| Abstract: | This research examines the utility of a terror management approach to understanding the motivations and emotional consequences of compromise in mate selection. One hundred and sixty‐eight undergraduates completed a self‐esteem scale and a scale tapping ideal mate characteristics, and were then assigned either to a mortality salience, physical pain salience, or neutral condition. Half of the participants rated their readiness to compromise ideal mate standards and the remaining half completed a neutral scale. Then, participants completed a scale tapping their emotional state. Mortality salience led participants to significantly compromise their mate requirements. This effect seemed to be most pronounced among high self‐esteem participants who also experienced the greatest amount of guilt when compromising under mortality salient conditions. Low self‐esteem participants who compromised under mortality salient conditions reacted with higher levels of shame. The results are discussed in terms of the anxiety buffering functions of close relationships. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
