Can thinking about responsive relationships increase openness to failure? Study 1 tested whether subliminally priming responsiveness would increase accessibility of words associated with a failed intelligence test. Compared to participants primed with acquaintances or nonsense letters, participants primed with responsive partners were quicker to recognize words associated with failure and did so more accurately, suggesting lesser defensiveness. Study 2 tested whether supraliminally priming responsiveness would decrease self-handicapping on a difficult and potentially embarrassing task. Compared to participants who thought about friends or acquaintances, participants who thought about responsive relationships claimed less external interference with their abilities. These findings indicate that relationships characterized by understanding and validation may promote nondefensive reactions to real or potential failure.
BaldwinM. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461–484.
2.
BaldwinM. W. (1994). Primed relational schemas as a source of self-evaluative reactions. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13, 380–403.
3.
BaldwinM. W.HolmesJ. G. (1987). Salient private audiences and awareness of the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1087–1098.
4.
BarghJ. A.ChartrandT. L. (2000). The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In ReisH. T.JuddC. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 253–285). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BowdenE. M.Jung-BeemanM. J. (2003). Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 634–639.
6.
CanevelloA.CrockerJ. (2010). Creating good relationships: Responsiveness, relationship quality, and interpersonal goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 78–106.
7.
CarverC. S.ScheierM. F. (2005). Engagement, disengagement, coping, and catastrophe. In ElliotA. J.DweckC. S. (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 527–547). New York, NY: Guilford.
8.
ChartrandT. L.BarghJ. A. (1996). Automatic activation of impression formation and memorization goals: Nonconscious goal priming reproduces effects of explicit task instructions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 464–478.
9.
ChartrandT. L.ChengC. M.DaltonA. N.TesserA. (in press). Consequences of failure at nonconscious goals for self-enhancement. Social Cognition.
10.
CreswellJ. D.LamS.StantonA. L.TaylorS. E.BowerJ. E.ShermanD. K. (2007). Does self-affirmation, cognitive processing, or discovery of meaning explain cancer-related health benefits of expressive writing?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 238–251.
11.
CrockerJ.NiiyaY.MischkowskiD. (2008). Why does writing about important values reduce defensiveness? Self-affirmation and the role of positive other-directed feelings. Psychological Science, 19, 740–747.
12.
CrockerJ.ParkL. E. (2004). The costly pursuit of self-esteem. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 392–414.
13.
DavisK.ToddM. (1985). Assessing friendship: Prototypes, paradigm cases, and relationship description. In DuckS. W.PerlmanD. (Eds.), Understanding personal relationships: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 17–38). London, UK: Sage.
14.
DrigotasS. M.RusbultC. E.WieselquistJ.WhittonS. W. (1999). Close partner as sculptor of the ideal self: Behavioral affirmation and the Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 293–323.
15.
FeeneyB. C. (2007). The dependency paradox in close relationships: Accepting dependence promotes independence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 268–285.
16.
FeickD. L.RhodewaltF. (1997). The double-edged sword of self-handicapping: Augmenting success and discounting failure. Motivation and Emotion, 21, 145–161.
17.
FiskeS. T.TaylorS. E. (2008). Social cognition: From brains to culture. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
18.
GableS. L.ReisH. T. (2006). Intimacy and the self: An iterative model of the self and close relationships. In NollerP.FeeneyJ. A. (Eds.), Close relationships: Functions, forms, and processes (pp. 211–225). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
19.
GoschkeT.KuhlJ. (1993). Representations of intentions: Persisting activation in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1211–1226.
20.
GreenD. M.SwetsJ. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York, NY: John Wiley.
21.
KirschbaumC.PirkeK. M.HellhammerD. H. (1993). The Trier social stress test: A tool for investigating psychobiological stress responses in a laboratory setting. Neuropsychobiology, 28, 76–81.
22.
KlingerE. (1975). Consequences of commitment to and disengagement from incentives. Psychological Review, 112, 219–227.
23.
KumashiroM.SedikidesC. (2005). Taking on board liability-focused information: Close positive relationships as a self-bolstering resource. Psychological Science, 16, 732–739.
24.
LaurenceauJ.BarrettL. F.PietromonacoP. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1238–1251.
25.
LearyM. R.BaumeisterR. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–62). Vol. 32, San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
26.
LibermanN.ForsterJ.HigginsE. T. (2005). Completed vs. interrupted priming: Reduced accessibility from post-fulfillment inhibition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 258–264.
27.
LinvilleP. W. (1985). Self-complexity and affective extremity: Don’t put all of your eggs in one cognitive basket. Social Cognition, 3, 94–120.
28.
MacMillanN. A.CreelmanC. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user’s guide. 2nd ed.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
MaiselN. C.GableS. L.StrachmanA. (2008). Responsive behaviors in good times and in bad. Personal Relationships, 15, 317–338.
30.
McCreaS. M. (2008). Self-handicapping, excuse-making, and counterfactual thinking: Consequences for self-esteem and future motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 274–292.
31.
McCreaS. M.HirtE. R. (2001). The role of ability judgments in self-handicapping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1378–1389.
32.
MikulincerM.ShaverP. R. (2001). Attachment theory and intergroup bias: Evidence that priming the secure base schema attenuates negative reactions to out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 97–115.
33.
MikulincerM.ShaverP. R. (2007). Boosting attachment security to promote mental health, prosocial values, and inter-group tolerance. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 139–156.
34.
MikulincerM.ShaverP. R.GillathO.NitzbergR. E. (2005). Attachment, caregiving, and altruism: Boosting attachment security increases compassion and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 817–839.
35.
ParkL. E.CrockerJ.KieferA. K. (2007). Contingencies of self-worth, academic failure, and goal pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1503–1517.
36.
ParkL. E.ManerJ. K. (2009). Does self-threat promote social connection? The role of self-esteem and contingencies of self-worth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 203–217.
37.
PierceT.LydonJ. (1998). Priming relational schemas: Effects of contextually activated and chronically accessible interpersonal expectations on responses to a stressful event. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1441–1448.
38.
ReisH. T.ClarkM. S.HolmesJ. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In MashekD. J.AronA. P. (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
ReisH. T.PatrickB. C. (1996). Attachment and intimacy: Component processes. In HigginsE. T.KruglanskiA. W. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 523–563). New York, NY: Guilford.
40.
ReisH. T.ShaverP. R. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In DuckS. (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367–389). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
41.
RhodewaltR.VohsK. D. (2005). Defensive strategies, motivation, and the self: A self-regulatory process view. In ElliotA. J.DweckC. S. (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 527–547). New York, NY: Guilford.
42.
SchimelJ.ArndtJ.BankoK. M.CookA. (2004). Not all self-affirmations were created equal: The cognitive and social benefits of affirming the intrinsic vs. extrinsic self. Social Cognition, 22, 75–99.
43.
SedikidesC.StrubeM. J. (1997). Self-evaluation: To thine own self be good, to thine own self be sure, to thine own self be true, and to thine own self be better. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 209–269). Vol. 29, San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
44.
StrubeM. J. (1986). An analysis of the self-handicapping scale. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 211–224.
45.
TesserA. (2000). On the confluence of self-esteem maintenance mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 290–299.
46.
WhitneyP. (1998). The psychology of language. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
