Peer victimization but not social anxiety negatively influences predicted enjoyment during peer interactions

Isabel Leiva , Samantha S. Reisman , Chelsea Helion , Vishnu P. Murty , Johanna Jarcho
{"title":"Peer victimization but not social anxiety negatively influences predicted enjoyment during peer interactions","authors":"Isabel Leiva ,&nbsp;Samantha S. Reisman ,&nbsp;Chelsea Helion ,&nbsp;Vishnu P. Murty ,&nbsp;Johanna Jarcho","doi":"10.1016/j.xjmad.2025.100105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>We often underestimate how much others enjoy initial interactions with us - a phenomenon known as the liking gap. While widely documented, less research has explored how individual differences such as social anxiety and negative social experiences influence the liking gap. To test this, female and non-binary dyads (N = 23) varying in severity of social anxiety and exposure to peer victimization, completed semi-structured dialogues with strangers. Following the interaction, participants rated their own enjoyment and their assumption of their partner’s enjoyment of the interaction. Consistent with past literature, participants underestimated their partner’s enjoyment. The magnitude of the liking gap was greater for participants with more exposure to peer victimization, but not social anxiety. The relationship with peer victimization was specifically linked to incorrect perceptions about their partner’s enjoyment. This suggests that the liking gap may be susceptible to individual differences in peer victimization, rather than a broader phenotype of social anxiety.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":73841,"journal":{"name":"Journal of mood and anxiety disorders","volume":"9 ","pages":"Article 100105"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of mood and anxiety disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950004425000021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We often underestimate how much others enjoy initial interactions with us - a phenomenon known as the liking gap. While widely documented, less research has explored how individual differences such as social anxiety and negative social experiences influence the liking gap. To test this, female and non-binary dyads (N = 23) varying in severity of social anxiety and exposure to peer victimization, completed semi-structured dialogues with strangers. Following the interaction, participants rated their own enjoyment and their assumption of their partner’s enjoyment of the interaction. Consistent with past literature, participants underestimated their partner’s enjoyment. The magnitude of the liking gap was greater for participants with more exposure to peer victimization, but not social anxiety. The relationship with peer victimization was specifically linked to incorrect perceptions about their partner’s enjoyment. This suggests that the liking gap may be susceptible to individual differences in peer victimization, rather than a broader phenotype of social anxiety.
同伴受害而非社交焦虑负向影响同伴互动中的预期享受
我们经常低估别人对我们最初互动的享受程度——这种现象被称为“喜欢差距”。虽然有广泛的文献记载,但很少有研究探讨社交焦虑和负面社交经历等个体差异如何影响喜好差距。为了验证这一点,女性和非二元二人组(N = 23)在社交焦虑和同伴受害的严重程度上有所不同,完成了与陌生人的半结构化对话。在互动之后,参与者评估了他们自己对互动的享受程度以及他们对伴侣对互动的享受程度的假设。与过去的文献一致,参与者低估了伴侣的快乐程度。受同伴伤害的参与者的喜好差距更大,而社交焦虑的参与者则没有。与同伴受害的关系特别与对伴侣享受的错误看法有关。这表明,喜好差距可能受到同伴受害的个体差异的影响,而不是社会焦虑的更广泛的表现型。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of mood and anxiety disorders
Journal of mood and anxiety disorders Applied Psychology, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry and Mental Health, Psychology (General), Behavioral Neuroscience
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信