Who can't take a compliment? The role of construal level and self-esteem in accepting positive feedback from close others
Introduction
Some people cannot take a compliment. Contrary to their intended effect, compliments make such people feel uncomfortable and evoke their pre-existing self-doubts. Failing to accept others' praise is especially problematic in close relationships, because exchanging compliments is a key means by which partners convey positive regard for one another, and feeling positively regarded by one's partner is an essential ingredient for relationship satisfaction (Murray, Bellavia, Rose, & Griffin, 2003). In the current research, we propose that people with low self-esteem (LSEs) are especially likely to have difficulty accepting compliments and that the reason why LSEs have this problem is that the positive information conveyed in a compliment is too discrepant from LSEs' self-theories. We also propose a solution to this problem, drawing on literature on the psychology of construal (e.g., Trope & Liberman, 2010), that may not only allow LSEs to accept compliments and feel better about themselves, but also to make their close relationships more fulfilling.
Section snippets
Self-esteem as a theory of one's relational value
Self-esteem can be conceptualized as a theory about the self (e.g., Conner Christensen et al., 2003, Epstein, 1973, Libby, L. K., et al., 2011, Story, 1998). That is, self-esteem comprises a set of organizing beliefs, knowledge, and expectations. A core belief that distinguishes the theories of high vs. low self-esteem individuals (HSEs and LSEs, respectively) is their perceived relational value. According to sociometer theory, self-esteem reflects one's subjective impression of one's worth or
Perceived regard, self-esteem, and relationship outcomes
Because LSEs assume that others hold the same relatively negative view of them that they hold themselves—a consequence of naïve realism (Murray, Holmes, MacDonald, & Ellsworth, 1998)—LSEs fail to recognize how positively their romantic partners see them (Murray, S. L., et al., 2001b, Murray, S. L., et al., 2000, Murray, S. L., et al., 2001a, Murray, S. L., et al., 1998). Murray, Holmes, and their colleagues have highlighted the costs of LSEs' unwarranted insecurity: LSEs defensively find more
Self-esteem and positive information
If low perceived regard leads to LSEs' maladaptive relationship responses, then boosting perceived regard should help LSEs in their relationships. What better way to do so than by their partners making direct and frequent compliments? Unfortunately, there is reason to believe compliments may not work. When LSEs receive success feedback, they feel more anxious not only than HSEs who receive identical success information, but surprisingly, also more anxious than control LSEs who receive no
Reducing the influence of self-theories to help LSEs benefit from compliments
How can this problem be solved? On the one hand, LSEs need to hear their partners' praise so they feel valued and stop pursuing destructive self-protection goals; on the other hand, LSEs' relatively unfavorable self-theories may block them from hearing their partners' praise. Somehow negative self-theories themselves must be blocked or circumvented. Theory and research on subjective construal suggests a way to accomplish this goal. According to several social cognition models, notably Construal
Study 1
Despite research suggesting that LSEs have more difficulty accepting positive information about themselves (e.g., Wood et al., 2009), much less research has examined the process of receiving positive feedback from partners in close relationships. In line with self-verification theory (e.g., Swann, 2012), we hypothesized that LSEs would report more concerns pertaining to their self-views than HSEs after receiving compliments from partners. Because compliments convey positive information, and
Study 2
If LSEs devalue compliments largely because of their self-concerns, then manipulations that reduce the extent to which people draw upon their self-theories should reduce self-esteem differences in how people receive compliments. Studies 2–4 test our hypothesis that LSEs are less able than HSEs to benefit from their partners' expressions of positive regard when they are interpreting that information in an abstract (vs. concrete) mindset. When recalling compliments, abstract mindsets should lead
Study 3
LSEs experience more self-concerns compared to HSEs after receiving compliments in general (Study 1) and in response to a particular remembered compliment. As predicted, LSEs were less likely to internalize the positive information conveyed by a compliment than HSEs when in an abstract mindset—but not when they were in a concrete mindset (Study 2). To further establish whether concrete (vs. abstract) mindsets benefit LSEs when thinking about positive relational information, we used a very
Study 4
Our self-verification perspective on compliments assumes that low self-esteem is associated with negative expectations about how others value the self and that those expectations regularly guide how people interpret and react to compliments. Indeed, LSEs (vs. HSEs) react less positively to favorable information in general (e.g., Study 1; Wood, J. V., et al., 2005, Wood, J. V., et al., 2009). Thus we expect that LSEs customarily interpret positive information through the prism of their negative
General discussion
People with low self-esteem have trouble accepting compliments from their partners. Across four studies, we showed that LSEs fail to internalize their partners' compliments because compliments conflict with their self-theory of low personal worth. After considering partner compliments, LSEs felt more self-uncertainty (Study 1) and felt less trust in their partners' regard (Studies 2–4) than their HSE counterparts. However, these self-esteem differences were diminished or eliminated when
References (55)
- et al.
The influence of abstract and concrete mindsets on anticipating and guiding others' self-regulatory efforts
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(2004) - et al.
Seeing oneself in one’s choices: Construal level and self-pertinence of electoral and consumer decisions
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(2008) - et al.
Self-Esteem
- et al.
The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory
- et al.
- et al.
Enhancing the pace of recovery: Differential effects of analyzing negative experiences from a self-distanced vs. self-immersed perspective on blood pressure reactivity
Psychological Science
(2008) - et al.
The thrill of victory, the complexity of defeat: Self-esteem and people’s emotional reactions to success and failure
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
(1995) - et al.
Acceptance is in the eye of the beholder: Self-esteem and motivated perceptions of acceptance from the opposite sex
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
(2010) - et al.
Managing motivational conflict: How self-esteem and executive resources influence self-regulatory responses to risk
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
(2012) - et al.
Remembering everyday experiences through the prism of self-esteem
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
(2003)
The self-concept revisited: Or a theory of a theory
American Psychologist
Construal levels and self-control
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Self-verification in clinical depression
Journal of Abnormal Psychology
Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis
Is there a universal need for positive self-regard?
Psychological Review
Trust in close relationships
Self-esteem and reactions to failure: The mediating role of overgeneralization
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Facilitating adaptive emotional analysis: Short-term and long-term outcomes distinguishing distanced-analysis of negative emotions from immersed-analysis and distraction
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
When asking "why" does not hurt: Distinguishing rumination from reflective processing of negative emotions
Psychological Science
Individual differences in trait self-esteem: A theoretical integration
Flexibility now, consistency later: Psychological distance and construal shape evaluative responding
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
“Walking on eggshells”: How expressing relationship insecurities perpetuates them
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Self-enhancement or self-coherence? Why people shift visual perspective in mental images of the personal past and future
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Here’s looking at me: The effect of memory perspective on assessments of personal change
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Seeing failure in your life: Imagery perspective determines whether self-esteem shapes reactions to recalled and imagined failure
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
More than words: Reframing compliments from romantic partners fosters security in low self-esteem individuals
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Framing memories of relationship transgressions: How visual imagery perspective activates relational knowledge
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
Cited by (27)
A truly responsive listener is a self-verifying listener
2023, Current Opinion in PsychologyUndersociality: miscalibrated social cognition can inhibit social connection
2022, Trends in Cognitive SciencesSelf-esteem, gender, and emotional contagion: What predicts people's proneness to “catch” the feelings of others?
2020, Personality and Individual DifferencesCitation Excerpt :Thus, surprisingly, women’s tendency to “catch” the sender’s positive emotion was driven solely by a negative affiliation motive. This somewhat paradoxical finding may be explained by LSE individuals’ over-sensitivity to rejection (Murray, Rose, Bellavia, Holmes & Kusche, 2002) and difficulties in accepting positive social feedback (Kille, Eibach, Wood & Holmes, 2017). Accordingly, even in a social interaction that seems intrinsically positive (a sender is smiling), LSE women’s responses might be dominated by their negative interpretations.
Factors affecting willingness to contribute goods and services on social media
2019, Social Science JournalHow was your day? Conveying care, but under the radar, for people lower in trust
2019, Journal of Experimental Social PsychologyCitation Excerpt :Participants were between 18 and 66 years of age (M = 32.14, SD = 9.97). Participants first completed a measure of trust that combined several items from measures used in previous research: Rempel et al.'s (1985) Trust in Close Relationships scale, Reis, Maniaci, Caprariello, Eastwick, and Finkel's (2011) Perceived Partner Responsiveness scale, Kille et al.'s (2017) Perceived Regard scale, and Murray et al.'s (2009) Trust scale. In previous research, each scale has been shown to have meaningful associations with relevant outcomes, such as relationship satisfaction, commitment, love, and happiness (e.g., Marigold et al., 2014; Rempel et al., 1985; Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998).
Virtual agents that flatter you: Moderating effects of self-esteem and customization target in e-customization services
2024, Psychology and Marketing