W GNE-3511 web positively they expected to become evaluated by their companion as
W positively they anticipated to become evaluated by their companion as a possible pal and coworker on scales ranging from (extremely negatively) to 9 (incredibly positively). These have been positively correlated, r .59, p .00 and have been therefore combined. Subjective Uncertainty: Just after receiving feedback, we asked participants to indicate the extent to which they felt certain (reversescored), uncertain, and skeptical in that moment on (not at all) to 9 (very) scales ( .85). State Selfesteem was assessed using the 7item social selfesteem subscale of Heatherton and Polivy’s (99) State SelfEsteem Scale (e.g “I am worried about what others assume of me”). All items had been answered on (not at all) to five (exceptionally) scales ( .82). Perceived Partner Insincerity: Finally, participants rated how genuine, honest, and fake they believed their partner to become on a 0 (not at all) to six (particularly) scales. Products were reverse scored as appropriate and combined into a measure of perceived companion insincerity, .89.9 Results Analytical approachThere were no differences in racerejection sensitivity or SOMI by situation, (ts .5, ps .25). We subjected all dependent measures to moderated regression analyses in which we entered meancentered racerejection sensitivity, condition (coded unknown, known), meancentered SOMI, plus the interaction in between situation and SOMI as predictors.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript9Participants also rated how biased they believed their companion to be on a 0 (not at all) to six (very) scale. We omitted biased in the composite because it produced the composite unreliable. Analysis from the bias variable alone revealed no significant effects (ps.20). 0Excluding race rejectionsensitivity as a covariate didn’t modify the magnitude or significance amount of the effects reported. J Exp Soc Psychol. Author manuscript; accessible in PMC 207 January 0.Big et al.PageInteractionspecific Evaluation ExpectationsNeither situation, .7, t (66) .38, p .7, SOMI, .002, t (66) .0, p .99, their interaction, .five, t (66) .two, p .27, nor racerejection sensitivity, .03, t (66) .25, p .8, was a substantial predictor of friendcoworker evaluation expectations. State SelfesteemA important conditional major impact of SOMI on selfesteem, . 43, t (66) 3.3, p .00, was certified by the predicted considerable SOMI x Condition interaction, .27, t (66) two.eight, p .03, r partial .26 (see Figure four). As predicted, when participants believed their ethnicity was identified, greater SOMI scores had been connected with substantially reduced state selfesteem, .70, t (66) 3.27, p .002, r partial .37. In contrast, when participants believed their ethnicity was unknown, the relationship in between SOMI scores and state selfesteem was not important, .5, t (66) .3, p .26, r partial .4. Looked PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26985301 at one more way, the selfesteem of participants greater in suspicion ( SD on SOMI), tended to be larger following positive feedback if their ethnicity was not known than if it was identified to their evaluator, .28, t (66) .68, p .0, r partial .20. In contrast, among participants reduce in suspicion ( SD on SOMI), selfesteem tended to become greater if their ethnicity was (vs. was not) recognized .25, t (66) .56, p .two, r partial .20. Race rejectionsensitivity was not a considerable predictor of state selfesteem, .3, t (66) .09, p .28, along with the main effect for situation was not important (p .96). Feelings of uncertaintyThe predicted SOMI x Co.
