Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Mar 5.
Published before final editing as: Affect Sci. 2026 Mar 3:10.1007/s42761-026-00353-0. doi: 10.1007/s42761-026-00353-0

Interdependent Partners Experience Stronger Affective Responses to Simultaneous Positive and Negative Social Feedback

Diego Guevara Beltran 1, Shan-Shan Ma 1, Erin L Maresh 1, Andrea M Coppola 1, Matthias R Mehl 1, Jessica R Andrews-Hanna 1, David A Sbarra 1
PMCID: PMC12959481  NIHMSID: NIHMS2140949  PMID: 41788404

Abstract

Social rejection and acceptance are typically investigated from the perspective of individuals receiving, or observing, such information independent of others. However, experiences of rejection and acceptance often unfold in dyadic contexts, and can have implications for how partners interact, relate, and support each other, especially when partners experience incongruent social feedback (e.g., when others express caring for you but disapprove of your partner). How do people respond to a partner’s outcomes when faced with this type of challenging (i.e., incongruent) information? Employing a novel dyadic task, we examined affective responses to simultaneous social feedback information among cohabiting couples (Nparticipants = 168). Consistent with preregistered hypotheses, participants reporting higher positive relational interdependence were more likely to experience their partner’s social feedback as a personal reward or loss. This pattern emerged even when participants received incongruent social feedback (e.g., receiving negative feedback while a partner received positive feedback). Moreover, positive affect for a partner’s social feedback was associated with being responsive to the partner’s outcomes (i.e., higher perceived partner support, and perceived capitalization attempts). Together, findings suggest that positive relational interdependence allows people to respond sensitively to their partner’s rewarding and aversive events despite interference that may come from self-directed challenging (i.e., incongruent) information.

Keywords: Close relationships, interdependence, social rejection, social acceptance, affect

Social rejection can be highly distressing (Eisenberger & Lieberman, 2004; Eisenberger et al., 2003; Riva et al., 2011). Conversely, social inclusion is hedonically rewarding, satisfying humans’ fundamental need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Gerber & Wheeler, 2009). Although typically studied in the form of individual responses, rejection and acceptance experiences often unfold in dyadic contexts. For example, partners may experience joy after learning both were invited to a party, but social pang after learning both were excluded from the guest list. At times, however, social feedback is incongruent, for example, when others express caring for you but disapprove of your partner (Sprecher & Felmlee, 1992). How do partners react in such incongruent situations? Will they focus on their own outcomes, or will they feel as if their partner’s outcomes are their own? And might these responses have implications for how people interact and support each other? Here, we test the hypothesis that positive relational interdependence is associated with feeling a partner’s feedback as one’s own, even during incongruent situations, when it might be especially difficult to do so. We also examine where these affective responses are associated with positive relationship outcomes.

How does one become relationally interdependent? When outcomes depend on both partner’s actions, and when partners share mutual interests, partners experience interdependence and positive covariation of interests (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Thibaut & Kelley, 1960; Van Lange & Balliet, 2015). Romantic partners share many kinds of interests that can foster positive interdependence. For example, by way of their commitment towards each other, children, and family people become increasingly interdependent, and this also occurs through the division of labor and mutual support couples experience when sharing a household (Cronk et al., 2019). Indeed, the investment model states that positive interdependence arises when partners derive greater benefits than costs from their relationship, in turn cultivating attachment (Agnew et al., 1998; Rusbult, 1983; Rusbult et al., 1998). Thus, intimacy, commitment, self-other overlap, and relationship satisfaction (Agnew et al., 1998; Aron et al., 1992; Berscheid et al., 1989; Clark & Mills, 1979; Knobloch & Solomon, 2004; Rusbult et al., 1998) can be understood as perceptions of positive interdependence that motivate people to engage in long-term investments towards their partner (Brown, 1999; Brown & Brown, 2006).

When partners experience positive relational interdependence, what is good for a partner is good for oneself, and what is bad for oneself is bad for a partner (Aktipis et al., 2018, Roberts, 2005). Specifically, partner’s outcomes are expected to yield indirect costs or benefits on oneself as a product of one’s degree of positive relational interdependence with a partner (Guevara Beltran et al., 2025). Correspondingly, perceptions of positive interdependence potentiate affective responses for one’s partners outcomes, including outcomes related to social feedback (e.g., rejection) (Ayers et al., 2023; Beeney et al., 2011; Claypool et al., 2020; Guevara Beltran et al., 2024). Moreover, negative affect for a partner’s needs predict support provision (Ayers et al., 2023; Guevara Beltran et al., 2024; Pinkus et al., 2012, 2008), while positive affect for a partner’s rewarding events promotes expressing enthusiasm about one’s partner’s success (i.e., capitalization attempts) (Gable et al., 2006, 2004).

The Present Study

We predicted that positive relational interdependence would be associated with more positive/negative affect for a partner’s social feedback, and this affect would be associated with perceived partner support and capitalization attempts, both of which are fundamental to maintaining healthy relationships (Reis & Gable, 2015). Past research provides some support for our hypotheses. However, what remains less well understood is how people respond to a partner’s outcomes when faced with challenging (i.e., incongruent) information. While negative affect induced by rejection cues functions as an early-alarm system against potential ostracism, inclusion cues communicate safety (low ostracism risk) and opportunities for social rewards, thus triggering positive affect (Kerr & Levine, 2008). Even minimal cues of rejection and acceptance, such as information that one is liked/disliked by strangers in computerized paradigms, induce positive/negative affect (Gunther Moor et al., 2010; Somerville et al., 2006). Consequently, self-focused affective states may interfere with people’s ability to respond sensitively to their partner’s feedback when such information is received simultaneously. For example, rejection-induced negative affect may interfere with one’s ability to feel good for one’s partner’s acceptance, while inclusion-induced positive affect may inhibit one’s ability to feel bad for one’s partner’s rejection. We predicted this pattern for partners perceiving low positive relational interdependence. In contrast, partners perceiving high relational interdependence should weigh the indirect costs/benefits of their partner’s rejection/acceptance more heavily, and thus experience affect more closely aligned with their partner’s feedback. Said differently, by changing the landscape of expected indirect costs/benefits, positive relational interdependence will be associated with more sensitive responding to one’s partner’s outcomes despite potential interference that may come from simultaneously received incongruent feedback.

Other supporting evidence comes from social comparison research. When making social comparisons, positive relational interdependence is associated with experiencing a partner’s outcomes as one’s own (Beach et al., 1998; Gardner et al., 2002; McFarland et al., 2001; Stapel & Koomen, 2001). Over time, perceiving one’s partner as higher in positive outcomes than others bolsters closeness (Thai & Lockwood, 2024; Thai et al., 2022). However, these findings could also be interpreted in light of the investment model, which predicts that partners experience higher relationship satisfaction when seeing one’s partner as superior to alternatives (Rusbult, 1983).

While akin to research on social comparisons, this study involves significant extensions, both conceptual and methodological. First, participants are not asked to make social comparisons, but merely report their affect following social feedback information (i.e., whether the self and/or their partner are liked or disliked by third-party raters). Second, we examine immediate affective responses, rather than retrospective responses, which are more likely to be influenced by self-evaluative processes. Specifically, participants completed many feedback trials and reported their affect within a short timeframe (i.e., four seconds). Third, we employ a novel dyadic task that allows us to examine affective responses to simultaneous social feedback during congruent and incongruent feedback trials (see Figure 1C). Data for the present study comes from the Connected Lives: Overcoming the Self through Empathy (CLOSE) Study (Ma et al., 2025), which broadly aims to examine associations among rumination, empathy, and mental health among cohabiting romantic couples.

Figure 1. Methods.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

In the first lab session, participants were shown different images of people’s faces and were asked to rate each person on likeability. After this task we took headshots of each participant, explaining that other participants would rate them and their partner on likeability for the purposes of a different study (A). Participants then completed a week-long daily diary, reporting on their positive relational interdependence with their current partner (B). After the daily diary, participants returned for a second lab session to complete the CLOSE task (C). In this task, participants are shown images of different people’s faces, each face is paired with self-directed and partner-directed social feedback (liked = “YES”, disliked = “NO”, provided no feedback = “XX”; self-directed feedback = “YOU”, partner-directed feedback = “PNR”), and participants report their level of affect after receiving social feedback information. Figure 1D shows histograms of affective responses for each social feedback condition (the red dashed lines show mean affect).

Method

Participants

Participants are cohabiting couples from the greater Tucson, Arizona area who participated in the study between 2022-2023 (N = 168; Mage = 31.71, SD = 8.20, min = 19, max = 56). Table 1 shows demographic information. On average, participants had a relationship length of 7.51 years (SD = 5.86, min = 1.67, max = 30.25), living with their partner for 5.97 years (SD = 6.09, min = 0.5, max = 29.58), and a socioeconomic status level of 5.62 (SD = 1.76, min = 1, max = 9; 1 = worse off than others, 10 = better off than others) (Adler et al., 2000). Because participants completed an MRI scan (Ma et al., 2025), participants with ferromagnetic or electronic implants, involuntary motor disorders, back problems, claustrophobia, or who were pregnant were excluded. This project was approved by the IRB at the University of Arizona and participants were compensated for their participation.

Table 1.

Sample demographics

Gender N (%) Ethnicity N (%)
Woman 83 (49.4) White 125 (74.4%)
Man 69 (41.1) Asian/Asian American 8 (4.8)
Non-binary 7 (4.2) Black/African American 6 (3.6)
Trans man 1 (0.59) Hispanic/Latino 3 (1.8)
Other 1 (0.6) Mexican/Mexican American 4 (2.4)
Prefer to not disclose 1 (0.6) Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian 4 (2.4)
No response 6 (3.6) Native American 3 (1.8)
Middle Eastern 2 (1.2)
Turkish 1 (0.6)
Mixed 1 (0.6)
No response 8 (4.8)
Annual personal income N (%) Have children N (%)
Bellow $10,000 29 (17.3) No 103 (61.3)
$10,000 - $24,999 27 (16.1) Yes 55 (32.7)
$25,000 - $49,999 38 (22.6) No response 10 (6)
$50,000 - $74,999 34 (20.2) Children with current partner N (%)
$75,000 - $99,999 19 (11.3) 0 12 (7.1)
$100,000 - $149,999 11 (6.5) 1 17 (10.1)
$150,000 - $249,999 4 (2.4) 2 20 (11.9)
$250,000 or more 0 3 9 (5.4)
No response 6 (3.6) 5 2 (1.2)
Open in a new tab

Procedures and Measures

Face-rating Task

The CLOSE Study consists of two in-person sessions, and longitudinal data collection (e.g., daily diary) in between sessions. In the first session, couples report their demographic information, complete social interaction tasks with their partner (not part of the present study), and participate in a “first impressions” face-rating task. The face rating task is designed to build a cover story to increase the credibility of subsequent social feedback information participants will receive in the second session (e.g., Gunther Moor et al., 2010; Somerville et al., 2006; Torzillo et al., 2024). In this task (Figure 1A), participants are told they will rate the likeability of other participants who completed the first session of the CLOSE Study. Combined, participants rated 30 photos for likeability, and these photos were different from those used in the second session of the study.

Participants were told: “We have a separate ongoing study in which hundreds of participants have already had their pictures taken. The selection of people that you just rated were drawn from this other study. As part of the ongoing study that they are part of, these people are sent new photos to rate each time a couple participates in your version of the study.” To indicate whether a person appeared likeable, participants pressed the right arrow, displaying the word “YES” on the screen. To indicate whether a person did not appear likeable, participants pressed the left arrow, displaying the word “NO” on the screen. The text “XX” would appear on the screen if participants did not press either arrow key within two seconds, at which point the task would continue to the next trial (i.e., photo). Finally, a research assistant took photos of participants at the end of the first session to increase the credibility of the cover story (i.e., that other participants would rate their photos for likeability).

Daily Diary

In between the first and second in-person sessions, couples completed a 7-day long daily diary (Figure 1B) in which they reported on several measures about their relationship (i.e., self-other-overlap, relationship satisfaction, perceived partner’s responsiveness, perceived partner support, and received support satisfaction). We computed mean scores for each measure across the 7-day period, and conducted exploratory factor analyses using these mean scores to extract a positive relational interdependence factor. Inclusion of Other in the Self (Aron et al., 1992), perceived partner’s responsiveness (Funk & Rogge, 2007), and three items assessing relationship satisfaction created the positive relational interdependence composite (Table 2). Participants also reported other measures as part of the daily diary (e.g., anxiety, rumination). Exploratory factor analyses, and other daily diary measures not used in the present study, are reported in the preregistration: osf.io/ugqdj/?view_only).

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics of daily diary and questionnaire measures

Construct Item/scale Label/sample item Scoring M SD Min Max α
Daily diary (completed approximately 1 week before the social feedback task)
Positive relational interdependence Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) Select the picture that best describes how you felt about your relationship with your romantic partner today 1 = most separate circles, 7 = most overlapping circles 5.48 1.28 1 7
Perceived partner’s responsiveness 4 items (e.g., My partner really listened to me) 0 = not at all, 5 = completely 4.53 1.07 0 6
Relationship satisfaction - Rewarding How rewarding was your relationship with your partner today? 0 = not at all, 5 = completely 4.01 0.88 1 5
Relationship satisfaction - Happiness Indicate the degree of happiness of your relationship with your partner today 0 = extremely unhappy, 6 = perfect 4.53 1.07 0 6
Relationship satisfaction - Support How satisfied were you with the support you received today from your partner? 0 = not at all, 4 = extremely 2.93 0.75 1 4
Positive relational interdependence composite Average composite of IOS, responsiveness, rewarding, happiness, and support satisfaction Z-scored −0.01 1.01 −4 1 .93
Positive relationship outcomes (completed on the same day as the social feedback task)
Perceived partner support Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support - Significant Other 4 items (e.g., There is a special person who is around when I am in need) 1 = very strongly disagree, 7 = very strongly agree 6.39 0.68 3.75 7 .88
Capitalization attempts Perceived Responses to Capitalization Attempts Scale 3 items (e.g., My partner usually reacts to my good fortune enthusiastically) 1 = not at all true, 7 = very true 5.55 1 2.25 7 .52
Open in a new tab

CLOSE Task

After the daily diary, couples return to the lab for the second session of the CLOSE Study, where they complete the CLOSE task (Figure 1C). The CLOSE task was designed to assess spontaneous empathy for one’s partner’s social feedback during non-challenging and challenging conditions. Before beginning the task, participants are told: “Last week, we had you rate the likability of a small subset of participants in another ongoing version of the study. As a reminder, hundreds of participants are participating in this version of the study, and they receive new photos to rate each time a couple participates in session 1 of your study. Today, you are going to see the ratings made by a large set of these participants on whether the two of you seem likable. You and your partner will each be viewing feedback from the same participants."

The CLOSE task follows a 3 (Self: negative, neutral, positive) ×3 (Partner: negative, neutral, positive) within-subjects design (Ma et al., 2025). To minimize participant fatigue during scanning, the task was split into two consecutive parts. In the first part, participants completed 24 trials per condition (216 total) inside an MRI scanner, reporting their affect during half of these trials. In the second part, participants completed 12 trials per condition (108 total) outside of the scanner, rating their affect after each of these trials. In all trials, a different photo of a rater is displayed for 3.9 seconds alongside the rater’s likeability rating of the participant completing the task (displayed as “YOU” on the screen), and the participant’s partner (displayed as “PNR”). The rater’s likeability ratings are displayed as follows: negative = “NO”, neutral = “XX”, and positive = “YES”. For the neutral condition (“XX”), participants were informed that the rater either did not view their photo or failed to provide feedback within the allotted timeframe. After each rater is shown, there is a 1.3 second interval, followed by a 3.9 second window in which participants are asked to provide their affect ratings (“How did the trial you just saw make you feel?”; −3 = very negative, 0 = neutral, +3 = very positive). Combined, the task yielded 216 possible affect ratings (Figure 1D shows histograms of affect per condition).

The raters shown to participants were not actual raters. Photos shown were headshots of individuals retrieved from the Chicago face database (Ma et al., 2015). All photos displayed neutral facial expressions. Selected photos were equally matched across conditions on age, ethnicity, and attractiveness. In addition, images were specifically selected to match the age, gender, and ethnic distribution of the study site’s demographic makeup, thereby increasing the validity of the stimuli (i.e., by resembling individuals one might encounter in daily life). Couples completed the CLOSE task separately but received social feedback in the same session. While one person completed the CLOSE task, the other completed a battery of self-report questionnaires.

Before participants were debriefed, they were asked to rate the following question about the use of deception (1 = Not at all, 5 = Completely): “During the task, to what degree did you feel like the feedback you and your partner received about your likeability was made by other study participants?” (M = 3.44, SD = 1.29, Min = 1, Max = 5). Additionally, participants were asked to describe, in an open-ended format, whether they experienced suspicion about any aspects of the study. These responses were then coded by a research assistant to create a binary variable indicating presence of suspicion. Fifty-six participants (33% of the sample) reported some kind of suspicion. Of these 56 participants, 39 (76.5%) suspected the feedback was fabricated or raters were not real participants, six (11.8%) did not believe the cover story, 3 (5.9%) did not specify their suspicion, 2 (3.9%) were suspicious about the face-rating task, and one participant was suspicious because they did not understand the task. We conduct sensitivity analyses controlling for level of suspicion and removing participants reporting any suspicion.

The CLOSE Task builds on past research employing a similar paradigm in which participants receive self-directed feedback information (i.e., positive or negative likeability ratings from online strangers). Past studies using this paradigm consistently show that self-directed negative feedback induces social pang, including slowed heart inter-beat interval (which is associated with the subjective experience of hurt during social rejection), heightened BOLD activity in brain regions associated with the processing of social pain (e.g., ACC), and higher subjective pain ratings. Conversely, self-directed positive feedback induces positive affect associated with the processing of social reward (Gunther Moor et al., 2010; Somerville et al., 2006; Torzillo et al., 2024).

Whether negative or positive, self-directed social feedback induces a self-focused state. Incongruent social feedback trials, such as when the self is disliked but one’s partner is liked, are challenging conditions because they require that partners overcome their self-focused state in order to feel for their partner’s social feedback. Indeed, providing evidence for the validity of the CLOSE Task, Ma et al. (2025) showed that participants with higher trait emotion regulation reported affect more closely aligned to their partner’s feedback during the incongruent feedback trials. Moreover, during the incongruent social feedback trials, Ma and colleagues observed heightened BOLD activity in brain regions canonically implicated in empathy, as well as regions implicated in emotion regulation (e.g., overcoming emotional egocentricity bias; Silani et al., 2013). Activity in these regions was also positively correlated with trait empathy, emotion regulation and daily support provision, suggesting people who respond sensitively to a partner’s feedback during challenging situations do so, in part, by regulating self-focused affect.

Positive Relationship Outcomes

As part of the battery of self-report questionnaires participants answered while their partner completed the CLOSE Task, participants took the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support - Significant Other Subscale (MSPSS) (Zimet et al., 1990). The MSPSS is a reliable measure (α in current study = 0.88) and is associated with outcomes such as cooperativeness, health, well-being, and relationship satisfaction (Blair & Holmberg, 2008; Cloninger & Zohar, 2011; Kleiman & Beaver, 2013). Participants also completed the Perceived Responses to Capitalization Attempts Scale (PRCA; Gable et al., 2004). The PRCA has shown good internal consistency in previous research (α’s = 0.66 to 0.87), and is associated with positive relationship outcomes including daily positive affect, well-being, intimacy, and relationship satisfaction (Gable et al., 2004). In this sample, however, the PRCA had low reliability (α = 0.52) (Table 2). Finally, after completing the CLOSE Task and the battery of questionnaires, participants were debriefed at the end of the second session.

Sample Size Justification, Openness, and Data Transparency

The daily diary, CLOSE Task, and self-reports data were drawn from the Connected Lives: Overcoming the Self through Empathy (CLOSE) Study, which broadly aims to examine associations among rumination, empathy, and mental health. The CLOSE Study includes two in-person sessions with longitudinal data collection in between sessions and a six-month follow-up. In the first session, participants (1) provide demographic information, (2) complete three discussion tasks with their partner while undergoing psychophysiology, and (3) the “first impressions” face-rating task described above (Figure 1A). Then, in between the first and second sessions, couples complete (3) ecological momentary assessments, and (4) a week-long daily (Figure 1B). During the second session, partners complete (5) MRI scanning, (6) the CLOSE Task (Figure 1C) (Ma et al., 2025), and (7) a battery of self-reports (including perceived partner support and perceived capitalization attempts). Finally, (7) participants complete a set of self-reports six months after completing the second session. Data collection for all measures of the CLOSE Study, including those used in the present study, is ongoing.

Hypotheses for the present study were developed after the initiation of data collection on the parent project but prior to any data analysis. The preregistered analysis plan can be found here https://osf.io/ugqdj/?view_only. Our primary analysis of interest is a three-way cross-level interaction predicting affect (i.e., self feedback (within-person) × partner feedback (within-person) × positive relational interdependence (between-person)). A power analysis with simulation for a mixed-effects model predicting affect showed that we could detect a three-way interaction as small as b = −0.04 with 86% power (α = 0.05, N = 168). Given that the three-way interactions we found were greater than or equal to b = ∣0.07∣, we were adequately powered to detect this effect. We ran this power analysis with the lme4, lmerTest, and the pwr packages for R (Bates et al., 2015; Kuznetsova et al., 2017).

In addition to examining the role of positive relational interdependence on affective responses, we planned to analyze aspects of the buffering hypothesis of social support (Coan & Maresh, 2014; Cohen & Wills, 1985; Uchino et al., 1996; Uchino et al., 2018) by examining whether perceptions of partner support or from others (measured as part of the daily diary), would attenuate negative affect in response to self-directed negative feedback during the CLOSE Task. We found no evidence for a buffering effect. However, absent measures of stress appraisal, coping, and support matching (Cutrona & Russell, 1990; Lakey & Cohen, 2000) during the CLOSE Task, we are not in a position to properly test the buffering hypothesis, but we believe our analyses have broad implications for the work in this area and report them in the supplements (SI S2) as part of our preregistered plan.

Analysis Strategy

Is Affect to Social Feedback Moderated by Positive Relational Interdependence?

In this section we describe the primary predictions of interest, the affect ratings during the congruent (i.e., self positive-partner positive, self negative-partner negative) and incongruent (i.e., self positive-partner negative, self negative-partner positive) social feedback trials. Table 4 shows a summary of predictions and results. We predicted that relative to people reporting lower positive relational interdependence, people reporting higher positive relational interdependence would experience:

  • H1a. More negative affect for their partner’s negative feedback when receiving personal negative feedback (i.e., pooled potential costs of rejection would elicit stronger negative responses than individual potential costs of rejection).

  • H1b. More negative affect for their partner’s negative feedback when receiving personal positive feedback (i.e., people would respond sensitively to their partner’s negative feedback even when confronted with challenging/incongruent social feedback).

  • H2a. More positive affect for their partner’s positive feedback when receiving positive feedback (i.e., pooled potential rewards of inclusion would elicit stronger positive responses than individual potential rewards of inclusion).

  • H2b. More positive affect for their partner’s positive feedback when receiving personal negative feedback (i.e., people would respond sensitively to their partner’s positive feedback even when confronted with challenging/incongruent social feedback).

Table 4.

Summary of predictions and findings

Does Affect to Simultaneous Social Feedback Depend on Positive Relational Interdependence?
Social feedback Prediction Finding
Congruent Self negative Partner negative (H1a) Partners reporting higher positive relational interdependence will experience more negative affect for a partner’s negative feedback when receiving negative feedback Mixed, receiving personal negative feedback attenuated negative affect for a partner’s negative feedback. However, as expected, partners reporting higher positive relational interdependence experienced more negative affect for their partner’s negative feedback than partners reporting lower positive relational interdependence
Incongruent Self positive Partner negative (H1b) Partners reporting higher positive relational interdependence will experience more negative affect for a partner’s negative feedback when receiving positive feedback As expected, compared to partners reporting lower positive relational interdependence, partners reporting higher positive relational interdependence experienced more negative affect for their partner's negative feedback when receiving personal positive feedback
Congruent Self positive Partner positive (H2a) Partners reporting higher positive relational interdependence will experience more positive affect for a partner’s positive feedback when receiving positive feedback No support for predictions, personal positive feedback did not enhance positive affect for a partner’s positive feedback. Partners reporting higher positive relational interdependence did not experience more positive affect for their partner’s positive feedback than partners reporting lower positive relational interdependence
Incongruent Self negative Partner positive (H2b) Partners reporting higher positive relational interdependence will experience more positive affect for a partner’s positive feedback when receiving negative feedback As expected, compared to partners reporting lower positive relational interdependence, partners reporting higher positive relational interdependence experienced more positive affect for their partner's positive feedback when receiving personal negative feedback
Is Affect for a Partner’s Social Feedback Associated with Positive Relationship Outcomes?
Social feedback Prediction Finding
Partner negative Self neutral (H3a) People who are in a relationship with a partner who experiences more negative affect for their negative feedback will report positive relationship outcomes No support, negative affect for a partner’s negative feedback was not associated with a partner’s positive relationship outcomes. However, negative affect for a partner’s negative feedback was associated with one’s own perceptions of positive relationship outcomes
Partner positive Self neutral (H3b) People who are in a relationship with a partner who experiences more positive affect for their positive feedback will report better relationship outcomes Mixed, men who are in a relationship with a woman who experiences more positive affect for their positive feedback report better relationship outcomes; but women’s relationship outcomes were not associated with men’s affect for their positive feedback
Open in a new tab

Note. Predictions related to affect to simultaneous social feedback were preregistered and findings are confirmatory. Predictions related to positive relationship outcomes are preregistered but analyses deviate from preregistration and findings are therefore exploratory.

To test these predictions, we ran a three-way cross-level interaction between self feedback, partner feedback, and positive relational interdependence on affect in a mixed-effects linear regression model. We used an unstructured covariance structure, and maximum likelihood as the estimation method with the MIXED procedure for SAS V.9. We saw that 10% of the total variance in affect is found at the level of participants (ICC = .102), and that there was significant variance around the overall intercept of affect between participants (τ = 0.133, SE = 0.015, p < .001). However, only 0.60% of the total variance in affect is found at the level of dyads (ICC = .006), and there was no significant variance around the overall intercept of affect between dyads (τ = 0.008, SE = 0.015, p = .291). We therefore included only a random intercept for participant ID but not for couple ID since there was no variance in affect at the between-couple level. Self feedback and partner feedback were treated as within-person categorical variables. Positive relational interdependence was grand-mean centered and standardized.

Our analysis strategy was as follows. First, we report main effects of self feedback and partner feedback on affect, showing that participants reported more negative/positive affect for self and for a partner’s negative/positive feedback (SI S1.1; Table S1). Second, we report a two-way interaction between self feedback and partner feedback on affect, showing that receiving personal negative feedback attenuated the effect of partner negative feedback on negative affect (SI S1.2; Table S2-S3). Third, we report a two-way interaction between partner feedback and positive relational interdependence on affect, showing that people reporting higher positive relational interdependence experienced more negative/positive affect for their partner’s negative/positive feedback than people reporting lower positive relational interdependence (SI S1.3; Table S4).

Fourth, we probed the three-way interaction between partner feedback, positive relational interdependence, and self feedback on affect (SI S1.4; Table S5). This interaction allows us to examine affect as a function of positive relational interdependence during the congruent and incongruent feedback conditions. Last, to understand whether differences in affect are statistically significant, we examined the simple effects (i.e., mean differences) between low (−1SD) and high (+1SD) positive relational interdependence within each of the four conditions of interest (i.e., congruent negative feedback, congruent positive feedback, and the two incongruent feedback conditions).

Is Affect for a Partner’s Social Feedback Associated with Positive Relationship Outcomes?

In addition to examining how positive relational interdependence is associated with affect for a partner’s social feedback, we predicted that experiencing more negative (H3a), and positive (H3b) affect for a partner’s social feedback would be associated with higher perceived partner support and perceived capitalization attempts. We ran a series of Actor-Partner Interdependence Models (Cook & Kenny, 2005) with positive or negative affect (difference scores reported in Table 3), predicting perceived partner support (MSPSS), and perceived capitalization attempts (PRCA). Although deviating from our preregistered analysis plan, adopting APIMs allows us to examine bidirectional associations between partners’ affect and perceived partner support and perceived capitalization attempts while accounting for couple’s non-independence.

Table 3.

Correlations among positive relational interdependence, affect, and relationship outcomes

Measure Positive relational
interdependence		 Affect
(negative)		 Affect
(positive)		 Capitalization
attempts
Affect (partner’s negative feedback) .164*
Affect (partner’s positive feedback) .240** .481***
Perceived capitalization attempts .402** .093 .117
Perceived partner support .551** .333*** .291*** .357***
Open in a new tab

Note. ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.

We present these analyses as exploratory because the proposed analysis in the preregistration did not account for couple’s non-independence (i.e., SEM of participant-level responses). Given that these analyses are exploratory, we assess findings based on conventional statistical significance (i.e., p < .05), and a conservative test based on the total number of partner effects, where .05/8 tests yields p < .006 to reject the null. Across the four models tested, treating dyads as indistinguishable led to worse model fit than treating dyads as distinguishable by gender (Δ−2LL χ(3)2 = 31 to 35.2, p’s < .001). We therefore ran APIMs with distinguishable dyads by gender, removing 38 participants because they did not complete the CLOSE task, did not report their gender, or did not identify as male or female. We used the APIM_SEM app developed by (Stas et al., 2018), which operates under an SEM approach within lavaan (Rosseel, 2012).

Results

Table 3 shows correlations among positive relational interdependence, affect for a partner’s negative and positive feedback, perceived capitalization attempts, and perceived partner support. To examine these associations, we computed mean affect across all trials for a partner’s negative feedback (i.e., self neutral-partner negative condition; reversed scored), and positive feedback (i.e., self neutral-partner positive condition). To isolate affective responses to a partner’s feedback from individual differences in baseline mood, we subtracted mean affect in the self neutral-partner neutral condition from mean affect in the self neutral-partner negative condition (M = 0.56, SD = 0.91, min = −4, max = 2.91), and from mean affect in the self neutral-partner positive condition (M = 0.55, SD = 0.52, min = −1, max = 2.67).

Affect to Simultaneous Social Feedback Depends on Positive Relational Interdependence

Including the self feedback × partner feedback × positive relational interdependence interaction (F(4, 32,000) = 2.710, p = .028) improved model fit relative to a model in which we included both the self feedback × positive relational interdependence and the partner feedback × positive relational interdependence interaction, indicating that the three-way interaction accounted for additional variance in affect over and above these two-way interactions (Δ−2LL χ(4)2 = 10.900, p < .05). This model (Table S5) accounted for 32.12% of the within-person variance, but none of the between-person variance (ICC = .10). Following our preregistration, we find that the positive relational interdependence × partner feedback × self feedback interaction held controlling for age, gender, and perceived partner support (F(4, 32,000) = 2.620, p = .033).

Interdependence is Associated with Negative Affect for a Partner’s Negative Feedback

We predicted that positive relational interdependence would be associated with more negative affect for a partner’s negative feedback, both during the congruent negative feedback condition (i.e., self negative-partner negative) and when participants received incongruent feedback (i.e., self positive-partner negative). We find mixed evidence for these predictions. A self negative × partner negative × positive relational interdependence interaction (b = 0.069, p = .022, CI95% [0.010, 0.129]) revealed that positive relational interdependence had a smaller negative effect on affect for a partner’s negative feedback when receiving personal negative feedback (b = −0.081, p = .015, CI95% [−0.147, −0.015]), compared to receiving personal neutral feedback (b = −0.136, p < .001, CI95% [−0.202, −0.070]), or personal positive feedback (b = −0.112, p = .001, CI95% [−0.178, −0.046]). These results suggest that, rather than enhancing negative affect for a partner’s negative feedback, personal negative feedback attenuated the effect of positive relational interdependence on affect for a partner’s negative feedback.

However, as predicted, compared to people reporting lower positive relational interdependence (−1SD), people reporting higher positive relational interdependence (+1SD) experienced more negative affect for their partner’s negative feedback when receiving personal negative feedback (H1a. Congruent negative feedback condition: Mdiff = −0.160, CI95% [−0.290, −0.030]); and when receiving personal positive feedback (H1b. Incongruent self positive-partner negative condition: Mdiff = −0.221, CI95% [−0.352, −0.091]) (Figure 2). These results suggest that people reporting higher positive relational interdependence respond more sensitively to their partner’s negative social feedback, including when receiving negative feedback or incongruent positive feedback.

Figure 2. Positive Relational interdependence is associated with stronger affective responses for a partner’s social feedback.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Compared to participants reporting lower (−1SD) positive relational interdependence (red lines), participants with higher (+1SD) positive relational interdependence (blue lines) experienced more negative affect for their partner’s negative feedback when receiving negative feedback (left panel), neutral feedback (middle panel), and positive feedback (right panel). Compared to participants reporting lower (−1SD) positive relational interdependence (red lines), participants with higher (+1SD) positive relational interdependence (blue lines) reported more positive affect for their partner’s positive feedback when receiving negative feedback (left panel), and neutral feedback (middle panel), but not positive feedback (right panel). Difference scores show within condition comparisons between participants perceiving high (+1SD) and low (−1SD) positive relational interdependence. Brackets show 95% CIs. *** = p < .001, ** = p < .01, * = p < .05.

Interdependence is Associated with Positive Affect for a Partner’s Positive Feedback

We predicted that positive relational interdependence would be associated with more positive affect for a partner’s positive feedback, both during the congruent positive feedback condition (i.e., self positive-partner positive) and when participants received incongruent feedback (i.e., self negative-partner positive). We find mixed evidence for these predictions. A self negative × partner positive × positive relational interdependence interaction (b = 0.072, p = .017, CI95% [0.013, 0.132]) revealed that positive relational interdependence was associated with more positive affect for a partner’s positive feedback when receiving personal negative feedback (b = 0.104, p = .002, CI95% [0.039, 0.170]), and neutral feedback (b = 0.091, p = .006, CI95% [0.025, 0.157]), but not when receiving personal positive feedback (b = 0.047, p = .162, CI95% [−0.019, 0.112]). These results suggest that, rather than enhancing positive affect for a partner’s positive feedback, personal positive feedback and a partner’s positive feedback were independently associated with more positive affect.

Correspondingly, compared to people reporting lower positive relational interdependence (−1SD), people reporting higher positive relational interdependence (+1SD) did not experience more positive affect for their partner’s positive feedback when receiving personal positive feedback (H2a. Congruent positive feedback condition: Mdiff = 0.092, CI95% [−0.038, 0.222]). However, as predicted, compared to people reporting lower positive relational interdependence (−1SD), people reporting higher positive relational interdependence (+1SD) did experience more positive affect for their partner’s positive feedback when receiving personal negative feedback (H2b. Incongruent self negative-partner positive condition: Mdiff = 0.206, CI95% [0.076, 0.336]) (Figure 2). These results suggest that people reporting higher positive relational interdependence respond more sensitively to their partner’s positive social feedback, including when receiving incongruent negative feedback.

Affect for a Partner’s Social Feedback is Associated with Positive Relationship Outcomes

We report the unstandardized effects in text, and Figure 3 shows the standardized effects. Women who reported more negative affect for their partner’s negative feedback reported higher perceived partner support (b = 0.293, p = .005, CI95% [0.089, 0.498]) (Figure 3a), and perceived capitalization attempts (b = 0.457, p = .010, CI95% [0.110, 0.804]) (Figure 3b). Men who reported more negative affect for their partner’s negative feedback reported higher perceived partner support (b = 0.251, p < .001, CI95% [0.103, 0.399]) (Figure 3a), but not perceived capitalization attempts (b = 0.089, p = .419, CI95% [−0.126, 0.303]) (Figure 3b). Neither women’s nor men’s affect for their partner’s negative feedback was associated with their partner’s perceived support or perceived capitalization attempts.

Figure 3. Women’s affect for their partner’s positive feedback was associated with men’s positive relationship outcomes.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Men’s and women’s affect for their partner’s negative feedback was not associated with their partner’s perceived support (a), or perceived capitalization attempts (b). Men’s affect for their partner’s positive feedback was not associated with women’s perceived support (c) or perceived capitalization attempts (d). However, women’s affect for their partner’s positive feedback was associated with men’s higher perceived partner support (c), and perceived capitalization attempts (d). Paths show standardized effects. Numbers inside parentheses show standard errors. ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.

Women who reported more positive affect for their partner’s positive feedback reported higher perceived partner support (b = 0.474, p = .001, CI95% [0.189, 0.759]) (Figure 3c), and perceived capitalization attempts (b = 0.627, p = .013, CI95% [0.134, 1.120]) (Figure 3d). Men’s affect for their partner’s positive feedback was not associated with women’s perceived partner support or perceived capitalization attempts. Men who reported more positive affect for their partner’s positive feedback reported higher perceived partner support (b = 0.426, p = .005, CI95% [0.126, 0.726]) (Figure 3c), but not perceived capitalization attempts (b = 0.158, p = .470, CI95% [−0.270, 0.585]) (Figure 3d). Women’s affect for their partner’s positive feedback was associated with men’s higher perceived partner support (b = 0.541, p = .006, CI95% [0.155, 0.927]), and perceived capitalization attempts (b = 0.694, p = .009, CI95% [0.170, 1.217]). In terms of effect sizes, a one-unit increase in women’s affect for their partner’s positive feedback corresponds to 68-69% of a standard deviation increase in men’s perceived partner support, and perceived capitalization attempts. However, these partner effects did not survive correction for multiple comparisons (i.e., .006 < p < .05) and should therefore be treated as suggestive rather than confirmatory until replicated in future research.

Women Reported Stronger Affect for their Partner’s Social Feedback than Men

Why was women’s, but not men’s, affect for their partner’s positive feedback associated with their partner’s perceived partner support and perceived capitalization attempts? To explore this question, we ran a mixed-effects regression probing a feedback partner × gender interaction on affect to test whether men, compared to women, reported weaker affective responses to their partner’s social feedback (controlling for self feedback). We find a partner feedback × gender interaction (F(2, 34000) = 33.95, p < .001), indicating men, compared to women, reported both lower negative affect for their partner’s negative feedback (b = −0.068, p = .007, CI95% [−0.118, −0.019]) and lower positive affect for their partner’s positive feedback (b = −0.205, p < .001, CI95% [−0.255, −0.155]). Specifically, the effect of one’s partner’s negative feedback for women was b = −0.453 (p < .001, CI95% [−0.487, −0.420]), while for men it was b = −0.403 (p < .001, CI95% [−0.530, −0.277]). Similarly, the effect of one’s partner’s positive feedback for women was b = 0.630 (p < .001, CI95% [0.597, 0.664]), while for men it was b = 0.543 (p < .001, CI95% [0.417, 0.670]). These results align with the possibility that, within the context of social feedback, men, compared to women, experience their partner’s outcomes as their own to a lesser extent, especially rewarding ones. This discrepancy may explain why women’s, but not men’s, affect for their partner’s positive feedback was associated with their partner’s perceived partner support and capitalization attempts.

Did Suspicion About the Social Feedback Create Demands?

One might wonder whether suspicion about the source of feedback received during the CLOSE task created demands, such that social desirability would lead participants to report stronger affective responses for their partner’s social feedback because that is what a caring partner would do, or because that is in line with our expectations as researchers. Suspicious participants might also experienced reactance, leading them to report opposing affect ratings to what they believed was expected of them. We ran additional analyses to examine whether level of suspicion about the source of feedback moderated effects (“During the task, to what degree did you feel like the feedback you and your partner received about your likeability was made by other study participants?”; 1 = Not at all, 5 = Completely). In summary, these analyses showed that participants who more strongly believed that the feedback was fabricated did not respond in socially desirable ways. In fact, suspicion did not influence the main effects of partner feedback on affect. What’s more, higher suspicion either eliminated or attenuated the effect of positive relational interdependence on affect for a partner’s social feedback (see SI S1.5).

Additional sensitivity analyses confirm that the self feedback × partner feedback × positive relational interdependence interaction on affect holds when keeping only participants reporting a 4 or 5 (i.e., those reporting the lowest levels of suspicion) (F(4, 16000) = 7.32, p < .001), and when removing the 56 participants reporting any kind of suspicion (F(4, 21000) = 3.03, p = .016). Therefore, it is not likely that affective responses for one’s partner’s feedback were influenced by social desirability because social desirability should lead to stronger, not weaker, affective responses. While the finding that suspicion attenuated affective responses would be more aligned with the possibility that suspicious participants experienced reactance, a more parsimonious explanation is that social feedback elicited weaker affective responses among those reporting suspicion simply because they accurately inferred that the feedback was not real. Regardless, controlling for suspicion or removing suspicious participants altogether does not change our main conclusions.

Discussion

Employing a novel dyadic task (Ma et al., 2025), we examined how couples feel when experiencing simultaneous congruent and incongruent social feedback, and how these affective experiences relate to relationship outcomes. Positive relational interdependence was associated with feeling a partner’s social feedback as one’s own, even when experiencing incongruent social feedback. These results conceptually replicate prior research (Beach et al., 1998; Gardner et al., 2002; McFarland et al., 2001; Pinkus et al., 2012; Stapel & Koomen, 2001), while also demonstrating that positive relational interdependence motivates people to respond sensitively to a partner’s outcomes even when it might be especially difficult to do so.

Responsiveness for a partner’s outcomes during difficult circumstances may have important implications for understanding how people interact, relate, and support each other (Canevello & Crocker, 2010; Guevara Beltran et al., 2024; Reis & Gable, 2015). Indeed, women’s affect for their partner’s positive social feedback was associated with their partner’s higher perceived support and capitalization attempts. Moreover, Ma and colleagues (2025) showed that supporting partners not only recruited brain regions typically implicated in empathy during the incongruent feedback trials of the CLOSE task, but also regions implicated in emotion regulation. While the exact mechanism supporting sensitive affective responding remains to be fully explained, findings suggest that people with high positive relational interdependence respond sensitively to their partner’s aversive and rewarding events, in part because they are more likely to feel their partner’s outcomes as a personal reward/loss, and they regulate self-focused affect during challenging situations (e.g., overcoming emotional egocentricity bias; Silani et al., 2013).

While we focus on the role of positive relational interdependence, we also recognize that self-evaluative processes could influence affect. For example, positive relational interdependence was associated with more positive affect for a partner’s positive feedback when receiving negative feedback. This is consistent with the possibility that, despite making upward comparisons (i.e., seeing one’s partner as more socially liked than oneself), people reporting higher positive relational interdependence engaged in more protective strategies than people reporting lower positive relational interdependence (e.g., downplaying the self-relevance of being socially liked), thereby experiencing less negative/more positive affect. This interpretation aligns with research showing that people in close relationships downplay the self-relevance of the source of comparison when a partner does better than oneself (Thai & Lockwood, 2015).

Although it remains unclear whether effects are driven by heightened sensitivity to a partner’s outcomes, protective self-evaluative processes, or both, our approach diverges from social comparison paradigms. We did not ask participants to evaluate themselves relative to their partner, nor evaluate their partner relative to alternatives. Instead, participants had only four seconds to report their affect following feedback, making explicit self-evaluative or comparative processes less likely. Despite methodological differences, one way to reconcile these alternative accounts is by considering the hypothesis that self-protective strategies facilitate or interact with emotion regulation (e.g., suppressing self-focused affect) when considering relationship goals such as relationship-maintenance motivations. This interpretation is consistent with longitudinal work showing self-protective strategies are associated with closeness and relationship satisfaction, and evidence that positive relational interdependence motivates relationship-maintenance motivations, including being responsive to one’s partner’s outcomes (Brown & Brown, 2006; Canevello & Crocker, 2010; Thai et al., 2022).

Limitations and Future Directions

This study has several strengths, including its multi-method (daily diary, CLOSE task, self-reports) and dyadic design. However, findings should be interpreted considering its limitations. We recruited couples from the general population, providing more demographic diversity than undergraduate samples. Still, all participants were from the United States, limiting generalizability to other cultures. Although a necessary aspect of research employing fMRI, neither the high volume of social feedback received, the unfamiliarity of raters (i.e., online strangers), nor the repetitive nature of the task is typical of how social feedback unfolds in daily life, raising concerns about the generalizability of findings under more naturalistic and consequential contexts. For example, when people make social comparisons about matters that are highly relevant for one’s sense of self, they experience stronger affective responses (Pinkus et al., 2008, 2012). This suggests that domain self-relevance likely moderates partner responsiveness during challenging circumstances.

When the domain is highly relevant for oneself, self-directed feedback elicits stronger self-focused affect (e.g., rejection hurts people who value belonging; being seen as incompetent hurts people who value prestige). Consequently, self-directed feedback might inhibit responsiveness to a partner’s feedback— perhaps even among positively interdependent partners because self-directed feedback would be appraised as more challenging. From this perspective, our findings would not generalize to consequential contexts. Conversely, when the domain is highly relevant for a partner (but not for oneself), partner-directed feedback should elicit stronger other-oriented affect, especially among positively interdependent partners because what is consequential for the partner is also consequential for oneself, and because self-directed feedback would be appraised as less challenging. From this perspective, findings might underestimate the strength of positive relational interdependence on responsiveness to a partner’s feedback under consequential contexts. Future work could test these processes using consequential and ecologically valid feedback settings. For example, by modifying paradigms where people listen to criticism (Nook et al., 2018), such that couples receive congruent and incongruent criticism and praise about themselves and their partner. Such an approach could further manipulate the self-relevance of the feedback.

Conclusion

Employing a novel dyadic task, we examined how couples feel when experiencing simultaneous congruent and incongruent social feedback. We found that people reporting higher positive relational interdependence experienced stronger affect for their partner’s negative and positive feedback, including when this other-oriented affective response might be especially challenging (i.e., when receiving incongruent social feedback to one’s partner). Moreover, dyadic analyses suggested that women’s affect for their partner’s positive feedback was associated with their partner’s higher perceived support and capitalization attempts. However, more research is needed to uncover the mechanisms and boundary conditions that support affective responsiveness to a partner’s outcomes during difficult circumstances.

Supplementary Material

Supplemental Information

Acknowledgments

We thank Katherine Richard, Zane Burrows, Kayleigh Cook and Joanna Hwang for their contributions to project management.

Funding statement

This study was supported by funding from the National Institute of Mental Health (#1R01MH125414-01) awarded to Jessica R. Andrews-Hanna and David A. Sbarra, and by the President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program of the University of Arizona.

Footnotes

Conflict of interest

We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Open Data

Data and analysis code are available here: https://osf.io/ugqdj/?view_only=20073c520d9142a89d7f85af17aae14b

References

  1. Adler NE, Epel ES, Castellazzo G, & Ickovics JR (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: preliminary data in healthy white women. Health Psychology: Official Journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association, 19(6), 586–592. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Agnew CR, Van Lange PAM, Rusbult CE, & Langston CA (1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 939–954. [Google Scholar]
  3. Aktipis A, Cronk L, Alcock J, Ayers JD, Baciu C, Balliet D, Boddy AM, Curry OS, Krems JA, Muñoz A, Sullivan D, Sznycer D, Wilkinson GS, & Winfrey P (2018). Understanding cooperation through fitness interdependence. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(7), 429–431. [Google Scholar]
  4. Aron A, Aron EN, & Smollan D (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the Structure of Interpersonal Closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; Washington, D.C., 63(4), 596. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ayers JD, Sznycer D, Sullivan D, Guevara Beltrán D, van den Akker OR, Muñoz AE, Hruschka DJ, Cronk L, & Aktipis A (2023). Fitness interdependence as indexed by shared fate: Factor structure and validity of a new measure. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 17(3), 259–284. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, & Walker S (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. [Google Scholar]
  7. Baumeister RF, & Leary MR (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Beach SR, Tesser A, Fincham FD, Jones DJ, Johnson D, & Whitaker DJ (1998). Pleasure and pain in doing well, together: an investigation of performance-related affect in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 923–938. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Beeney JE, Franklin RG Jr, Levy KN, & Adams RB Jr. (2011). I feel your pain: emotional closeness modulates neural responses to empathically experienced rejection. Social Neuroscience, 6(4), 369–376. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Berscheid E, Snyder M, & Omoto AM (1989). The Relationship Closeness Inventory: Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 792–807. [Google Scholar]
  11. Blair KL, & Holmberg D (2008). Perceived social network support and well-being in same-sex versus mixed-sex romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(5), 769–791. [Google Scholar]
  12. Brown SL (1999). Origins of investment: A theory of close relationships (Reich JW, Ed.) [Arizona State University; ]. https://www.proquest.com/docview/304494172?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true&sourcetype=Dissertations%20&%20Theses [Google Scholar]
  13. Brown SL, & Brown RM (2006). TARGET ARTICLE: Selective Investment Theory: Recasting the Functional Significance of Close Relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 17(1), 1–29. [Google Scholar]
  14. Canevello A, & Crocker J (2010). Creating good relationships: responsiveness, relationship quality, and interpersonal goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1), 78–106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Clark MS, & Mills J (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 12–24. [Google Scholar]
  16. Claypool HM, Trujillo A, Bernstein MJ, & Young S (2020). Experiencing vicarious rejection in the wake of the 2016 presidential election. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations: GPIR, 23(2), 179–194. [Google Scholar]
  17. Cloninger CR, & Zohar AH (2011). Personality and the perception of health and happiness. Journal of Affective Disorders, 128(1–2), 24–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Cook WL, & Kenny DA (2005). The Actor–Partner Interdependence Model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(2), 101–109. [Google Scholar]
  19. Cronk L, Steklis D, Steklis N, van den Akker OR, & Aktipis A (2019). Kin terms and fitness interdependence. Evolution and Human Behavior: Official Journal of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, 40(3), 281–291. [Google Scholar]
  20. Eisenberger NI, & Lieberman MD (2004). Why rejection hurts: a common neural alarm system for physical and social pain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(7), 294–300. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Eisenberger NI, Lieberman MD, & Williams KD (2003). Does rejection hurt? An FMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290–292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Funk JL, & Rogge RD (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology: JFP: Journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association , 21(4), 572–583. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gable SL, Gonzaga GC, & Strachman A (2006). Will you be there for me when things go right? Supportive responses to positive event disclosures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 904–917. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Gable SL, Reis HT, Impett EA, & Asher ER (2004). What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 228–245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Gardner WL, Gabriel S, & Hochschild L (2002). When you and I are “we,” you are not threatening: the role of self-expansion in social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(2), 239–251. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gerber J, & Wheeler L (2009). On Being Rejected: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Research on Rejection. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 4(5), 468–488. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Guevara Beltran D, Shiota MN, & Aktipis A (2024). A socio-functional perspective on emotion and cooperation. In A.-S. L &. Shackelford T (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Evolution and the Emotions. New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  28. Guevara Beltran Diego, Ayers JD, Cronk L, Balliet D, Koster J, & Aktipis A (2025). Sources of fitness interdependence associated with shared fate and cooperation in a small-scale horticultural society. Evolution and Human Behavior, 47(1). [Google Scholar]
  29. Guevara Beltran Diego, Shiota MN, & Aktipis A (2024). Empathic concern motivates willingness to help in the absence of interdependence. Emotion, 24(3), 628–647. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Gunther Moor B, Crone EA, & van der Molen MW (2010). The heartbrake of social rejection: heart rate deceleration in response to unexpected peer rejection. Psychological Science, 21(9), 1326–1333. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kelley HH, & Thibaut JW (1978). Interpersonal relations: theory interdependence. Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kerr NL, & Levine JM (2008). The detection of social exclusion: Evolution and beyond. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice: The Official Journal of Division 49, Group Psychology and Group Psychotherapy of the American Psychological Association, 12(1), 39–52. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kleiman EM, & Beaver JK (2013). A meaningful life is worth living: meaning in life as a suicide resiliency factor. Psychiatry Research, 210(3), 934–939. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Knobloch LK, & Solomon DH (2004). Interference and facilitation from partners in the development of interdependence within romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 11(1), 115–130. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, & Christensen RHB (2017). lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82, 1–26. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ma DS, Correll J, & Wittenbrink B (2015). The Chicago face database: A free stimulus set of faces and norming data. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1122–1135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Ma S, Maresh EL, Coppola AM, Richard KE, Koban L, Sbarra D, & Andrews-Hanna JR (2024). When Empathy Gets Tough: Neural Responses to Overcoming the Self in a Novel Paradigm Predict Everyday Prosocial Behavior. 10.31234/osf.io/qcj45 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. McFarland C, Buehler R, & MacKay L (2001). Affective responses to social comparisons with extremely close others. Social Cognition, 19(5), 547–586. [Google Scholar]
  39. Nook EC, Dodell-Feder D, Germine LT, Hooley JM, DeLisi LE, & Hooker CI (2018). Weak dorsolateral prefrontal response to social criticism predicts worsened mood and symptoms following social conflict in people at familial risk for schizophrenia. NeuroImage. Clinical, 18, 40–50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Pinkus RT, Lockwood P, Marshall TC, & Yoon HM (2012). Responses to comparisons in romantic relationships: Empathy, shared fate, and contrast. Personal Relationships, 19(1), 182–201. [Google Scholar]
  41. Pinkus RT, Lockwood P, Schimmack U, & Fournier MA (2008). For better and for worse: everyday social comparisons between romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1180–1201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Reis HT, & Gable SL (2015). Responsiveness. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 67–71. [Google Scholar]
  43. Riva P, Wirth JH, & Williams KD (2011). The consequences of pain: The social and physical pain overlap on psychological responses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(6), 681–687. [Google Scholar]
  44. Rosseel Y (2012). lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. [Google Scholar]
  45. Rusbult CE (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 101–117. [Google Scholar]
  46. Rusbult CE, Martz JM, & Agnew CR (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5(4), 357–387. [Google Scholar]
  47. Silani G, Lamm C, Ruff CC, & Singer T (2013). Right supramarginal gyrus is crucial to overcome emotional egocentricity bias in social judgments. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 33(39), 15466–15476. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Somerville LH, Heatherton TF, & Kelley WM (2006). Anterior cingulate cortex responds differentially to expectancy violation and social rejection. Nature Neuroscience, 9(8), 1007–1008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Stapel DA, & Koomen W (2001). I, we, and the effects of others on me: how self-construal level moderates social comparison effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 766–781. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Stas L, Kenny DA, Mayer A, & Loeys T (2018). Giving dyadic data analysis away: A user‐friendly app for actor–partner interdependence models: A user-friendly web app for the APIM. Personal Relationships, 25(1), 103–119. [Google Scholar]
  51. Thai S, & Lockwood P (2015). Comparing you = comparing me: Social comparisons of the expanded self. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(7), 989–1004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Thai S, & Lockwood P (2024). Social-judgment comparisons in daily life. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 50(1), 38–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Thai S, Lockwood P, & Page-Gould E (2022). The ups and downs of being us: Cross-relationship comparisons in daily life. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(12), 1717–1736. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Thibaut J, & Kelley H (1960). The social psychology of groups. Xiii, 313. 10.2307/2108985 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Torzillo J, Topel S, Harrewijn A, van der Molen MJW, & van der Veen F (2024). Subjective pain and reward in a social judgment paradigm. Current Psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.), 43(20), 18095–18108. [Google Scholar]
  56. Van Lange PAM, & Balliet D (2015). Interdependence theory. In APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Volume 3: Interpersonal relations (pp. 65–92). American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
  57. Zimet GD, Powell SS, Farley GK, Werkman S, & Berkoff KA (1990). Psychometric characteristics of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55(3–4), 610–617. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental Information
NIHMS2140949-supplement-Supplemental_Information.docx (7.5MB, docx)

RESOURCES