi:10.1007/s10919 006 0012 4 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 US: Academic Press. Leary, M. R., Cottrell, C. A., & Phillips, M. (2001). Deconfounding the effects of dominance and social acceptance on self esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (5), 898 909. doi:10.1037/0022 3514.81.5.898 Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 33

27 Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self esteem as an interpersonal monit or: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68 (3), 518 530. doi:10.1037/0022 3514.68.3.518 Nezlek, J. B., Kowalski, R. M., Leary, M. R., Blevins, T., & Holgate, S. (1997). Personality moderators of reactions to interpersona l rejection: Depression and trait self esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23 (12), 1235 1244. doi:10.1177/01461672972312001 Patterson, M. L., & Stockbridge, E. (1998). Effects of cognitive demand and judgment strategy on person perception a ccuracy. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 22 (4), 253 263. doi:10.1023/A:1022996522793 Phillips, L. H., Tunstall, M., & Channon, S. (2007). Exploring the role of working memory in dynamic social cue decoding using dual task methodology. Journal of Nonverbal B ehavior, 31 (2), 137 152. doi:1 0.1007/s10919 007 0026 6 Riggio, R. E. (1986). Assessment of basic social skills. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (3), 649 660. Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self New York: Basic Books. Schroeder, J. E. (1995). Self concept, social anxiety, and interpersonal perception skills. Personality and Individual Differences, 19 (6), 955 958. doi:10.1016/S0191 8869(95)00108 5 Smith, J. L., & Lewis, K. L. (2009). Men’s interpersonal (mis) perception: Fitting in with gender norms following social rejection. Sex Roles, 61 (3), 252 264. doi:10.1007/ s11199 009 9621 9 Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 34

28 Spivey, E. (1990). Social exclusion as a common factor in social anxiety, loneliness, jealousy, and social depression: Testing an integrative model. Unpubli shed master's thesis, Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, NC. Vohs, K. D., & Heatherton, T. F. (2001). Self esteem and threats to self: Implications for self construals and interpersonal perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (6), 1103 1118. doi:10.1037/0022 3514.81.6.1103 Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 35

29 Figure 1 Theoretical Model Sociometer Theory: the sociometer indicates to an individual his/her level of social inclusion. Claim: those with high self esteem are more socially included than those with low self esteem. Claim: humans are moti vated to keep their sociometer at the “included” level. Rationale: those who are more socially included have more interpersonal interactions, and thus, more practice making interpersonal judgments, than those who are less socially included. Prediction: i ndividuals with high self esteem will have higher IPT scores than those with low self esteem. Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 36

30 Table 1 Correlations Between all Measures RSE IPT ESS PSIE Pearson Correlation 1 .290* .150 .554** Sig. (2 tailed) .046 .362 .000 RSE N 49 48 39 49 Pearson Correlation .290* 1 .212 .257 Sig. (2 tailed) .046 .202 .078 IPT N 48 48 38 48 Pearson Correlation .150 .212 1 .287 Sig. (2 tailed) .362 .202 .076 ESS N 39 38 39 39 Pearson Correlation .554** .257 .287 1 Sig. (2 tailed) .000 .078 .076 PSIE N 49 48 39 49 Correlation is significant at the .05 level. ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level. RSE = Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale; IPT = Interpersonal Perception Task; ESS = Emotional Sensitivity Subscale of the S SI; PSIE = Perceived Social Inclusion/Exclusion Scale Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 37

31 Appendix A Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1979) Items marked with an asterisk are reverse scored. 1. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. 2. *At times I think I am no good at all. 3. I feel th at I have a number of good qualities. 4. I am able to do things as well as most other people. 5. *I feel I do not have much to be proud of. 6. *I certainly feel useless at times. 7. I feel that I’m a person of worth. 8. *I wish I could have more respect for myself. 9. *All in all, I am inclined to think that I am a failure. 10. I take a positive attitude toward myself. S trongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 38

32 Perceived Social Inclusion/Exclusion Scale (Leary et al., 1995; Leary et al., 2001) Items marked with an asterisk are reverse scored. 1. People often seek out my company. 2. *If I want to socialize with my friends, I am generally the one who must seek them out. 3. I feel welcome in social situations. 4. *I sometimes feel that other people avoid interacting with me. 5. When I feel lo nely, there are several people I could ca ll and talk to. 6. *I often feel like an outsider in social gatherings. 7. *I don’t often get invited to do things with others. Not at all like m e Neutral Very much like me • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 39

33 Emotional Sensitivity Subscale of the Social Skills Inventory (Riggio, 1986) Items marked with an asterisk are reverse scored. 1. *I dislike it when other people tell me their problems. 2. I sometimes cry at sad movies. 3. When people are speaking, I spend as much time watching their movements as I do listening to them. 4. I can spend hours just watching other people. 5. One of my greatest plea sures in life is being with other people. 6. When my friends are a ngry or upset, they seek me out to help calm them down. 7. I can accurately tell wh at a person’s character is upon first meeting him or her. 8. I always seem to know what people’s true feelings are n o matter how hard they try to conceal them. 9. I am easily able to gi ve a comforting hug or touch to someone who is distressed. 10. I can instantly s pot a “phony” the minute I meet him or her. N ot at all like me A little like me Like me Very much like me Exactly like me • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 40

34 11. I can easily tell what a pe rson’s character is by watching his or her interactions with others. 12. I am often told that I am a sensitive, understanding person. 13. Few people are as se nsitive and understanding as I am. 14. At parties, I can immediately tell when someone is i nterested in me. 15. I am interested in knowing what makes people tick. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 41

35 Appendix B Items Accompanying the Clips in the IPT (Costanzo & Archer, 1993) 1. Who is the child of the two adults? a. Only the little boy. b. Only the little girl. c. Neither the boy nor the girl is the child of the adults. 2. What is the relationship between t he man and the woman? a. They are lovers who have been together for about 10 months. b. They are lovers who have been together for about 3 years. 3. The two people in the next scene work together. Which person is the other person’s boss? a. The man in the boss. b. The wo man in the boss. 4. You will see the same woman in two separate scenes. Which is the lie and which is the truth? a. The first is a lie, the second is the truth. b. The first is the truth, the second is a lie. c. Both are lies. 5. Who won the game of one on one basketball ? a. The man on the left. b. The man on the right. Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 42

36 6. What is the relationship between the man and the woman? a. They are brother and sister. b. They are friends who have known each other for about three months. 7. In which scene is the woman talking to her boss? a. Only in the first scene. b. Only in the second scene. 8. Which man won the racquetball game? a. The man on the left. b. The man on the right. 9. Who are the women talking to? a. Both women are talking to strangers. b. Both women are talking to friends. c. The first woman is talking to a friend, the second woman is talking to a stranger. 10. Which is the lie and which is the truth? a. The first is a lie, the second is the truth. b. The first is the truth, the second is a lie. c. Both are lies. 11. The two people in the next scene work together. Which perso n is the other person’s boss? a. The man is the boss. b. The woman is the boss. Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )

PAGE 43

37 12. Which man won the fencing bout? a. The man on the left. b. The man on the right. 13. Who is the woman talking to on the phone? a. Her mother. b. A female friend. c. Her boyfriend. 14. Which man is the fat her of the two little boys? a. The man on the left. b. The man on the right. c. Neither man. 15. Which is the lie and which is the truth? a. The first is a lie, the second is the truth. b. The first is the truth, the second is a lie. c. Both are lies. Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer ( http://www.novapdf.com )


ERROR LOADING HTML FROM SOURCE (http://ncf.sobek.ufl.edu//design/skins/UFDC/html/footer_item.html)