Evaluating the psychological and social nature of actual and perceived liking gaps.

IF 6.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Journal of personality and social psychology Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-24 DOI:10.1037/pspp0000548
Hasagani Tissera, Norhan Elsaadawy, Gus Cooney, Lauren J Human, Erika N Carlson
{"title":"Evaluating the psychological and social nature of actual and perceived liking gaps.","authors":"Hasagani Tissera, Norhan Elsaadawy, Gus Cooney, Lauren J Human, Erika N Carlson","doi":"10.1037/pspp0000548","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Our beliefs about how much we are liked tend to be less positive than liking judgments of others, a finding termed the \"liking gap.\" Because much of the past work has studied liking gaps at the sample level, it has overlooked important nuances in how these gaps can be measured and experienced. We introduce a distinction between the <i>actual liking gap</i> (i.e., a between-person discrepancy between how much others actually like us and how much we think others like us) and the <i>perceived liking gap</i> (i.e., a within-person discrepancy between how much we like others and how much we think others like us). Across three large first-impression samples (<i>N</i><sub>total</sub> = 2,753), we use condition-based regression analyses to examine (a) who tends to exhibit these gaps, and (b) how people experience social interactions marked by gaps. Our findings suggest that people display two types of gaps, actual and perceived, that are psychologically distinct. Larger negative perceived liking gaps were related to indicators of insecurity (i.e., lower self-esteem, higher social anxiety, and higher neuroticism), whereas actual gaps did not show the same pattern. Neither gap was reliably associated with the quality of people's social interaction. Finally, our approach also allowed us to isolate the unique effect of feeling liked as a robust, consistent correlate of both psychological adjustment and interaction quality. Overall, this research offers new insights into the (mal)adaptiveness of two types of liking gaps. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":" ","pages":"967-982"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of personality and social psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000548","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Our beliefs about how much we are liked tend to be less positive than liking judgments of others, a finding termed the "liking gap." Because much of the past work has studied liking gaps at the sample level, it has overlooked important nuances in how these gaps can be measured and experienced. We introduce a distinction between the actual liking gap (i.e., a between-person discrepancy between how much others actually like us and how much we think others like us) and the perceived liking gap (i.e., a within-person discrepancy between how much we like others and how much we think others like us). Across three large first-impression samples (Ntotal = 2,753), we use condition-based regression analyses to examine (a) who tends to exhibit these gaps, and (b) how people experience social interactions marked by gaps. Our findings suggest that people display two types of gaps, actual and perceived, that are psychologically distinct. Larger negative perceived liking gaps were related to indicators of insecurity (i.e., lower self-esteem, higher social anxiety, and higher neuroticism), whereas actual gaps did not show the same pattern. Neither gap was reliably associated with the quality of people's social interaction. Finally, our approach also allowed us to isolate the unique effect of feeling liked as a robust, consistent correlate of both psychological adjustment and interaction quality. Overall, this research offers new insights into the (mal)adaptiveness of two types of liking gaps. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估实际的和感知的喜欢差距的心理和社会性质。
我们对自己被喜欢程度的看法往往不如别人对自己喜欢程度的判断积极,这一发现被称为“喜欢差距”。由于过去的许多工作都是在样本水平上研究喜好差距,因此忽略了如何测量和体验这些差距的重要细微差别。我们引入了实际喜欢差距(即,别人有多喜欢我们和我们认为别人有多喜欢我们之间的人与人之间的差异)和感知喜欢差距(即,我们有多喜欢别人和我们认为别人有多喜欢我们之间的人与人之间的差异)之间的区别。在三个大的第一印象样本(Ntotal = 2,753)中,我们使用基于条件的回归分析来检验(a)谁倾向于表现出这些差距,以及(b)人们如何体验以差距为标志的社会互动。我们的研究结果表明,人们表现出两种类型的差距,实际的和感知的,这在心理上是不同的。较大的负面感知喜欢差距与不安全感指标有关(即,较低的自尊,较高的社交焦虑和较高的神经质),而实际差距并没有显示出相同的模式。这两个差距都与人们的社会互动质量没有可靠的联系。最后,我们的方法还允许我们将感觉被喜欢的独特效果作为心理调整和互动质量之间的稳健、一致的关联分离出来。总的来说,这项研究为两种类型的喜欢差距(mal)适应性提供了新的见解。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
3.90%
发文量
250
期刊介绍: Journal of personality and social psychology publishes original papers in all areas of personality and social psychology and emphasizes empirical reports, but may include specialized theoretical, methodological, and review papers.Journal of personality and social psychology is divided into three independently edited sections. Attitudes and Social Cognition addresses all aspects of psychology (e.g., attitudes, cognition, emotion, motivation) that take place in significant micro- and macrolevel social contexts.
期刊最新文献
Trust and trust funds: How others' childhood and current social class context influence trust behavior and expectations. How group personality composition affects person and group outcomes: An integrative analysis using the group actor-partner interdependence model. Transcending embarrassment: On the reputational benefits of laughing at yourself. On the relationship between indirect measures of Black versus White racial attitudes and discriminatory outcomes: An adversarial collaboration using a sample of White Americans. Within-nation variation in war exposure and psychological and physical adjustment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1