4.5 Article

The Surprise of Reaching Out: Appreciated More Than We Think

期刊

JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
卷 124, 期 4, 页码 754-771

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/pspi0000402

关键词

appreciation; social relationships; surprise; gifts; prediction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

People tend to underestimate how much others appreciate being reached out to. This underestimation is magnified when the reach-out context is more surprising and when it occurs between socially distant individuals. The focus on feeling surprised at being contacted explains this underestimation effect.
People are fundamentally social beings and enjoy connecting with others. Sometimes, people reach out to others-whether simply to check-in on how others are doing with brief messages or to show that they are thinking of others by sending small gifts to them. Yet, despite the importance and enjoyment of social connection, do people accurately understand how much other people value being reached out to by someone in their social circle? Across a series of preregistered experiments, we document a robust underestimation of how much other people appreciate being reached out to. We find evidence compatible with an account wherein one reason this underestimation of appreciation occurs is because responders (vs. initiators) are more focused on their feelings of surprise at being reached out to. A focus on feelings of surprise in turn predicts greater appreciation. We further identify process-consistent moderators of the underestimation of reach-out appreciation, finding that it is magnified when the reach-out context is more surprising: when it occurs within a surprising (vs. unsurprising) context for the recipient and when it occurs between more socially distant (vs. socially close) others. Altogether, this research thus identifies when and why we underestimate how much other people appreciate us reaching out to them, implicating a heightened focus on feelings of surprise as one underlying explanation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据