Supplemental Material for Hiding Success

2020 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology  
Additional measures and results from reported studies : SOM 1. Same versus mixed gender dyads (Study 1) SOM 2. Moderation by relationship closeness (Study 1) SOM 3. Complete OLS regression results (Study 2) SOM 4. Subscales of paternalistic motives measure (Studies 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7) SOM 5. Trust game results (Study 4) SOM 6. Time 1 vs. time 2 results (Study 6) SOM 7. Discomfort with sharing success (Study 7) SOM 8. Results by gender (Studies 1-7) Additional studies not reported in the main
more » ... script: SOM 9. Study S1. Social comparison (communicator perspective) SOM 10. Study S2. Social comparison (target perspective) SOM 11. Study S3. Communicator mispredictions about hiding success SOM 12. Study S4. Hiding success vs. failure replication SOM 13. Study S5. Closeness and social comparison SOM 14. Study S6. Paternalistic motives pilot SOM 15. Study S7. Hiding success naturalistic lab study pre-test Hiding Success SOM 2 SOM 1. Same versus mixed gender dyads (Study 1) We conducted additional analyses in Study 1, in which we examine how the gender combination of the communicator and target affected our results. In Study 1, there were 65 mixed-sex dyads (32 dyads with a male communicator/female target and 33 dyads with a female communicator/male target) and 86 same-sex dyads (40 dyads of both males and 46 dyads of both females). In this study, the gender combination of the dyad significantly moderated the effect of hiding success on feelings of insult, F(1, 147) = 5.75, p = .018. In mixed-gender dyads, targets felt significantly more insulted when the communicator hid their success than when they shared their success, F(1, 63) = 11.69, p < .001. This effect was attenuated in same-gender dyads, where targets only felt marginally more insulted when the communicator hid their success than when they shared their success, F(1, 84) = 3.35, p = .071. Otherwise, there were no significant differences in the reactions to sharing and hiding success based on the gender combination of the dyads (each p > .100). These findings suggest that the relational costs of hiding success may be greater in mixed-gender dyads than in same-gender dyads, however, we are hesitant to over-interpret this post-hoc result. Hiding Success SOM 3 SOM 2. Moderation by relationship closeness (Study 1) In Study 1, we explored whether the consequences of hiding success were moderated by the target's closeness to the communicator. In order to explore the moderating role of relationship closeness in a naturalistic setting, we ran additional analyses to test the impact of targets' initial closeness (before the manipulation) with the communicator on reactions to sharing and hiding success. We found targets' closeness to their partner significantly moderated their feelings of happiness (b = -0.86, p = .001). When communicators shared their success, targets felt similarly happy for the communicator regardless of their relationship closeness (b = 0.15, p = .175). However, when communicators hid their success, targets felt happier for the communicator when they were in a close relationship than in a distant relationship (b = 1.01, p < .001). These results should be interpreted with caution because participants may have been interpreting the questions differently across the two conditions. Specifically, targets in the Share condition may have reported their happiness for the communicator's success, and targets in the Hide condition (who never learned about the communicator's success) may have been instead thinking generally about their feelings towards the communicator, which were positively correlated with closeness (r = .238, p = .003). Additionally, targets' closeness to their partner marginally moderated their feelings of insult (b = -0.22, p = .077) and closeness (b = -0.42, p = .099). When communicators shared their success, targets felt similarly insulted by the communicator regardless of their relationship closeness (b = 0.01, p = .754). However, when communicators hid their success, targets felt marginally more insulted by the communicator when they were in a close relationship than in a distant relationship (b = Hiding Success SOM 4 0.23, p < .001). While these marginal results should be interpreted with caution, they are consistent with Supplemental Study S5, where find the strength of the relationship moderates the relational consequences of hiding success. However, while target's felt closer to communicator in close relationships than in distant relationships both when the communicator hid success (b = 1.24, p < .001) and shared success (b = 0.82, p < .001), hiding success reduced feelings of closeness less in close relationships than in distant relationships. These marginal closeness results should also be interpreted with caution, particularly because the findings conflict with Studies 7 and S5, where we manipulate the strength of the relationship and instead find hiding success reduces feelings of closeness more in close relationships than in distant relationships, presumably because sharing is more normative in close relationships (Chelune,
doi:10.1037/pspi0000322.supp fatcat:4ltco42tpzbxxmg4msp5fnczh4