The misprediction of affectionate: Negative evaluations following a failed romantic pursuit are less severe than expected

1. Study Overview
This research investigates the cognitive and evaluative biases that occur when individuals (pursuers) engage in high emotional investment romantic pursuits that end in rejection. Through five scenario-based online experiments, we examined how pursuers predict evaluations from targets (the person being pursued) and bystanders, compared to the actual evaluations received.

2. Hypotheses

H1: High emotional investment during romantic pursuit leads to more positive evaluations from both targets and bystanders compared to low emotional investment.

H2: Following a failed romantic pursuit with high emotional investment, pursuers will underestimate the evaluations of their behavior by both targets and bystanders.

H3: This prediction bias is partly due to pursuers overemphasizing their own competence, while targets and bystanders place greater weight on the warmth conveyed during the pursuit.

H4: Reminding pursuers of the warmth felt by targets and bystanders during the pursuit can reduce or eliminate this prediction bias.

3. Data Collection Methods

Platform: Participants were recruited via the Credamo online platform.

Design: Mixed between- and within-subjects designs were used across studies, with participants randomly assigned to roles (pursuer, target, bystander) and experimental conditions (high vs. low emotional investment, with or without warmth reminders).

Materials: Textual scenarios, video clips from TV dramas, and daily-life pursuit descriptions were used as experimental stimuli.

Measures:

Evaluations were collected using 7-point Likert scales (1 = very low, 7 = very high).

Dependent variables included ratings of liking, sincerity, appropriateness, warmth, and competence.

Attention checks and manipulation checks were included to ensure data quality.

Sample Sizes: Ranged from 113 to 245 participants per study group, with power analyses conducted to ensure adequate statistical power (1-β ≥ 0.80).

4. Key Findings

Study 1: Confirmed H1. High emotional investment elicited significantly higher evaluations from both targets (M = 5.53 vs. 3.79, p < 0.001) and bystanders (M = 6.06 vs. 4.93, p < 0.001).

Studies 2 & 3: Confirmed H2. Pursuers systematically underestimated evaluations from targets (e.g., M = 3.06 vs. 5.37, p < 0.001) and bystanders (e.g., M = 4.23 vs. 5.48, p < 0.001) across textual and video scenarios.

Study 4: Confirmed H3. Competence and warmth mediated the prediction bias, with targets and bystanders weighting warmth more heavily than competence.

Study 5: Confirmed H4. Reminding pursuers of the warmth felt by evaluators significantly reduced the prediction bias (e.g., pursuer-reminder vs. pursuer-control: M = 4.25 vs. 3.23, p < 0.001).