Perceiving and Wanting to Be Valued by Others: Implications for Cognition, Motivation, and Behavior in Romantic Relationships

Journal of Personality ••:••, •• 2014 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

DOI: 10.1111/jopy.12122

Edward P. Lemay Jr.1 and Kerry Spongberg2 1

University of Maryland, College Park University of New Hampshire

2

Abstract Two studies examined implications of two individual differences—perception of being valued by others and desire to be valued by others—for romantic relationships. Study 1 included 171 participants involved in romantic relationships (59 males, 112 females) and examined attributions and behavioral intentions in hypothetical scenarios. Study 2 involved 160 heterosexual couples who completed daily reports and/or an observed conflict discussion. Perception of being valued by others and desire to be valued by others independently predicted more pro-relationship responses and reduced relationship-destructive responses, including more care, commitment, and regard for partners; more responsive and ingratiating behavior; less negative behavior; and more positive perceptions and behavioral intentions. Perceived and desired interpersonal value were related to attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance, and trait self-esteem. However, perceived and desired interpersonal value were superior predictors of relationship outcomes, even in replications of foundational attachment studies. Individual differences in believing that one is valued by others and wanting to be valued by others independently predict relationship maintenance, and these dimensions may be at the core of many effects of attachment dimensions and self-esteem. These individual differences appear to be important aspects of personality that guide cognition, motivation, and behavior in interpersonal relationships.

High-quality relationships involve care, positive regard, and commitment, and people feel satisfied in their relationships and enact pro-relationship behaviors when they tend to believe that they are valued by others in these ways (Clark & Lemay, 2010; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Murray, Holmes, & Collins, 2006; Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004). However, most of this research measures and emphasizes perceptions of being valued rather than motivations to be valued. This is a curious omission, as interpersonal relationships may be independently shaped by both cognitive and motivational dispositions : both what people tend to perceive and what they tend to want and strive for. In this spirit, the current research is the first to examine the role of two related personality dispositions—the tendency to perceive that one is valued by others and the desire to be valued by others—in shaping cognition, motivation, and behavior in romantic relationships. The current research also examines relations of these personality dimensions with attachment dimensions and trait self-esteem. We contend that perceived and desired interpersonal value may often be superior predictors of relationship phenomena relative to attachment insecurity and self-esteem, may explain effects of attachment insecurity and self-esteem, and may resolve ambiguities in attachment and self-esteem literatures.

Perceiving and Wanting to Be Valued by Others Relationship quality is heavily dependent on perceptions of being valued by partners, including perceptions that partners care for one’s welfare and respond supportively to one’s needs (Clark & Lemay, 2010; Lemay, Clark, & Feeney, 2007; Reis et al., 2004), that partners have positive regard (Murray, Bellavia, Rose, & Griffin, 2003; Reis et al., 2004), that partners value and are committed to relationships with the self (Leary & Baumeister, 2000; Wieselquist, Rusbult, Foster, & Agnew, 1999), and that partners will not abandon the self (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Although each of these constructs has nuanced distinctions, they may capture different facets of the same global personality construct, reflecting the perception that one is a valued close relationship partner. Prior research has revealed strong associations between perceptions of partners’ care, regard, and commitment (Lemay & Neal,

We thank Nancy Collins for providing the vignette measures used in Study 1. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Edward P. Lemay Jr., Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742. Email: [email protected].

2

2013), suggesting that these variables may indeed reflect different facets of a single global construct. The current research examines individual differences in this broad dimension. People who are high on perceived interpersonal value tend to believe that their relationship partners have these prorelationship sentiments and motivations toward the self, whereas those who are low believe that partners have negative sentiments and lack pro-relationship motivation. The current research examines implications of this personality dimension for romantic relationships. Chronic beliefs about one’s value to others may be generalized onto particular relationships and may bias attention, interpretation, and memory in those relationships. Through these processes, people who generally perceive that they are valued by others may tend to believe that specific relationship partners have positive sentiments toward them, whereas people who generally believe that they are not valued by others may believe that specific partners have negative sentiments. These processes may operate independently of partners’ actual sentiments. A number of studies provide evidence for this type of bias. People who are low in self-esteem, who have doubts about their value as a partner (Leary & Baumeister, 2000), tend to underestimate their romantic partner’s regard for them (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 2000). Likewise, people who are high in attachment anxiety, who fear rejection and abandonment (Hazan & Shaver, 1987), tend to lack trust in their partner’s care and commitment (Mikulincer, 1998; Simpson, 1990). Yet, as reviewed below, attachment anxiety and selfesteem may not be optimal indicators of perceptions of being valued by others. Chronic perceptions of interpersonal value also may shape other cognitions, motivation, and behavior in relationships. People who doubt their partner’s care, regard, or commitment tend to withdraw their own commitment and care and diminish the importance of the partner and relationship, perhaps to protect themselves from the pain of rejection (Murray et al., 2006). Moreover, people who doubt their partner’s care, regard, or commitment tend to engage in cold, selfish, and neglectful behaviors (Murray et al., 2003; Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996). In contrast, people have pro-relationship motivations and enact pro-relationship behaviors when they have confidence in their partner’s care, regard, and commitment (Murray et al., 2006). Hence, people’s chronic beliefs regarding the extent to which they are valued by others may shape their sentiments and behaviors toward specific partners. Individual differences also may exist in the desire to be valued. People who are high on this desire dimension strongly want to be the recipients of others’ care, affection, admiration, and commitment. People who are low on this dimension lack these desires. Consistent with distinctions between motivation and cognition, desire to be valued is a conceptually distinct dimension of personality relative to perceptions of being valued, although their unique effects on specific relationships have not been examined. Desire to be valued may trigger

Lemay & Spongberg

wishful thinking in relationships. Perceptions of relationships are biased by perceivers’ goals (Murray, 1999). Motivated perceivers tend to distort perceptions of partners and relationships in favor of desired conclusions (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996; Rusbult, Lange, Wildschut, Yovetich, & Verette, 2000). For instance, people who strongly want relationships with particular partners have positively biased views and memories of the partners’ care, commitment, and supportive behaviors (Lemay et al., 2007; Lemay & Neal, 2013). In the current research, this logic is extended to individual differences in the desire to be valued by others. As a form of motivated cognition or wishful thinking, people who have a strong desire to be valued by others in general may have positively biased perceptions of specific partners’ sentiments and may make more trust-preserving interpretations of specific partners’ behavior. In addition, people who desire to be valued by others may adopt pro-relationship motivations, enact prorelationship behaviors, and refrain from destructive behaviors with the expectation that, through social reciprocity, this approach will ultimately cause them to receive the positive sentiments they desire. Moreover, the desire to be valued may promote dependence on others (i.e., for approval), which should foster relationship commitment and pro-social behavior (Drigotas & Rusbult, 1992; Rusbult, 1983).

Relation to Other Individual Difference Approaches The current research examined whether effects of perceived and desired interpersonal value on relationships could be explained by attachment dimensions and self-esteem or, conversely, whether effects of these other individual difference variables could be explained by perceived and desired interpersonal value. Attachment anxiety, which is a personality disposition characterized by chronic worries of abandonment and rejection by close partners (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Hazan & Shaver, 1987), is often examined as a predictor of interpersonal processes. We propose that attachment anxiety represents a blend of low perceptions of being valued by others and high desire to be valued. People may develop attachment anxiety because they have doubts about receiving something they strongly desire: love and care from others. This conceptualization is consistent with theoretical models proposing that social anxiety arises when people want to make a particular impression on others but believe that others may not form this impression (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Moreover, items in popular measures of attachment anxiety indicate confounding of perceived devaluation and high desire (e.g., “I find that partners don’t want to get as close as I would like”; Brennan et al., 1998; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Other items assess “concern” or “worry” about being rejected or abandoned, which would seem to arise only if people strongly wanted to avoid rejection and abandonment, but thought rejection and

Perceiving and Wanting to Be Valued

abandonment were likely. Indeed, negative emotional states, including anxiety, arise primarily when an event is perceived to threaten an important goal (Cantor et al., 1991; Lavallee & Campbell, 1995; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984)—that is, when people both desire an outcome and believe the outcome may not be forthcoming. Attachment anxiety may sometimes be a weak predictor of relationship outcomes because these two components can have countervailing effects. That is, highly desiring to be valued by others may result in pro-relationship perceptions, motivations, and behaviors, whereas believing that one is not valued may result in more relationship-destructive responses. These two effects may cancel each other out, producing a weak overall effect of anxiety. Indeed, the literature provides many examples of weak and mixed effects. In some investigations, anxiety was not related to conflict behavior or perceptions of support (Campbell, Simpson, Boldry, & Kashy, 2005), compassion and helping (Mikulincer, Shaver, Gillath, & Nitzberg, 2005; Pietromonaco & Barrett, 1997), or support provision (Simpson, Rholes, Orina, & Grich, 2002). In addition, attachment anxiety was associated with having both more positive and negative attitudes toward romantic partners (Mikulincer, Shaver, Bar-On, & Ein-Dor, 2010) and with a mix of both cooperative and selfish behavior during social dilemmas (McClure, Bartz, & Lydon, 2013). Moreover, attachment anxiety predicted reduced commitment via doubts about the partner’s regard, but it also predicted greater commitment via perceived dependence on the partner, producing a null total effect of anxiety on commitment (Joel, MacDonald, & Shimotomai, 2011). These weak and mixed effects of anxiety may be due to the countervailing effects of high desire to be valued and low perceptions of being valued. Thus, direct measurement of these two components may be more useful for predicting important relationship outcomes. Attachment avoidance, the other personality/insecurity dimension that is frequently examined in the adult attachment literature (Brennan et al., 1998; Hazan & Shaver, 1987), is characterized by discomfort with intimacy. Like attachment anxiety, we propose that perceived devaluation also contributes to attachment avoidance. That is, people develop discomfort with intimacy, in part, because they have difficulty believing that they are cared for by their partners. Furthermore, this perceived devaluation component of attachment avoidance may explain findings suggesting that avoidant individuals do not trust their partners (Collins & Read, 1990; Simpson, 1990) and, in turn, why they have more negative sentiments toward their partners and behave in less supportive ways (Simpson, 1990; Simpson et al., 1996). We expect that anxiety and avoidance diverge, however, with regard to desire to be valued by others. Whereas anxiety may be characterized by high desire, avoidance may be characterized by low desire. Avoidant individuals’ discomfort with intimacy may be the consequence of both lack of trust in others’ responsiveness and lack of desire for intimate relationships, including lack of desire to receive care, admiration, or

3

support from others. However, we expect that desire to be valued will predict relationship outcomes independently of, and more strongly than, avoidance. Relative to the discomfort captured by avoidance, desire seems more straightforwardly relevant to motivation, and therefore it may be more predictive of cognition and behavior within relationships. Furthermore, avoidance may predict relationship outcomes because it is correlated with desire. Trait self-esteem is another aspect of personality that is often examined as a predictor of interpersonal trust and prorelationship motivation. As stated earlier, low self-esteem individuals underestimate their partner’s regard for them, and this appears to cause them to devalue their partners and relationships (Murray et al., 2000). Chronic perceptions of being devalued by others may explain why such individuals have these relationship doubts. Relative to high self-esteem individuals, those with low self-esteem tend to believe that they are less valued by others (Leary & Baumeister, 2000), which may cause them to infer that romantic partners have negative sentiments toward them (Murray et al., 2000). However, selfesteem is not a direct indicator of perceived interpersonal value, and some variance in self-esteem may be due to factors that are largely irrelevant to interpersonal relationships (e.g., self-efficacy in achievement domains). Hence, a direct measure of perceived interpersonal value may be a more powerful predictor of interpersonal processes and may explain effects of self-esteem on specific relationships.

Development of Measures of Perceived and Desired Interpersonal Value A preliminary study was conducted to select items for the measures of perceived and desired interpersonal value that were used in the current research. A large community sample of participants across the continental United States (recruited from advertisements on Internet bulletin boards and through Amazon Mechanical Turk; N = 1,732) completed a pool of candidate items. Several items were adapted from existing scales assessing communal orientation (Clark, Ouellette, Powell, & Milberg, 1987), attachment insecurity (Collins & Read, 1990; Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000; Simpson, 1990), social anxiety (Leary, 1983), need to belong (Leary, Kelly, Cottrell, & Schreindorfer, 2012), perceived partner responsiveness (Reis, Maniaci, Caprariello, Eastwick, & Finkel, 2011), trust (Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985), and commitment (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998). Items were modified to assess individual differences and to assess only perceived or desired interpersonal value (rather than both constructs simultaneously). Additional items were written by the authors. Items were selected using factor-analytic and correlational techniques on a random half of the sample. Item selection was guided by desires to (a) measure several facets of interpersonal value (e.g., care, commitment, positive regard), (b) select items that loaded highly on intended factors with low cross-loadings,

4

Lemay & Spongberg

Table 1 Items Assessing Perceived Interpersonal Value

Item People value their relationships with me People are generally warm and affectionate toward me Most of the time, other people seem to like and accept me My close partners will be there for me no matter what difficulties lie ahead I could easily find support from others if I needed it People I know have positive esteem for me, despite my shortcomings Other people do not care about me People tend to have negative impressions of me In the future, my close partners are likely to abandon me Most of my close partners seem bored or annoyed with me Other people are reluctant to get close with me My close relationship partners could easily forget about my needs

Table 2 Items Assessing Desire for Interpersonal Value Standardized Loading .75 .70 .70 .79 .67 .67 −.60 −.54 −.58 −.55 −.51 −.51

Note. All loadings were statistically significant, ps < .001.

(c) select an approximately equal number of items for each construct, and (d) select an approximately equal number of positively and negatively worded items. In a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), items intended to measure perceived interpersonal value loaded highly on a perceived interpersonal value factor, items intended to measure desired interpersonal value loaded highly on a desired interpersonal value factor, and no item had a significant cross-loading on the other factor. Additional CFAs suggested that this model generalized to the second half of the data, both in terms of factor structure and in terms of the size of loadings. Furthermore, this model fit the data significantly better than a model forcing all items to load on the same factor, χ2(1) = 563.57, p < .001, suggesting that perceived and desired value were distinct constructs. Items and standardized factor loadings are provided in Table 1 (perceived interpersonal value) and Table 2 (desire for interpersonal value). A subsequent study involving 387 undergraduate students demonstrated adequate 2-week test-retest reliability, perceived interpersonal value r(325) = .75, p < .001; desired interpersonal value r(324) = .67, p < .001, suggesting that these variables are relatively stable components of personality.

Overview Our predictions are depicted in Figure 1. Paths A and B illustrate the prediction that perceived and desired interpersonal value will uniquely predict more pro-relationship cognition, motivation, and behavior (and reduced relationship-destructive cognition, motivation, and behavior). Perceived and desired interpersonal value also may predict attachment anxiety and avoidance, with the experience of anxiety resulting from a

Item I very much want to be loved by other people Being accepted and valued by others is important to me It bothers me when people seem cold or distant around me I want people to seek out my company I would not care if other people left me I am not interested in being supported by others I would not care very much if people I know terminated their relationships with me Receiving affection is unimportant to me If other people wanted to keep a distance from me, I would not care I do not need to receive care from others When I have a need that others ignore, I’m hurt

Standardized Loading .76 .74 .63 .63 −.62 −.57 −.57 −.56 −.57 −.52 .52

Note. All loadings were statistically significant, ps < .001.

blend of low perceived interpersonal value (Path C) and high desire to be valued (Path D), and avoidance resulting from a blend of low perceived interpersonal value (Path E) and low desire (Path F). In addition, perceived interpersonal value may predict higher self-esteem (Path G). However, perceived and desired value are expected to predict relationship outcomes independently of attachment and self-esteem variables, and they may function as third variables that explain why attachment dimensions and trait self-esteem are associated with cognitions, motivations, and behaviors in relationships. Study 1 is an extension of research examining effects of attachment insecurity on attributions and behavioral intentions (Collins, 1996; Collins, Ford, Guichard, & Allard, 2006). In Study 2a, predictions are tested using daily romantic interactions. Study 2b is an extension of research examining attachment differences in conflict behaviors (Simpson et al., 1996).

STUDY 1 In Study 1, the model depicted in Figure 1 was tested in an extension of classic attachment research (Collins, 1996; Collins et al., 2006) examining associations between attachment dimensions, attributions, and behavioral intentions in hypothetical situations.

Method Participants. A sample of 171 college students involved in romantic relationships (59 males, 112 females; Mage = 19.32 years, SD = 2.77) completed the study in exchange for course credit. Measures Perceived and Desired Interpersonal Value. Participants completed the 12-item Perceived Interpersonal Value Scale

Perceiving and Wanting to Be Valued

5

C-

Attachment Anxiety D+ Attachment EAvoidance F-

Perceived Interpersonal Value

A+ Pro-Relationship Cognition, Motivation, and Behavior

B+ Desire for Interpersonal Value G+

Trait Self-Esteem

Figure 1 Conceptual model guiding the current research. Effects represented by dashed lines are expected to be weak or nonsignificant once perceived and desired interpersonal value are controlled.

(α = .85) and the 11-item Desire for Interpersonal Value Scale (α = .80). Negatively worded items were reverse-scored so higher values indicate more positive perceptions and greater desire, respectively. To be consistent with the attachment measure, participants completed the items with regard to emotionally intimate relationships using 9-point response scales (1 = extremely disagree; 9 = extremely agree). Attachment Anxiety. Using the same response scales, participants completed the revised version of the Experiences in Close Relationships Questionnaire (Fraley et al., 2000) to assess attachment anxiety (α = .92) and attachment avoidance (α = .92) in intimate relationships. Self-Esteem. Participants completed the Rosenberg SelfEsteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965; α = .88) using a 7-point response scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). Responses to Negative Events. Participants read four vignettes featuring partners’ unresponsive behaviors (i.e., the partner didn’t want to cuddle, did not provide comfort, wanted to spend the evening alone, and left the participant standing alone at a party). The vignettes and accompanying items were used in prior attachment research (Collins, 1996; Collins et al., 2006). Relationship-threatening interpretations. Using a 7-point response scale (1 = not at all likely; 7 = extremely likely), participants indicated their agreement with three explanations of their partner’s behavior centering on the partner’s negative thoughts or feelings about the participant (e.g., “My partner doesn’t want to be close to me”; “My partner may be losing interest in me”). Responses were averaged across vignettes (α = .86). Participants also completed 32 items assessing relationship-threatening attributions (1 = not at all; 7 = very much), including blaming the partner, perceiving hurtful intent, perceiving intentional behavior, perceiving partner selfishness, attributions to the partner, attributions to the relationship, global attributions, and stable attributions (e.g., “To what

extent do you think that your partner behaved this way on purpose?” “To what extent do you think that your partner’s behavior was motivated by selfish concerns?”). Following Collins et al. (2006), an index of relationship-threatening interpretations was constructed by averaging these explanation and attribution ratings across vignettes (α = .94). Hostile/punishing intentions. Participants completed five to six items per vignette assessing intentions to enact hostile or punishing behavior (e.g., “Snap or yell at your partner”; “Criticize or complain to your partner”; 1 = not at all likely; 7 = extremely likely). The 21 ratings were averaged across the vignettes (α = .94). Responses to Positive Events. Participants read four vignettes featuring partners’ responsive behaviors (i.e., the partner brought dinner when one was sick, stayed home to provide help, tried to cheer one up, and provided an unexpected gift). These vignettes and the items described below were used in prior attachment research (Collins, 1996; Collins et al., 2006). Items described below were completed using the same 7-point response scales described above. Relationship-enhancing interpretations. For each vignette, participants completed three items assessing relationshipenhancing explanations (e.g., “My partner is a caring and thoughtful person”; “My partner loves me and is trying to make me feel better”). They also completed approximately seven items per vignette assessing attributions of the partner’s helpful intent, perceiving partner’s intentional behavior, attributions to the partner, attributions to the relationship, global attributions, and stable attributions. Responses to relationshipenhancing explanations were averaged with the 28 attribution items across vignettes to index relationship-enhancing interpretations (α = .90). Relationship-threatening interpretations. For each vignette, participants completed three items assessing relationshipthreatening explanations (e.g., “My partner is worried that I

6

can’t do well without his/her help”; “My partner wants something in return”) and two questions assessing relationshipthreatening attributions, including perceived hurtful intent and perceived selfishness. An index of relationship-threatening interpretations was constructed by averaging ratings of relationship-threatening explanations and attributions across the vignettes (α = .82). Appreciation and distancing behavioral intentions. Participants also completed four items per vignette assessing appreciation behavioral intentions (e.g., “Tell your partner how much you appreciate his/her thoughtfulness”; “Act especially affectionate toward your partner”) and nine items (across all vignettes) assessing distancing behavioral intentions (e.g., “Tell your partner that you would actually rather be alone when you’re sick”; “Tell your partner that his/her cheerful attitude is making you feel worse, not better”; α = .89 and .80, respectively).

Lemay & Spongberg

Table 3 Study 1: Results of Analyses Predicting Responses to Negative Relationship Events

Predictor

RelationshipThreatening Interpretations

Hostile/Punishing Behavioral Intentions

Perceived interpersonal value Desire for interpersonal value

Model 1 −.44*** .08

−.42*** .04

Perceived interpersonal value Desire for interpersonal value Attachment anxiety Attachment avoidance

Model 2 −.39*** .05 .11 −.04

−.43*** −.02 .12 −.17†

Perceived interpersonal value Desire for interpersonal value Self-esteem

Model 3 −.45*** .08 .01

−.39*** .04 −.05

Note. Tabled values are standardized regression coefficients. ***p < .001. †p < .09.

Results and Discussion Preliminary Analyses. Perceived and desired interpersonal value were positively associated, r(171) = .25, p < .01. Consistent with predictions, attachment anxiety and avoidance appeared to be a blend of perceived and desired value. In a model predicting attachment anxiety from both perceived and desired interpersonal value, perceived interpersonal value predicted lower anxiety, β = −.68, p < .001, whereas desire to be valued predicted greater anxiety, β = .25, p < .001. In contrast, in a model predicting attachment avoidance from both variables, perceived interpersonal value and desire to be valued both predicted lower avoidance, β = −.56, p < .001 and β = −.13, p = .051. Hence, anxiety and avoidance were similar in terms of their strong association with low perceived interpersonal value, but they diverged in terms of desire. When self-esteem was regressed on perceived and desired interpersonal value, only perceived interpersonal value predicted higher self-esteem, β = .65, p < .001. Desire did not predict self-esteem, p = .14. Correlations of study variables are provided in Table S1. Predicting Responses to Relationship Events. First, interpretations and behavioral intentions during negative events were regressed on perceived and desired interpersonal value. Results are displayed in Table 3 (Model 1). Perceived interpersonal value predicted lower threatening attributions and hostile intentions. Desire for interpersonal value did not significantly predict these outcomes. In a model that instead examined effects of attachment dimensions on responses to negative events, attachment anxiety predicted more relationshipthreatening interpretations, β = .34, p < .001, and hostile/ punishing behavioral intentions, β = .29, p < .001, and attachment avoidance did not predict these effects. Next, to examine unique effects, attachment dimensions, perceived interpersonal value, and desire for interpersonal value were

entered as predictors in the same model (Model 2 in Table 3). Effects of perceived interpersonal value remained significant, whereas effects of attachment anxiety were no longer significant. A similar pattern emerged for self-esteem. When selfesteem was the only predictor, self-esteem predicted lower relationship-threatening interpretations, β = −.27, p < .001, and hostile/punishing intentions, β = −.30, p < .001, but these effects were eliminated after controlling for perceived and desired interpersonal value (Model 3 in Table 3). Hence, perceived interpersonal value explained effects of anxiety and self-esteem. The same strategy was used to examine responses to positive events. First, perceived and desired interpersonal value were examined as predictors (Model 1 in Table 4). Perceived interpersonal value predicted lower relationship-threatening interpretations and distancing intentions. Desire for interpersonal value predicted greater relationship-enhancing interpretations and appreciation intentions, as well as lower threatening interpretations and distancing intentions. Next, responses to positive events were regressed on attachment dimensions. Attachment anxiety was positively associated with appreciation intentions, β = .16, p = .09, whereas avoidance was associated with distancing, β = .23, p < .05. Next, unique effects of attachment dimensions and perceived and desired interpersonal value were examined by entering them as predictors in the same model (Model 2 in Table 4). Effects of perceived and desired value remained significant. However, only one effect of attachment was observed—a marginal positive effect of anxiety on appreciation intentions. Finally, responses to positive events were regressed on self-esteem. Self-esteem predicted lower relationship-threatening interpretations, β = −.26, p < .01, and distancing intentions, β = −.18, p < .05. However, neither effect remained significant after

Perceiving and Wanting to Be Valued

7

Table 4 Study 1: Results of Analyses Predicting Responses to Positive Relationship Events

Predictor

Enhancing Interpretations

Threatening Interpretations

Appreciation Intentions

Distancing Intentions

−.32*** −.22**

−.01 .22**

−.26** −.28***

−.43*** −.23* −.06 −.13

.17 .18* .19† .10

−.22* −.28** .03 .02

−.29** −.23** −.06

.10 .20* −.17†

−.26** −.28*** .01

Model 1 Perceived interpersonal value Desire for interpersonal value

.05 .24**

Perceived interpersonal value Desire for interpersonal value Attachment anxiety Attachment avoidance

.08 .25** −.01 .06

Perceived interpersonal value Desire for interpersonal value Self-esteem

.13 .23** −.13

Model 2

Model 3

Note. Tabled values are standardized regression coefficients. ***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05. †p < .09.

controlling for perceived and desired interpersonal value (Model 3 in Table 4).

expected to be independent of attachment dimensions and self-esteem.

Summary

Method

Perceived interpersonal value was associated with less threatening interpretations of the partner’s behavior and weaker intentions to engage in punishing or distancing behavior. High desire to be valued was independently associated with less threatening and more enhancing attributions for the partner’s positive behavior, greater intentions to convey appreciation for this behavior, and weaker intentions to distance from the partner. These results are consistent with predictions that perceived and desired interpersonal value would have independent positive effects on pro-relationship cognition and behavior. Results replicated prior research (Collins, 1996; Collins et al., 2006) suggesting that attachment insecurity is associated with more negative interpretations and behavioral intentions. Self-esteem had similar associations with these outcomes. However, perceived and desired interpersonal value explained most of these effects.

Participants. Participants included 44 heterosexual couples who participated in a daily report study (Study 2a), 63 couples who participated in a conflict discussion study (Study 2b), and 53 couples who participated in a combined study that included both daily report and conflict discussion components. Couples were heterosexual (Mage = 22.8 years, SD = 6.8), were involved in their relationship for an average of 2.75 years, and were recruited from a psychology participant pool and through advertisements posted in newspapers and on Internet and local bulletin boards.

STUDIES 2A AND 2B In Studies 2a and 2b, the model depicted in Figure 1 was tested at three levels of analysis, including at the chronic/global level (both studies), daily experiences (Study 2a), and a specific conflict interaction (Study 2b). Across these levels of analysis, perceived and desired interpersonal value were expected to predict more security in partners’ sentiments (i.e., care, regard, commitment), seeing partners’ behavior as more responsive and less negative, more pro-relationship sentiments toward the partner, more responsive and ingratiation behavior, as well as less unresponsive or rejecting behavior. These effects were

Procedure. Participants arrived at the laboratory with their romantic partners. All participants were separated to complete the intake measures described below. Participants in Study 2a were then asked to complete questionnaires for seven consecutive evenings, which included the daily measures described below. Due to missing or invalid (due to timing) entries, the number of daily observations was 1,239. After completing the initial questionnaires, participants in Study 2b completed the conflict task. The procedures were designed to replicate procedures used in prior research by Simpson and colleagues (1996), which were adapted from Gottman’s (1979) research. Participants generated three to five issues that had been a source of significant and unresolved conflict in their relationship with their partner. Using the lists generated by both couple members, the couple members jointly identified the single most significant unresolved problem. Participants were given 10 minutes to discuss the problem while being recorded. After the interaction, participants completed the postdiscussion measures described below.

8

Intake Measures (Studies 2a and 2b). Participants in Study 2a, Study 2b, and the combined study completed the following measures. Personality Measures. Participants completed the same measures of perceived interpersonal value (α = .86), desire for interpersonal value (α = .84), attachment anxiety (α = .91), attachment avoidance (α = .91), and self-esteem (α = .91) described in Study 1. Items were completed using 9-point response scales (1 = extremely disagree; 9 = extremely agree). Other measures were completed using the same response scales unless indicated otherwise. Global Sentiments and Perception of the Partner’s Sentiments. Participants completed measures of their commitment (e.g., “I am committed to maintaining my relationship with him/her”; five items; α = .88), care for the partner (e.g., “I care for his/her needs”; five items; α = .79), and regard for the partner (e.g., “He/she has a number of good qualities”; five items; α = .83). Items were adapted from other measures (Mills, Clark, Ford, & Johnson, 2004; Rosenberg, 1965; Rusbult et al., 1998). Scores on these measures were highly correlated (α = .85) and were averaged to create an index of sentiments toward the partner. Participants completed analogous measures of perceptions of the partner’s commitment (e.g., “He/she is committed to maintaining our relationship”; α = .83), care (α = .84), and regard (α = .85). Again, scores were highly correlated (α = .82) and were averaged to index perceptions of the partner’s sentiments. Typical BehaviorToward Partner and Perception of the Partner’s Behavior. Participants indicated the frequency of engaging in eight responsive behaviors (e.g., “Try to make him/her feel valued as a person”; “Try to understand his/her concerns”; α = .85), which were adapted from prior research (Canevello & Crocker, 2010; Cutrona, Hessling, & Suhr, 1997; Gore, Cross, & Morris, 2006). They also indicated the frequency of enacting nine unresponsive or rejecting behaviors (e.g., “Criticize or insult him/her”; “Behave in an inconsiderate or selfish manner toward him/her”; α = .80). In addition, participants indicated the frequency with which they engaged in 11 ingratiation behaviors that could increase the partner’s attraction, including conformity, positive self-presentation, rendering favors or gifts, flattery, help seeking, and eliciting self-disclosure (e.g., “Express agreement with his/her attitudes or values”; “Tell him/her about personal successes I have had”). Responses were averaged to create an index of ingratiation behavior (α = .85). Participants also indicated their perceptions of the partner’s responsive (α = .88) and unresponsive/rejecting behaviors (α = .86). Participants indicated the frequency with which they or their partners enacted these behaviors during the typical week (1 = not at all; 5 = almost all the time). These behavior measures were completed only by participants in Study 2a and the combined study.

Lemay & Spongberg

Daily Measures (Study 2a). Participants in Study 2a and the combined study completed the following measures every evening during the daily report phase of the study: Daily Sentiments Toward Partner and Perception of the Partner’s Sentiments. Using 9-point response scales, participants completed items assessing acceptance of the partner (1 = extremely rejecting; 9 = extremely accepting), regard for the partner (1 = extremely negatively; 9 = extremely positively), commitment (1 = not at all committed; 9 = extremely committed), and pro-social motivation (1 = not at all motivated; 9 = extremely motivated; e.g., “Today, to what extent were you motivated to help your partner”). Responses were averaged to create an index of daily sentiments (α = .89). Using the same response scales, participants completed analogous items assessing daily perceptions of their partner’s commitment, regard, acceptance, and pro-social motivations (e.g., “Today, how did your partner view you”). Responses were averaged to index daily perceptions of the partner’s sentiments (α = .90). Daily Behavior Toward Partner and Perception of the Partner’s Behavior. Using a 9-point response scale (1 = not at all; 9 = extremely), participants completed five items assessing warm, supportive, and sacrificing behaviors enacted toward the partner (e.g., “Today, how considerate or thoughtful were you toward your partner”; “Today, how warm and affectionate were you toward your partner”). Responses were averaged to create an index of daily responsive behavior (α = .86). In addition, participants completed three items assessing their selfish, critical, and cold behavior toward the partner (e.g., “Today, how critical or insulting were you toward your partner”). Responses were averaged to create an index of daily unresponsive/rejecting behavior (α = .90). Participants completed analogous measures assessing daily perceptions of their partner’s responsive (α = .90) and unresponsive/rejecting (α = .84) behaviors. Postdiscussion Measures (Study 2b). Following the conflict discussion, participants in Study 2b and the combined study completed six items assessing perceptions of the partner’s responsive behavior during the interaction (e.g., “How considerate and respectful was he/she”; “How warm and affectionate was he/she”; “How concerned about your needs and feelings was he/she”). Responses were made using a 9-point response scale (1 = not at all; 9 = extremely; α = .86). In addition, participants completed nine items assessing perceptions of the partner’s unresponsive and rejecting behavior during the interaction (e.g., “How hostile or angry was he/she toward you”; “How cold or distant was he/she toward you”) using the same response scale (α = .90). Objective Indicators of Partners’ Behavior. A panel of coders (10 coders for responsive behavior and 9 coders for

Perceiving and Wanting to Be Valued

unresponsive/rejecting behavior) viewed the recorded interactions and rated participants’ behavior using the same items and response scales (e.g., “How considerate and respectful was the participant”). Intercoder agreement was high for each item (intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from .75 to .90; M = .82). Ratings were averaged across the coders. In turn, ratings were averaged across the six items assessing responsive behavior to create an objective index of participants’ responsive behavior during the interaction (α = .95). Likewise, ratings were averaged across the nine items assessing unresponsive/rejecting behavior (α = .92).

Results of Analyses Predicting Global Experiences in Relationships The first set of analyses examined global/typical relationship experiences, as measured during the intake session. Given that most measures were administered in both studies, most analyses (except those involving behavior) were based on data from all participants. The primary analyses were multilevel regression models that treated the two partners as nested within the same dyad using a compound-symmetry error structure (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006). Preliminary Analyses. Once again, perceived and desired interpersonal value were positively correlated, r(319) = .25, p < .001. In an analysis that regressed attachment anxiety on both perceived and desired interpersonal value, perceived interpersonal value predicted lower anxiety, b = −.81, p < .001, and desire for interpersonal value predicted higher anxiety, b = .35, p < .001. In an analysis predicting attachment avoidance from both variables, perceived and desired interpersonal value independently predicted lower avoidance, b = −.34, p < .001, and b = −.48, p < .001, respectively. Consistent with predictions, anxiety and avoidance were similar in terms of perceived devaluation, but they diverged in terms of desire. When self-esteem was regressed on both perceived and desired value, perceived interpersonal value predicted higher selfesteem, b = .86, p < .001. Desire for interpersonal value predicted lower self-esteem, b = −.29, p < .001. Correlations of study variables assessed during the intake session are provided in Table S2. Predicting Perceptions of Partners’ Sentiments and Behavior. The first set of models predicted perceptions of the partner’s sentiments (i.e., care, commitment, and regard) and behavior from perceived and desired interpersonal value. The partners’ reports of their sentiments or behavior were controlled. Hence, effects of perceived and desired interpersonal value cannot be explained by partners’ reports of sentiments or behavior. First, perceptions of partners’ sentiments and behavior were regressed on perceived and desired interpersonal value (Model 1 in Table 5). Perceived and desired value independently pre-

9

Table 5 Studies 2a and 2b: Results of Analyses Predicting Typical Perceptions of Partner’s Sentiments and Behavior

Predictor

Perceived Sentiments

Perceived Responsive Behavior

Perceived Negative Behavior

Perceived interpersonal value Desire for interpersonal value Partner’s self-report

Model 1 .49*** .08† .40***

.36*** .12** .03

−.15*** −.09* .53***

Perceived interpersonal value Desire for interpersonal value Attachment anxiety Attachment avoidance Partner’s self-report

Model 2 .43*** .11* −.09* 0 .38***

.34*** .11* −.01 −.03 .04

−.12** −.07† .02 .05 .52***

Perceived interpersonal value Desire for interpersonal value Self-esteem Partner’s self-report

Model 3 .54*** .07 −.05 .40***

.43*** .10* −.08* .02

−.20*** −.07† .05† .54***

Note. Tabled values are unstandardized regression coefficients. ***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05. †p < .10.

dicted more positive perceptions of the partner’s sentiments, perceptions of more frequent responsive behavior, and perceptions of less frequent negative behavior. Given that partners’ self-reports of sentiments or behavior were controlled and included as predictors (“partner’s self-report” in Table 5), these findings cannot be explained by partners reporting positive sentiments or behavior, and therefore they may suggest cognitive biases. Next, these outcomes were regressed on attachment dimensions. Attachment anxiety and avoidance predicted more negative perceptions of the partner’s sentiments, b = −.17 and −.14, respectively, p < .001, and perceiving less frequent responsive behavior by the partner, b = −.09, p < .05, and b = −.14, p < .01, respectively. In addition, attachment avoidance predicted perceiving more frequent negative behavior by the partner, b = .10, p < .001. Next, attachment dimensions, perceived interpersonal value, and desire for interpersonal value were entered into the same model to examine unique effects (Model 2 in Table 5). All effects of perceived and desired interpersonal value were still observed. However, four of the five effects of attachment dimensions were no longer significant. Hence, perceived and desired interpersonal value explained most effects of attachment dimensions. Additional analyses addressed the role of self-esteem. Selfesteem was positively associated with perceptions of partners’ sentiments, b = .11, p < .01, but not perceptions of partners’ behavior. However, this effect was eliminated after controlling for perceived and desired interpersonal value (Model 3 in Table 5), suggesting that perceived and desired interpersonal value explained effects of self-esteem. Furthermore, after controlling for perceived and desired interpersonal value, selfesteem became inversely associated with perceived responsive

10

Lemay & Spongberg

behavior and positively associated with perceived negative behavior, suggesting a negative component to high self-esteem that is typically masked by perceived and desired value. Partners’ reports of their sentiments or behavior also significantly predicted participants’ perceptions in most analyses. This convergence is an indicator of accuracy. Hence, results suggest a blend of both accuracy and bias by these individual difference variables. Predicting Sentiments and Behavior Toward Partners. Additional analyses predicted participants’ sentiments and behavior. Perceived and desired interpersonal value independently predicted more positive sentiments (care, regard, and commitment ) toward partners, more responsive behavior, more ingratiation behavior, and less negative behavior (Model 1 in Table 6). When attachment dimensions were entered as the only predictors, anxiety and avoidance predicted more negative sentiments, b = −.11, p < .05, and b = −.14, p < .01, respectively; less ingratiation behavior, b = −.06, p = .06, and b = −.10, p < .01, respectively; and more negative behavior, b = .05, p = .08, and b = .06, p < .05, respectively. In addition, avoidance predicted less responsive behavior, b = −.13, p < .001. However, all effects of anxiety and avoidance were eliminated when perceived and desired interpersonal value were controlled (Model 2 in Table 6). The same was the case for trait self-esteem; when self-esteem was the only predictor, it predicted positive sentiments, b = .10, p < .05, responsive behavior, b = .06, p = .06, and ingratiation behavior, b = .08, p < .01, but these effects were eliminated after controlling for perceived and desired interpersonal value (Model 3 in Table 6). These results suggest that perceived and desired interpersonal value had unique positive effects on perceptions of partners’ sentiments and behavior and on one’s own sentiments and behavior toward partners, and these effects were not explained by attachment dimensions or self-esteem.

Results of Analyses Predicting Daily Experiences Data from Study 2a and the combined study were used to examine daily outcomes, including daily perceptions of the partner’s sentiments (i.e., regard, care, acceptance, and commitment), analogous daily sentiments toward the partner, daily responsive behavior toward the partner, and daily unresponsive/rejecting behavior toward the partner. Predictions were tested using multilevel models that accounted for the nesting of days and individuals within dyads (Kenny et al., 2006). Slopes were modeled as fixed. In models predicting perceived partner sentiments, the partner’s self-reported daily sentiments were controlled, which was a significant predictor in all models, bs ranged from .61 to .67, ps < .001. Results are presented in Table 7. First, the daily criterion variables were regressed on perceived and desired interpersonal value. Both perceived and desired value predicted more daily positive perceptions of the partner’s sentiments, daily positive sentiments toward the partner, and less daily unresponsive behavior toward the partner across the sampled days (Model 1 in Table 7). In addition, perceived interpersonal value predicted more daily responsive behavior toward the partner. When attachment dimensions were entered as the only predictors, attachment anxiety and avoidance predicted more negative daily perceptions of the partner’s sentiments, b = −.10, p = .07, and b = −.15, p < .01, respectively, and less daily responsive behavior, b = −.22, p < .05, and b = −.28, p < .01, respectively. In addition, attachment avoidance predicted less positive sentiments toward partners, b = −.21, p < .01, and more unresponsive/rejecting behavior, b = .15, p < .01. However, all of these attachment effects were eliminated once perceived and desired interpersonal value were controlled (Model 2 in Table 7). Additional analyses addressed effects of trait self-esteem. Self-esteem predicted more daily responsive behavior when it was the only predictor in the

Table 6 Studies 2a and 2b: Results of Analyses Predicting Typical Sentiments and Behavior

Predictor

Sentiments Toward Partner

Responsive Behavior

Ingratiation Behavior

Negative Behavior

.26*** .13***

.24*** .12**

−.11** −.08*

.27*** .10* .03 −.04

.22*** .12** −.01 −.01

−.07 −.09* .05 .01

.28*** .12** −.03

.23*** .12** .01

−.11* −.08* 0

Model 1 Perceived interpersonal value Desire for interpersonal value

.38*** .19***

Perceived interpersonal value Desire for interpersonal value Attachment anxiety Attachment avoidance

.35*** .21*** −.05 .02

Perceived interpersonal value Desire for interpersonal value Self-esteem

.40*** .18** −.02

Model 2

Model 3

Note. Tabled values are unstandardized regression coefficients. ***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.

Perceiving and Wanting to Be Valued

11

Table 7 Study 2a: Results of Analyses Predicting Daily Experiences

Predictor

Perceived Partner’s Sentiments

Sentiments Toward Partner

Responsive Behavior

Unresponsive/Rejecting Behavior

.55*** .12

−.20** −.16**

Model 1 Perceived interpersonal value Desire for interpersonal value

.34*** .14**

.43*** .23** Model 2

Perceived interpersonal value Desire for interpersonal value Attachment anxiety Attachment avoidance

.32** .11 .00 −.05

Perceived interpersonal value Desire for interpersonal value Self-esteem

.43*** .11 −.10†

.38** .23* −.05 −.05

.42** .09 −.10 −.16

−.15† −.15* .03 .07

.49*** .22** −.07

.55*** .12 0

−.21** −.16** .01

Model 3

Note.Tabled values are unstandardized regression coefficients. Partner’s daily sentiments were controlled in all models predicting perceived partner’s sentiments, which was a significant predictor in all models, bs ranged from .61 to .67, ps < .001. ***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05. †p < .10.

model, b = .18, p < .05. However, this effect was eliminated once perceived and desired interpersonal value were controlled (Model 3 in Table 7). These results suggest that perceived and desired interpersonal value have unique positive effects on daily perceptions of partners’ sentiments, daily sentiments toward partners, and behavior toward partners, and they account for effects of attachment anxiety and self-esteem.

Results of Analyses Predicting Responses During Conflict Data from Study 2b and the combined study were used to examine perception and behavior during the observed conflict interaction. Predictions were tested using multilevel regression models that modeled the two partners as nested within dyads and modeled a compound-symmetry error structure to model dyadic interdependence (Kenny et al., 2006). Correlations of conflict variables are provided in Tables S3 and S4. Predicting Observed Conflict Behavior. Observed behaviors were regressed on perceived and desired interpersonal value. Perceived and desired interpersonal value predicted more responsive behavior (Model 1 in Table 8). Desire for interpersonal value also predicted lower unresponsive/ rejecting behavior. In a model examining attachment dimensions as the only predictors, avoidance predicted responsive and unresponsive/rejecting behaviors, b = −.15, p < .01, and b = .11, p < .05, respectively, but these effects were eliminated after controlling for perceived and desired interpersonal value (Model 2 in Table 8). Self-esteem did not predict behavior in any analysis (Model 3 in Table 8). Predicting Perceptions of Partner’s Conflict Behavior. Additional analyses were conducted to examine participants’

Table 8 Study 2b: Results of Analyses Predicting Observed Conflict Behavior

Predictor

Responsive Behavior

Unresponsive/Rejecting Behavior

Perceived interpersonal value Desire for interpersonal value

Model 1 .20** .15**

−.07 −.15**

Perceived interpersonal value Desire for interpersonal value Attachment anxiety Attachment avoidance

Model 2 .21** .09 .05 −.08

−.11 −.10† −.07 .04

Perceived interpersonal value Desire for interpersonal value Self-esteem

Model 3 .20* .15** .01

−.04 −.16** −.03

Note. Tabled values are unstandardized regression coefficients. ***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05. †p < .10.

perceptions of their partner’s conflict behavior. These analyses controlled for observers’ perceptions of the partner’s conflict behavior to statistically control for partner behavior that is observable to impartial observers. Perceived and desired interpersonal value independently predicted greater perceptions of partner’s responsive behavior and lower perceptions of partner’s unresponsive behavior (Model 1 in Table 9). Given that objective observers’ perceptions were controlled, these findings cannot be explained by partners behaving in objectively different ways. Attachment avoidance also predicted perceptions of the partner’s responsive behavior when attachment dimensions were the only predictors in the model, b = −.20, p < .05. However, this effect was eliminated after controlling

12

Lemay & Spongberg

Table 9 Study 2b: Results of Analyses Predicting Perceptions of Partner’s Conflict Behavior

Predictor

Responsive Behavior

Unresponsive/Rejecting Behavior

Perceived interpersonal value Desire for interpersonal value Observers’ perceptions

Model 1 .32** .25** .49***

−.16* −.12* .90***

Perceived interpersonal value Desire for interpersonal value Attachment anxiety Attachment avoidance Observers’ perceptions

Model 2 .25† .27* −.07 −.02 .49***

−.13 −.15* .05 −.02 .90***

Perceived interpersonal value Desire for interpersonal value Self-esteem Observers’ perceptions

Model 3 .38** .23* −.08 .47***

−.21* −.10† .06 .90***

Note. Tabled values are unstandardized regression coefficients. ***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05. †p < .10.

for perceived and desired interpersonal value (Model 2 in Table 9). Self-esteem did not have significant effects in any analysis (Model 3 in Table 9). The significant effects of observers’ perceptions suggest that, in addition to bias by perceived and desired interpersonal value, perceptions of the partner’s behavior reflected the partner’s observable behavior. These results suggest that perceived and desired interpersonal value have unique positive effects on observed conflict behavior and perceptions of the partner’s conflict behavior, which cannot be explained by attachment anxiety and self-esteem.

GENERAL DISCUSSION Objectives of trait approaches to personality research include conceptualizing important personality traits, measuring them, and using them to understand behavior and experience (Funder & Fast, 2010). Accordingly, in the current research, we conceptualized perceived and desired interpersonal value as two dimensions of personality, presented new measures of these personality dimensions, and examined effects of these dimensions on important outcomes in relationships. The research also examined how these personality dimensions relate to other individual difference frameworks, including those emphasizing attachment insecurity and self-esteem. As outlined below, this research makes several theoretical contributions. First, and most generally, perceiving that one is valued by others and desiring to be valued by others appear to be distinct aspects of personality, as they had independent effects when

predicting attachment dimensions, self-esteem, and outcomes within relationships. This is consistent with the distinction between cognition and motivation. Theoretical frameworks of insecure personality should distinguish these dimensions to understand whether phenomena are driven by cognitive dispositions involving chronic schemas regarding one’s value to others or are driven by motivational dispositions—desire to be valued by others. Second, perceiving and wanting to be valued by others seem to have pro-relationship consequences. Perceived and desired interpersonal value independently predicted more positive sentiments toward partners (i.e., care, commitment, and regard), responsive behavior, ingratiation behavior, confidence in the partner’s care and regard, and perceiving partners’ behavior as more responsive. Perceived and desired interpersonal value also independently predicted reduced intentions to engage in distancing behaviors, less neglectful or rejecting behavior, and interpreting partners’ behavior in less threatening ways. These independent effects suggest that perceived and desired interpersonal value may predict relationship outcomes through different pathways. Chronic perceptions of being valued by others in general may shape perceptions of specific relationships through biased processes that confirm existing beliefs, such as biased attention, interpretation, and generalization (Snyder & Stukas, 1999), whereas chronic desire to be valued by others may bias perceptions of specific relationships through processes that confirm desires (i.e., wishful thinking). In turn, through processes in which people adjust motivation and behavior in accordance with the acceptance or rejection they perceive (Murray et al., 2006), perceived and desired interpersonal value may shape motivation and behavior in relationships. In addition, desire for interpersonal value may directly promote pro-relationship responses. Expecting that partners operate on reciprocity, and feeling dependent on partners for approval, people who want to be valued may adopt a pro-relationship orientation and commit to their partners. Future research should examine these mechanisms. In addition, future research should examine ways in which perceived and desired interpersonal value diverge. For instance, perceived interpersonal value predicted decreased attachment anxiety, whereas desire for interpersonal value predicted increased anxiety. We expect that perceived interpersonal value may dampen the experience of negative emotions in relationships because it may help people interpret events in a more benign manner, whereas desire for interpersonal value may exacerbate negative emotions in some situations because it increases the perception that relationship events are relevant to important goals. Third, perceived and desired value were positively associated. Several processes may explain this association. People who want to be valued by others may enact positive behaviors that cause others to value them and may have biased perceptions that others value them (i.e., wishful thinking). In addition, people who believe they are devalued by others may

Perceiving and Wanting to Be Valued

disengage from the goal of being valued, which is consistent with models of self-regulation that propose that people disengage from unattainable goals (Wrosch, Scheier, Miller, Schulz, & Carver, 2003). The positive association between perceived and desired interpersonal value may be explained by a similar process in which people disengage from the goal of being valued as a self-protective response to perceiving devaluation by others (Murray et al., 2006). Future research should examine the convergence of perceived and desired value over time, and whether convergence has benefits and costs. Perhaps this convergence helps circumvent attachment anxiety, as described in more detail below. However, this convergence also may have costs for relationships when it involves converging on low values. For instance, people may reduce their desire to be valued to protect themselves from feeling vulnerable or anxious when they perceive devaluation by others, but this reduced desire also may lower pro-relationship motivation. A fourth important contribution of the current research involves the relation of perceived and desired interpersonal value to attachment dimensions. Anxiously attached participants perceived that they were devalued by others, but they wanted to be valued. Hence, attachment anxiety involves one component that is usually harmful for relationships (low perceptions of being valued) and another that usually facilitates relationships (high desire to be valued), which could dilute the overall effect of anxiety. Indeed, in the current research, attachment anxiety was consistently a weaker predictor of cognitive, motivational, and behavioral outcomes in romantic relationships, even in replications of foundational attachment studies (Collins, 1996; Collins et al., 2006; Simpson et al., 1996). Furthermore, including perceived and desired value and attachment dimensions as predictors in the same model revealed that effects of anxiety were consistently eliminated, whereas effects of perceived and desired value were maintained. These analyses suggest that perceived and desired interpersonal value are the “active ingredients” in attachment anxiety that explain its relevance to relationship maintenance processes. Likewise, perceived and desired interpersonal value explained most of the effects of attachment avoidance. Most attachment avoidance items assess feelings of discomfort with intimacy and reluctance to engage in self-disclosure, which may be less relevant to perception, motivation, and other behaviors in relationships relative to perceived and desired interpersonal value. The positive correlation between perceived and desired interpersonal value suggests that the combination of feeling devalued and wanting to be valued is relatively uncommon, which suggests that attachment anxiety should be relatively uncommon. Indeed, an investigation using a nationally representative sample in the United States classified only 11.3% of the sample as anxiously attached (Mickelson, Kessler, & Shaver, 1997). Moreover, if perceived and desired interpersonal value converge over time, then anxious attachment should be especially unstable, as anxious people should reduce desire to align with their low confidence or increase confidence to align with their high desire, both of which may reduce

13

anxiety. Indeed, anxiety is less stable over time than other attachment classifications (Baldwin & Fehr, 1995). Future longitudinal studies should examine whether the convergence of perceived and desired value helps explain the low incidence and temporal inconsistency of attachment anxiety. A fifth important contribution of the current research involves the relation of perceived interpersonal value to trait self-esteem. Consistent with interpersonal theories positing that low self-esteem is associated with perceived interpersonal devaluation (Leary & Baumeister, 2000), perceived value was positively related to self-esteem across the current studies. In addition, perceived value explained most effects of self-esteem on relationship outcomes. If predicting relationship maintenance processes is the primary goal (rather than testing theories about self-esteem), then perceived interpersonal value may be a more useful predictor than self-esteem.

CONCLUSION Prior research has not distinguished cognitive and motivational dispositions regarding interpersonal security. Using new measures of perceived and desired interpersonal value, the current research demonstrates that believing that one is valued by others and wanting to be valued by others are distinct personality dimensions that independently promote pro-relationship responses. Moreover, they were stronger predictors of prorelationship responses relative to attachment dimensions and trait self-esteem and explained their effects. Future research should continue to examine the distinct effects of individual differences in perceiving and wanting interpersonal value on personal and interpersonal functioning.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by Research Grant BCS 1145349 from National Science Foundation. References Baldwin, M. W., & Fehr, B. (1995). On the instability of attachment style ratings. Personal Relationships, 2, 247–261. Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York: Guilford Press.

14

Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J., & Kashy, D. A. (2005). Perceptions of conflict and support in romantic relationships: The role of attachment anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 510–531. Canevello, A., & Crocker, J. (2010). Creating good relationships: Responsiveness, relationship quality, and interpersonal goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 78–106. Cantor, N., Norem, J., Langston, C., Zirkel, S., Fleeson, W., & Cook-Flannagan, C. (1991). Life tasks and daily life experience. Journal of Personality, 59, 425–451. Clark, M. S., & Lemay, E. P., Jr. (2010). Close relationships. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 898–940). New York: Wiley. Clark, M. S., Ouellette, R., Powell, M. C., & Milberg, S. (1987). Recipient’s mood, relationship type, and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 94–103. Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 810–832. Collins, N. L., Ford, M. B., Guichard, A. C., & Allard, L. M. (2006). Working models of attachment and attribution processes in intimate relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 201–219. Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644–663. Cutrona, C. E., Hessling, R. M., & Suhr, J. A. (1997). The influence of husband and wife personality on marital social support interactions. Personal Relationships, 4, 379–393. Drigotas, S. M., & Rusbult, C. E. (1992). Should I stay or should I go? A dependence model of breakups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 62–87. Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 350–365. Funder, D. C., & Fast, L. A. (2010). Personality in social psychology. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 668–697). New York: Wiley. Gore, J. S., Cross, S. E., & Morris, M. L. (2006). Let’s be friends: Relational self-construal and the development of intimacy. Personal Relationships, 13, 83–102. Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interaction: Experimental investigations. London: Academic Press. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524. Joel, S., MacDonald, G., & Shimotomai, A. (2011). Conflicting pressures on romantic relationship commitment for anxiously attached individuals. Journal of Personality, 79, 51–74. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford Press. Lavallee, L. F., & Campbell, J. D. (1995). Impact of personal goals on self-regulation processes elicited by daily negative events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 341–352.

Lemay & Spongberg

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer. Leary, M. R. (1983). A brief version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 371–375. 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: Academic Press. Leary, M. R., Kelly, K. M., Cottrell, C. A., & Schreindorfer, L. S. (2012). Individual differences in the need to belong: Mapping the nomological network. Unpublished manuscript, Duke University. Lemay, E. P., Jr., Clark, M. S., & Feeney, B. C. (2007). Projection of responsiveness to needs and the construction of satisfying communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 834–853. Lemay, E. P., Jr., & Neal, A. M. (2013). The wishful memory of interpersonal responsiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 653–672. McClure, M. J., Bartz, J. A., & Lydon, J. E. (2013). Uncovering and overcoming ambivalence: The role of chronic and contextually activated attachment in two-person social dilemmas. Journal of Personality, 81, 103–117. Mickelson, K. D., Kessler, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult attachment in a nationally representative sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1092–1106. Mikulincer, M. (1998). Attachment working models and the sense of trust: An exploration of interaction goals and affect regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1209–1224. Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Bar-On, N., & Ein-Dor, T. (2010). The pushes and pulls of close relationships: Attachment insecurities and relational ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 450–468. Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Gillath, O., & Nitzberg, R. A. (2005). Attachment, caregiving, and altruism: Boosting attachment security increases compassion and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 817–839. Mills, J., Clark, M. S., Ford, T. E., & Johnson, M. (2004). Measurement of communal strength. Personal Relationships, 11, 213–230. Murray, S. L. (1999). The quest for conviction: Motivated cognition in romantic relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 23–34. Murray, S. L., Bellavia, G. M., Rose, P., & Griffin, D. W. (2003). Once hurt, twice hurtful: How perceived regard regulates daily marital interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 126–147. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Collins, N. L. (2006). Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 641–666. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 79–98. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (2000). Self-esteem and the quest for felt security: How perceived regard regulates attachment processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 478–498.

Perceiving and Wanting to Be Valued

Pietromonaco, P. R., & Barrett, L. F. (1997). Working models of attachment and daily social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1409–1423. Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D. J. Mashek & A. P. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Reis, H. T., Maniaci, M. R., Caprariello, P. A., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2011). Familiarity does indeed promote attraction in live interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 557–570. Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95–112. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101–117. Rusbult, C. E., Lange, P. A. M. V., Wildschut, T., Yovetich, N. A., & Verette, J. (2000). Perceived superiority in close relationships: Why it exists and persists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 521–545. Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–391. Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and selfpresentation: A conceptualization model. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 641–669. Simpson, J. A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 971–980.

15

Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., Orina, M. M., & Grich, J. (2002). Working models of attachment, support giving, and support seeking in a stressful situation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 598–608. Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Phillips, D. (1996). Conflict in close relationships: An attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 899–914. Snyder, M., & Stukas, A. A., Jr. (1999). Interpersonal processes: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and behavioral activities in social interaction. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 273– 303. Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C. E., Foster, C. A., & Agnew, C. R. (1999). Commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 942– 966. Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., Miller, G. E., Schulz, R., & Carver, C. S. (2003). Adaptive self-regulation of unattainable goals: Goal disengagement, goal reengagement, and subjective well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1494–1508.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article at the publisher’s web-site: Table S1. Correlations of Study Variables (Study 1) Table S2. Correlations of Study Variables Assessed During Intake Session (Study 2a and 2b) Table S3. Correlations of Personality Variables with Conflict Variables (Study 2b) Table S4. Correlations among Conflict Variables (Study 2b)