Empirical evidence affirms that gender is a nonbinary spectrum. Yet our review of recently published empirical articles reveals that demographic gender measurement in psychology still assumes that gender comprises just two categories: women and men. This common practice is problematic. It fails to represent psychologists' current understanding of gender, violates our ethical principles as scientists, and can result in gender misclassification. Psychologists' reliance on binary measures also conveys an exclusionary attitude that is contrary to recent ethical recommendations and contrary to the growing public concern about transgender rights. We extend five simple, no-cost recommendations that begin to resolve these ethical and methodological problems: use and report, nonbinary gender measures; report the prevalence of nonbinary participants; clarify their inclusion and treatment in analysis; and use gender inclusive language. We also address common concerns expressed by researchers, including whether measuring "sex" resolves the issue and whether gender-inclusive measures confuse or offend participants.

A model of the trust-insurance system is proposed to examine how low and high self-esteem people cope with the interdependence dilemma posed by feeling inferior to a romantic partner. Feeling inferior automatically activates "if-then" contingencies that link inferiority to the exchange script (i.e., partner qualities are evenly traded) and exchange script anxieties to reparative efforts to secure a partner's dependence. A daily diary study of newlyweds and five experiments supported the model. Induced upward social comparisons to the partner activated exchange anxieties for low, but not high, self-esteem people. When implicitly primed, the exchange script heightened worries about being inferior and motivated behavioral efforts to increase the partner's dependence regardless of selfesteem. When consciously deliberated, the exchange script only elicited dependence-promotion for low self-esteem people. "It's a discrimination that's widespread, but largely unspoken, causing pain and stress to the affected couples, who often find it hard to talk about, even to each other. I'm talking, of course, about marrying outside your looks. Marrying a few degrees up or down the hotness scale. Refusing to stay within your cute-gory."Though tongue-in-cheek, Belinda Luscombe's comments in an essay for Time Magazine (May 7, 2007, pg. 86) illustrate a ubiquitous principle of social life -the need to perceive a matched or equivalent exchange (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). The implicit assumption that partners need to be "matched" in basic value is so engrained that violations of this equivalence principle prompt a search for explanation. After all, who hasn't implicitly assumed that an unattractive man paired with a beautiful woman is either rich, powerful, or both?Address correspondence to Sandra Murray, Department of Psychology, Park Hall, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, 14260−4110. E-mail: smurray@buffalo.edu.. Publisher's Disclaimer: The following manuscript is the final accepted manuscript. It has not been subjected to the final copyediting, fact-checking, and proofreading required for formal publication. It is not the definitive, publisher-authenticated version. The American Psychological Association and its Council of Editors disclaim any responsibility or liabilities for errors or omissions of this manuscript version, any version derived from this manuscript by NIH, or other third parties. The published version is available at www.apa.org/journals/psp. NIH Public Access NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptThis paper examines how the motivation to perceive an equivalent exchange affects the dynamics of romantic relationships. We argue that two implicit and inter-connected "if-then" procedural rules solve a basic problem of interdependence: Ensuring a partner's commitment to meet one's needs (Kelley, 1979). To avoid costly rejection experiences, people rely on a dynamic and dyadic barometer that estimates their worth relative to the partner. In this...

The authors draw upon social, personality, and health psychology to propose and test a self-and-social-bonds model of health. The model contends that lower self-esteem predicts health problems and that poor-quality social bonds explain this association. In Study 1, lower self-esteem prospectively predicted reports of health problems 2 months later, and this association was explained by subjective reports of poor social bonds. Study 2 replicated the results of Study 1 but used a longitudinal design with 6 waves of data collection, assessed self-reports of concrete health-related behaviors (i.e., number of visits to the doctor and classes missed due to illness), and measured both subjective and objective indicators of quality of social bonds (i.e., interpersonal stress and number of friends). In addition, Study 2 showed that poor-quality social bonds predicted acute drops in self-esteem over time, which in turn predicted acute decreases in quality of social bonds and, consequently, acute increases in health problems. In both studies, alternative explanations to the model were tested.

Social risk elicits self-esteem differences in signature social motivations and behaviors during the relationship-initiation process. In particular, the present research tested the hypothesis that lower self-esteem individuals' (LSEs) motivation to avoid rejection leads them to self-protectively underestimate acceptance from potential romantic partners, whereas higher self-esteem individuals' (HSEs) motivation to promote new relationships leads them to overestimate acceptance. The results of 5 experiments supported these predictions. Social risk increased activation of avoidance goals for LSEs on a word-recall task but increased activation of approach goals for HSEs, as evidenced by their increased use of likeable behaviors. Consistent with these patterns of goal activation, even though actual acceptance cues were held constant across all participants, social risk decreased the amount of acceptance that LSEs perceived from their interaction partner but increased the amount of acceptance that HSEs perceived from their interaction partner. It is important to note that such self-esteem differences in avoidance goals, approach behaviors, and perceptions of acceptance were completely eliminated when social risk was removed.

The authors draw on sociometer theory (e.g., Leary, 2004) and self-verification theory (e.g., Swann, 1997) to propose an expanded model of the regulatory function of self-esteem. The model suggests that people not only possess an acceptance signaling system that indicates whether relational value is high or low but also possess an epistemic signaling system that indicates whether social feedback is consistent or inconsistent with chronic perceived relational value (i.e., global self-esteem). One correlational study and 5 experiments, with diverse operationalizations of social feedback, demonstrated that the epistemic signaling system responds to self-esteem consistent or inconsistent relational-value feedback with increases or deceases in epistemic certainty. Moreover, Studies 3-6 demonstrated that the acceptance and epistemic signaling systems respond uniquely to social feedback. Finally, Studies 5 and 6 provide evidence that the epistemic signaling system is part of a broader self-regulatory system: Self-esteem inconsistent feedback caused cognitive efforts to decrease the discrepancy between self-views and feedback and caused depleted self-regulatory capacity on a subsequent self-control task.