Who can't take a compliment? The role of construal level and self-esteem in accepting positive feedback from close others

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.05.003Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We show that people with low self-esteem (LSEs) have difficulty accepting and capitalizing on compliments.

  • Drawing on mental construal theories, we propose and test an intervention to help LSEs accept compliments.

  • When LSEs are not thinking about a compliment in relation to their relatively negative self-theories (in a concrete mindset), they capitalize on compliments.

  • When LSEs are thinking about a compliment in the context of their self-theories (in an abstract mindset), they fail to capitalize on compliments.

Abstract

One way that relationship partners express positive regard — a key variable in relationship success — is through compliments. However, some people are unable to perceive positive regard through compliments. We hypothesized that low self-esteem (LSE) individuals' relatively negative self-theories conflict with the positive information conveyed in compliments. Hence, LSEs' self-verification motives (e.g., Swann, 1997, 2012) may lead LSEs to reject the positive implications of compliments. In an initial study, we demonstrated that LSEs (vs. high self-esteem individuals; HSEs) feel greater self-related concerns and negative affect after receiving compliments, which leads them to devalue those compliments. Drawing on theories of mental construal (e.g., Libby, Valenti, Pfent, & Eibach, 2011), we reasoned that the remedy for such self-theory-driven processes is to adopt a concrete (vs. abstract) mindset: LSEs should be less likely to apply their relatively negative self-theories when they process compliments in a concrete mindset. Across three studies, we used diverse methods to induce participants to experience either a concrete or abstract mindset, and asked them to recall (Studies 2 and 3) or imagine (Study 4) a partner's compliment. We then assessed their perceptions of their partners' regard. Results confirmed that the discrepancy in LSEs' and HSEs' perceptions of positive regard following a compliment from their romantic partners was significantly reduced when a concrete mindset was induced compared to when an abstract mindset (or no mindset, Study 4) was induced.

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)

  • S. Epstein

    The self-concept revisited: Or a theory of a theory

    American Psychologist

    (1973)
  • K. Fujita et al.

    Construal levels and self-control

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (2006)
  • R.B. Giesler et al.

    Self-verification in clinical depression

    Journal of Abnormal Psychology

    (1996)
  • A.F. Hayes

    Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis

    (2013)
  • S.J. Heine et al.

    Is there a universal need for positive self-regard?

    Psychological Review

    (1999)
  • J.G. Holmes et al.

    Trust in close relationships

  • M.H. Kernis et al.

    Self-esteem and reactions to failure: The mediating role of overgeneralization

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1989)
  • E. Kross et al.

    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

    (2008)
  • E. Kross et al.

    When asking "why" does not hurt: Distinguishing rumination from reflective processing of negative emotions

    Psychological Science

    (2005)
  • M.R. Leary et al.

    Individual differences in trait self-esteem: A theoretical integration

  • A. Ledgerwood et al.

    Flexibility now, consistency later: Psychological distance and construal shape evaluative responding

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (2010)
  • E.P. Lemay et al.

    “Walking on eggshells”: How expressing relationship insecurities perpetuates them

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (2008)
  • L.K. Libby et al.

    Self-enhancement or self-coherence? Why people shift visual perspective in mental images of the personal past and future

    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

    (2011)
  • L.K. Libby et al.

    Here’s looking at me: The effect of memory perspective on assessments of personal change

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (2005)
  • L.K. Libby et al.

    Seeing failure in your life: Imagery perspective determines whether self-esteem shapes reactions to recalled and imagined failure

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (2011)
  • D.C. Marigold et al.

    More than words: Reframing compliments from romantic partners fosters security in low self-esteem individuals

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (2007)
  • D. Marigold et al.

    Framing memories of relationship transgressions: How visual imagery perspective activates relational knowledge

    Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

    (2014)
  • Cited by (27)

    • Self-esteem, gender, and emotional contagion: What predicts people's proneness to “catch” the feelings of others?

      2020, Personality and Individual Differences
      Citation 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.

    • How was your day? Conveying care, but under the radar, for people lower in trust

      2019, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
      Citation 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).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text