Establishing versus preserving impressions: Predicting success in the multiple audience problem.

People sometimes seek to convey discrepant impressions of themselves to different audiences simultaneously. Research suggests people are generally successful in this "multiple audience problem." Adding to previous research, the current research sought to examine factors that may limit this success by measuring social anxiety and placing participants into situations requiring them to either establish or preserve multiple impressions simultaneously. In general, participants were more successful when preserving previously conveyed impressions than when establishing impressions for the first time. In contrast, social anxiety did not affect multiple audience success. In all, this research offers valuable insight into potential challenges that people face in many social situations.

The prevalence and prevention of crosstalk: a multi-institutional study.

It is a common problem in psychology subject pools for past study participants to inform future participants of key experimental details (also known as crosstalk). Previous research (Edlund, Sagarin, Skowronski, Johnson, & Kutter, 2009) demonstrated that a combined classroom and laboratory treatment could significantly reduce crosstalk. The present investigation tested a laboratory-only treatment for the prevention of crosstalk at five universities, along with institutional-level moderators of crosstalk. Results indicated the presence of crosstalk at all universities and that the laboratory-based treatment was effective in reducing crosstalk. Importantly, crosstalk rates were higher (but successfully neutralized) in research pools with higher research credit requirements. Therefore, this research provides valuable guidance regarding crosstalk prevalence and its minimization by researchers.

Relationship status moderates sexual prejudice directed toward lesbian women but not gay men.

To determine whether relationship status moderates sexual prejudice, we compared heterosexual men and women's self-reported social distancing toward gay and lesbian targets who varied in relationship status (coupled, single, no information). Relationship status of gay male targets did not affect responses (Study 1): heterosexual men reported increased social distancing toward gay compared to heterosexual male targets, whereas women did not. Similarly, in Study 2, heterosexual men reported increased social distancing toward lesbian compared to heterosexual female targets, but women did not, and men reported decreased social distancing toward single lesbian women. Working from an affordance management approach, Study 3 replicated Studies 1 and 2, testing potential mediators of effects. In particular, heterosexual men reported increased social distancing toward gay male targets, compared to responses from heterosexual women. Moreover, heterosexual women reported increased social distancing toward single, compared to coupled, lesbian targets, mediated through perceptions of undesired sexual interest from the target. This work demonstrates the nuanced nature of sexual prejudice and provides further evidence of the role of perceptions of undesired sexual interest in prejudiced responses toward lesbian and gay individuals.

Construct validity of the need to belong scale: mapping the nomological network.

Nine studies examined the construct validity of the Need to Belong Scale. The desire for acceptance and belonging correlated with, but was distinct from, variables that involve a desire for social contact, such as extraversion and affiliation motivation. Furthermore, need to belong scores were not related to insecure attachment or unfulfilled needs for acceptance. Need to belong was positively correlated with extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism and with having an identity that is defined in terms of social attributes. Need to belong was associated with emotional reactions to rejection, values involving interpersonal relationships, and subclinical manifestations of certain personality disorders.

What do people desire in others? A sociofunctional perspective on the importance of different valued characteristics.

Humans, as discriminately social creatures, make frequent judgments about others' suitability for interdependent social relations. Which characteristics of others guide these judgments and, thus, shape patterns of human affiliation? Extant research is only minimally useful for answering this question. On the basis of a sociofunctional analysis of human sociality, the authors hypothesized that people highly value trustworthiness and (to a lesser extent) cooperativeness in others with whom they may be interdependent, regardless of the specific tasks, goals, or functions of the group or relationship, but value other favorable characteristics (e.g., intelligence) differentially across such tasks, goals, or functions. Participants in 3 studies considered various characteristics for ideal members of interdependent groups (e.g., work teams, athletic teams) and relationships (e.g., family members, employees). Across different measures of trait importance and different groups and relationships, trustworthiness was considered extremely important for all interdependent others; the evidence for the enhanced importance of cooperativeness across different interdependence contexts was more equivocal. In contrast, people valued other characteristics primarily as they were relevant to the specific nature of the interdependent group or relationship. These empirical investigations illuminate the essence of human sociality with its foundation of trust and highlight the usefulness of a theoretically derived framework of valued characteristics.

Different emotional reactions to different groups: a sociofunctional threat-based approach to "prejudice".

The authors suggest that the traditional conception of prejudice--as a general attitude or evaluation--can problematically obscure the rich texturing of emotions that people feel toward different groups. Derived from a sociofunctional approach, the authors predicted that groups believed to pose qualitatively distinct threats to in-group resources or processes would evoke qualitatively distinct and functionally relevant emotional reactions. Participants' reactions to a range of social groups provided a data set unique in the scope of emotional reactions and threat beliefs explored. As predicted, different groups elicited different profiles of emotion and threat reactions, and this diversity was often masked by general measures of prejudice and threat. Moreover, threat and emotion profiles were associated with one another in the manner predicted: Specific classes of threat were linked to specific, functionally relevant emotions, and groups similar in the threat profiles they elicited were also similar in the emotion profiles they elicited.