The Surprise of Reaching Out: Appreciated More Than We Think

Liu, P. J., Rim, S., Min, L., & Min, K. E. (2023). The surprise of reaching out: Appreciated more than we think. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 124(4), 754-771. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000402

Rationale

Social connections are essential for well-being and happiness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Cohen & Wills, 1985), but staying connected often requires initiative to reach out.

While there are costs and benefits to reaching out, this research examines whether people accurately perceive the benefits to others.

Prior work has shown people often mispredict others’ perspectives in social situations (Epley et al., 2004) and underestimate appreciation for expressions of gratitude (Kumar & Epley, 2018) or compliments (Zhao & Epley, 2021a).

However, not all relationships involve reasons for gratitude or compliments, especially with weak ties. This research thus examines reaching out more broadly through simple check-ins, aiming to understand if people accurately predict others’ appreciation for these gestures.

The authors propose that initiators may underestimate responders’ appreciation, potentially due to differential focus on the responder’s feelings of surprise. Understanding this could shed light on barriers to social connection and ways to overcome them.

Method

The researchers conducted a series of preregistered experiments using various methods:

• Recall paradigm (Experiment 1)
• Field experiments with actual reach-outs in dyads (Experiments 2, 3, 5a)
• Scenario-based experiments (Experiments 4a, 4b, 5b, 6, 7)

Procedure

Across experiments, participants were randomly assigned to initiator or responder roles. Initiators were asked to reach out or imagine reaching out to someone, while responders received or imagined receiving a reach-out.

Both groups then rated appreciation levels. Some studies manipulated additional factors like relationship closeness or reach-out context.

Sample

Participants included U.S. college students and adults recruited through university behavioral labs and online platforms like Prolific Academic.

Sample sizes varied across experiments, ranging from 54 dyads in Experiment 2 to 1,602 participants in Experiment 7.

Measures

• Appreciation index: 4-item measure assessing extent of appreciation, gratitude, thankfulness, and pleasure (adapted from Flynn & Adams, 2009)
• Focus on responder’s surprise: 2-item measure in Experiments 5a and 5b
• Control measures in some experiments (e.g., relationship closeness, temporal distance)

Statistical measures

• Independent samples t-tests
• Paired samples t-tests
• Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
• Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)
• Mediation analysis using PROCESS macro
• Linear mixed effects modeling for dyadic data

Results

Hypothesis 1: Initiators underestimate how much responders appreciate being reached out to.

This hypothesis was supported across all experiments:

• Experiment 1 (recall paradigm): Initiators (M = 5.50) vs. Responders (M = 5.87), p = .041
• Experiment 2 (field experiment with notes): Initiators (M = 5.57) vs. Responders (M = 6.17), p = .015
• Experiment 3 (field experiment with notes and gifts): Initiators (M = 4.25) vs. Responders (M = 4.72), p < .001
• Experiment 4a (scenario with brief messages): Initiators (M = 4.36) vs. Responders (M = 4.81), p = .027
• Experiment 4b (scenario with small gifts): Initiators (M = 5.72) vs. Responders (M = 6.32), p < .001

Hypothesis 2: The underestimation of reach-out appreciation is mediated by a differential focus on the responder's surprise.

This hypothesis was supported in Experiments 5a and 5b:

• Experiment 5a: Significant indirect effect, B = .18, 95% CI [.02, .36]
• Experiment 5b: Significant indirect effect, B = .06, 95% CI [.02, .13]

Hypothesis 3: The underestimation of reach-out appreciation is moderated by the surprisingness of the reach-out context.

This hypothesis was supported in Experiments 6 and 7:

• Experiment 6: Significant interaction between role and reach-out context, F(1, 1572) = 23.30, p < .001
• Experiment 7: Significant interaction between role and relationship closeness, F(1, 1598) = 11.82, p < .001

Insight

This research reveals a consistent tendency for people to underestimate how much others appreciate being reached out to, whether through brief messages or small gifts. This underestimation occurs across various relationships and contexts.

The findings suggest that one key reason for this underestimation is that responders focus more on their feelings of pleasant surprise than initiators anticipate.

These insights extend previous research on social misperceptions by demonstrating that the underestimation of others’ positive reactions applies not just to expressions of gratitude or compliments, but to simple gestures of reaching out as well.

The study also identifies important moderators, showing that the underestimation is greater when reach-outs are more surprising (e.g., from weak ties or in unexpected contexts).

Future research could explore:

• How this phenomenon applies to different cultures or age groups
• Long-term effects of reaching out on relationship quality
• Effective interventions to increase reaching out behavior
• How the underestimation might differ for reach-outs in negative relationship contexts

Strengths

The study had many methodological strengths including:

• Use of multiple methods (recall, field experiments, scenarios)
• Replication of findings across different samples and contexts
• Preregistration of all experiments
• Examination of both mediating mechanisms and moderating factors
• Use of actual reach-out behaviors in field experiments
• Control for potential confounding variables in some experiments

Limitations

• Samples were primarily from U.S. populations, limiting generalizability to other cultures
• Focus was on positive or neutral relationships, not examining reach-outs in negative relationship contexts
• Most experiments used hypothetical scenarios rather than real-world behaviors
• Relatively short-term focus, not examining long-term effects of reaching out
• Potential self-selection bias in field experiments with high attrition rates
• Reliance on self-report measures for appreciation and surprise focus

Implications

The findings have significant real-world implications for improving social connections and relationships.

People may be hesitant to reach out to others due to underestimating how much their gesture would be appreciated.

This misperception could lead to missed opportunities for social connection, particularly with weak ties or after periods of no contact.

Understanding that others likely appreciate reach-outs more than expected could encourage people to initiate more social contact. This could be especially valuable in contexts where social isolation is a concern, such as during global pandemics or for populations at risk of loneliness.

The research also highlights the importance of surprise in social interactions. Unexpected positive gestures may have a particularly strong impact on relationship quality and social bonds. This insight could inform strategies for relationship maintenance and social support programs.

For clinical psychology practice, these findings could inform interventions for individuals struggling with social anxiety or isolation.

Encouraging clients to reach out more often, armed with the knowledge that others likely appreciate it more than they expect, could be a valuable therapeutic tool.

The moderating effect of relationship closeness suggests that reaching out to weak ties may be especially impactful. This could inform public health initiatives aimed at strengthening community bonds and social support networks.

References

Primary reference

Liu, P. J., Rim, S., Min, L., & Min, K. E. (2023). The surprise of reaching out: Appreciated more than we think. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 124(4), 754-771. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000402

Other references

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.

Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357.

Epley, N., Keysar, B., Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2004). Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 327–339.

Flynn, F. J., & Adams, G. S. (2009). Money can’t buy love: Asymmetric beliefs about gift price and feelings of appreciation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(2), 404–409.

Kumar, A., & Epley, N. (2018). Undervaluing gratitude: Expressers misunderstand the consequences of showing appreciation. Psychological Science, 29(9), 1423–1435.

Zhao, X., & Epley, N. (2021a). Insufficiently complimentary?: Underestimating the positive impact of compliments creates a barrier to expressing them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(2), 239–256.

Keep Learning

Socratic questions for a college class to discuss this paper:

1. How might cultural differences influence the underestimation of reach-out appreciation? What factors could lead to variations across cultures?
2. In what ways might technology and social media impact the phenomenon studied in this research? How could these platforms affect our perceptions of reaching out and being reached out to?
3. How might the findings of this study apply to professional networking or business relationships? Are there potential implications for fields like marketing or human resources?
4. How can we encourage more reaching out without creating undue pressure or expectations?
5. How might the underestimation of reach-out appreciation change over the lifespan? Would you expect differences between younger and older adults in how they perceive and appreciate reach-outs?
6. In what ways could this research inform our understanding of social support during times of crisis or stress? How might the findings apply to mental health interventions or support groups?
7. How might individual differences in personality traits (e.g., extraversion, neuroticism) moderate the effects found in this study? What other individual difference factors might be relevant to explore?