If participants managed to complete 10 out of 11 tangrams selected by their partner within 10 min, they would receive a reward. However, because the partner could skip one tangram, we subtracted one from the total number of allocated easy and difficult tangrams, and all negative values were transformed to zeros.
After completing the assessment, the participants were asked what they thought about the study and whether they had any questions, and they were debriefed and thanked. The study was a hybrid of dyadic and individual design. The closeness treatment variable seemingly was a typical dyad-level variable — both participants in one pair either had or did not have 0—0 a structured conversation.
Along with the Kenny et al. However, dyadic analysis is not well suited to the design of the present study because in the no-interaction group, partners did not have a chance to influence each other. Additionally, the rejecting or accepting feedback was presented randomly to individuals and could be the same or different within a pair.
In this situation, proper statistical inference can be assured by use of robust cluster-corrected standard errors estimated using the sandwich method Binder, only for the group in which scores in pairs would be correlated. On the basis of confirmatory factor analysis, aggregated indices of closeness were created from the IOSS, SCI and one additional item measuring general closeness Closeness 1, measured before manipulation, Cl1; Closeness 2, measured after manipulation, Cl2.
The results of separate factor analyses for time 1 and time 2 showed that all four items loaded on one factor r -values fell between 0.
Next, the ICC was conducted separately for small-talk and control conditions for all studied variables to test for the non-independence of the scores in the pairs. Thus, individual participants rather than pairs in the control group should be the objects of analysis, consistent with the suggestion of Kenny et al. Additionally, while there was no difference between Cl1 and Cl2 in the no interaction group, in the small-talk group, Cl2 was higher than Cl1.
The means are presented in Table 1. These analyses confirmed that the small-talk procedure was effective in closeness generation. Table 1. Scores for negative emotions anger, hurt, and sadness and positive emotions happiness and feeling good were correlated, so they were aggregated into negative and positive emotions scales. Hypothesis 1 posited that in the small-talk condition, the negative effects of comparative rejection and rejection with no reason on feelings would be more negative than with strangers.
To test this prediction, a two-factor ANOVA was conducted with feelings of rejection, control, and emotions as dependent variables and feedback acceptance; rejection with no reason; comparative rejection and closeness small-talk, no interaction as independent variables. Because sex was not related to positive and negative emotions, it was not included in the model.
The mean feelings of rejection, control and emotions are presented in Table 2. Table 2. There were no significant differences in feelings between rejection with no reason and comparative rejection conditions. Table 3. Sex was not related to behavior, so it was not included in further analysis. The second hypothesis predicted that aggressive behavior would be lower toward an acquaintance than toward a stranger only in the rejection with no reason condition.
We used two-way ANOVA with robust, cluster-corrected standard errors estimated using the sandwich method to explore the interactive effect of closeness induction and rejection on aggression and helping.
The participant groups who were rejected with no reason and rejected for someone else did not differ in aggression. The hypothesis concentrated mainly on the differences between aggression toward acquaintances and strangers in the case of rejection with no reason. Post hoc tests confirmed the hypothesis although without Bonferroni correction. The participants who were rejected for someone else by an acquaintance chose more difficult tangrams for the rejecter than the participants who were accepted by an acquaintance.
There were no significant differences between comparative rejection and rejection with no reason in the no interaction group. The mean aggression scores in the small-talk and no interaction groups and conditions are presented in Figure 1. Figure 1. Mean aggression in no interaction stranger and small-talk acquaintance conditions after different feedback. Significant differences between groups are marked with asterisk.
Helping in the rejection and comparative rejection conditions was not different. Although no hypothesis was formulated for this topic, whether feelings of closeness measured after the small-talk or filler tasks in the control group moderated the rejection effect on aggression and helping was also tested.
The results of a series of regression analyses showed no significant interaction between Cl2 and feedback. The present study was designed to verify two predictions formulated based on the Smart Richman and Leary multimotive model. A novel and central element in this study was two situational factors that shaped exclusion effects on emotions and behavior, namely, relationship closeness with a rejecter and comparative rejection being rejected for someone else.
We predicted that a positive relationship with the rejecter will make rejection feel worse but, at the same time, will restrain aggressive tendencies, but only when the reasons for rejection are not known. In general, the results showed more distress more negative and less positive feelings in both the rejection and comparative rejection conditions compared to acceptance. This result is in line with the results of many other studies Gerber and Wheeler, Moreover, the results also showed that comparative rejection did not feel worse than rejection with no reason, which conforms with Deri and Zitek study showing that only rejection for no one else non-comparative rejection resulted in less negative feelings.
However, in hypothesis 1, we predicted that negative affect should be stronger after rejection by an acquaintance than after rejection by a stranger. The results showed that the differences were in line with this hypothesis in the case of negative affect, but the effect was only marginally significant. The result considering negative emotions was also consistent with a recall study by Leary et al. Closeness generation also affected feelings of control, but this could be interpreted mainly as an increase in control after being accepted by an acquaintance, rather than a decrease in control due rejection.
Considering behavior, an interesting pattern of results emerged. The participants in comparative rejection conditions were as aggressive and helpful as those participants who were rejected with no reason but more aggressive and less helpful than accepted participants.
Thus, the general picture was that comparative rejection did not result in higher aggression and lower helping than rejection with no reason which is in line with the results for emotions. However, this pattern of differences in aggression holds only among strangers. In hypothesis 2, we predicted that when the rejecter is a close other and the reason for the rejection is not clearly stated, then more relationship-protecting behavior and less aggression will occur than when the rejecter is a stranger.
The results confirmed this hypothesis, although, as in the case of hypothesis 1, the effects were only marginally significant. Additionally, compared to participants in the acceptance condition, acquaintances reacted with more aggression only in the comparative rejection condition and not in the rejection with no reason condition, which is an additional support for the hypothesis.
For people who became acquainted with their partner, who thought that they had something in common, and who created positive expectations regarding the relationship, the information that the partner preferred other relationships resulted in the highest aggression. In sum, Study 1 yields results that are in line with the multimotive model of exclusion and our hypothesis, but the effects are very small and should be interpreted with caution.
Thus, we decided to conduct another study to verify our hypothesis. Study 2 tested the same two hypotheses as Study 1 but used different designs and procedures. Most importantly, only two rejection conditions were compared there was no acceptance condition , and the study did not test actual behavior but rather likely behavior or probable emotions in the rejection scenario.
Thus, the results of this study may differ from Study 1, in the same way that intended or planned behavior may differ from actual behavior Madden et al. We also asked participants about tendencies for reconnection behaviors that rebuild a lost sense of belonging. We assumed that comparative rejection yields fewer possibilities for relationship-protecting attributions of the reasons behind rejection than rejection with no reason.
Comparative rejection is also more final, so it offers fewer chances for rebuilding or developing the relationship. Additionally, reconnection tendencies should be more intensive toward friends because of the more negative consequences of losing valued relationships. Thus, in hypothesis 3, we predicted that behaviors rebuilding belonging would be more likely toward friends than toward strangers, and in hypothesis 4, we predicted that reconnecting behaviors would also be less likely after comparative rejection than after rejection with no reason, but 5 the difference in reconnecting behavior between comparative rejection and rejection with no reason would be stronger among friends.
Participants in each group were asked to imagine themselves being in two situations. In the first situation, they were rejected by a close friend, whereas in the second situation, they were rejected by a stranger. Moreover, one group of participants imagined that a friend and a stranger preferred someone else over them, but the other group did not receive any reason for rejection.
They volunteered for the study and were not compensated for their participation. The study was conducted in groups of 4—20 people. You are going to your first class, to a new group of people, where you do not know anyone. You are to work in pairs. The teacher sends you a list of topics, and you are to put your name by the topic you would like to work on. You choose one topic and see that somebody else also chose this topic.
You are supposed to work in pairs, so you write an e-mail to this person asking how you should split your work. Participants used a five-point scale 1 — not likely at all; 5 — very likely to answer those questions. First, we conducted exploratory factor analysis with all of the questions, which showed three factor solutions. This pattern of correlations was the same in the comparative rejection and rejection with no reason groups.
Although only 16 men participated in the study, we tested whether they differed from women in negative feelings and behavioral tendencies. As men and women differed in negative feelings, sex was included in the analysis as a covariate, but it did not differentiate the effect of closeness friend vs. This result confirmed hypothesis 1. The mean negative feelings in conditions is presented in Figure 2. Figure 2. The mean negative feelings after comparative rejection and rejection with no reason by a friend and a stranger.
Next, we verified predictions regarding behavior. An RM ANOVA was conducted with group comparative rejection or rejection with no reason as the between subject variable and two within subject variables, i.
Sex was included as a covariate in the analysis because it was related to reconnecting tendencies. This last result confirms hypothesis 4, which argued that reconnecting behaviors would be less likely after comparative rejection than after rejection with no reason.
The means for reconnecting and aggressive behaviors after rejection by a friend and by a stranger are presented in Figure 3. Figure 3. Mean reconnecting and aggressive behavior after rejection by a friend and by a stranger. Thus, hypothesis 2 stating that aggressive behavior would be lower toward a close other than toward a stranger only in the rejection with no reason condition, and hypothesis 5 stating that the difference in reconnecting behavior between comparative rejection and rejection with no reason would be stronger among friends, were not confirmed.
The objective of Study 2 was to verify the hypothesis already tested in Study 1 that negative feelings would be stronger among friends than among strangers hypothesis 1 and that aggressive behavior would be stronger among strangers than among friends but only after rejection with no reason.
The first hypothesis was confirmed in Study 2, but the second was not. The results showed that, as expected, when people were asked to imagine their emotional reactions to rejection, they thought that they would feel worse when rejected by a friend than when rejected by a stranger. This result is in line with the multimotive model of exclusion Smart Richman and Leary, as well as with results of studies showing more hurt feelings when recalling rejection by a close other Leary et al.
Regarding the interactive effect of closeness and comparative rejection on negative emotions, the results showed that feelings were more negative after comparative rejection than after rejection with no reason only when the rejecter was a friend. This result is not entirely in line with a previous study using an imagination procedure Deri and Zitek, , which showed no differences in emotions between being rejected by a romantic partner for someone else and being rejected with no reason.
In Study 2, this was true only in the case of strangers. Differences in the results might be due to the different scenarios that we used and non-romantic relationships with the rejecter. Rejection with no reason in romantic relationships might feel worse than in friendly relations, making it more similar in emotional effects to comparative rejection.
Additionally, the scenario that we used might be less credible and thus less hurtful without information about the friend having fun with a new attractive pack of friends.
Our second hypothesis regarded aggressive behavior. Now on to what you think: Consider how you're explaining the rejection to yourself. Are you being too hard on yourself? It's natural to wonder, "Why did this happen? Tell yourself: "I got turned down for prom because the person didn't want to go with me.
They're imagining a reason, reading too much into a situation. If put-down thoughts like these start creeping into your mind, shut them down. Self-blaming or put-down thinking can exaggerate our faults and lead us to believe stuff about ourselves that simply isn't true.
This kind of thinking crowds out hope and a belief in ourselves — the very things we need to get past feeling bad and want to try again. If you start blaming yourself for the rejection or put yourself down, you can start believing you'll always be rejected. Thoughts like, "I'll never get a date" or "No one will ever like me" amplify a simple rejection to disaster level.
Rejection can hurt a lot and can be terribly disappointing, but it's not the end of the world. Tell yourself: "OK, so I got rejected this time. Maybe next time, I'll get a 'yes'" or "Oh, well. This is what happened. I don't like it. It's not how I wanted things to work out. But everyone gets rejected — and I can try again. Think about what you're good at and what's good about you. Remember times when you've been accepted, when you made the cut, when someone told you "yes.
Give yourself credit for trying. You took a risk — good for you. Remind yourself that you can handle the rejection. Even though you were turned down now, there will be another opportunity, another time.
Get philosophical: Sometimes things happen for reasons we don't always understand. They also discovered that these men were willing to pay more money to be part of a group that rejected them. If a woman evaluated them negatively on a mock dating site, they spent more money on her during the date in an attempt to get her to like them.
Female participants exhibited similar behavior only when they were rejected by a potential romantic match with whom they had already shared personal information. Rejection-sensitive people respond to life in a way that is meant to protect them from pain. Unfortunately, their behaviors often backfire. A rejection-sensitive person's fear of being rejected causes them to struggle to form new connections and to undermine their existing relationships.
Ultimately, that may cause the friend to retreat even more, which increases the sense of rejection. Meanwhile, others with rejection sensitivity may avoid all situations and relationships where they might be rejected.
Consequently, they may feel extremely isolated and lonely—which essentially leads to their biggest fears coming true. People who struggle with rejection sensitivity often interpret rejection as proof that they are unacceptable in some way.
To them, rejection is a judgment of their worth and value as a person. And, in relationships, this belief system can be disastrous. When someone is expecting rejection, it's hard to feel safe in relationships. Even if they aren't being rejected at the moment, they're always watching for it, expecting it to happen at any time. Consequently, minor missteps are seen as a total lack of caring or as cruel judgments on their worth as a person.
In the end, the rejection-sensitive person may grow distressed and angry as soon as they perceive a potential rejection. Here's a closer look at how rejection sensitivity can impact relationships. Rejection sensitivity may start as early as the teenage years.
Adolescent girls who rank high in rejection sensitivity may behave in ways that put them at a higher risk for victimization, according to a study published in Children Maltreatment. Even when the girls knew there may be negative consequences for their actions, they still modified their behavior in an effort to preserve the relationship.
They also were more likely to engage in relationships that involved physical aggression and nonphysical hostility during conflicts—and they tolerated unhealthy behaviors in an attempt to stay together. Adults with rejection sensitivity who are in romantic relationships will likely experience ongoing relationship problems. These behaviors may lead to irrational jealousy because the individual is terrified of being abandoned or rejected.
They also might interpret other behaviors, such as a partner being preoccupied with work, as proof that the other person is no longer in love with them. For men with rejection sensitivity, being in a committed relationship may be more helpful to them than it is to women.
They may continue to feel just as lonely and fearful of rejection when in a relationship as compared to when they are alone. Still, both men and women who fear rejection may struggle to establish close romantic relationships. Their efforts are frequently directed toward avoiding conflict and rejection rather than establishing intimacy and growth.
For instance, rejection sensitivity is a risk factor for developing depression, and can worsen existing symptoms. One study found that breakups—and the rejection associated with them—may be more likely to trigger depression in women. For instance, college-aged women with high rejection sensitivity demonstrated increased depressive symptoms after a partner-initiated breakup compared to individuals who were low in rejection sensitivity. Furthermore, researchers discovered a link between rejection sensitivity and suicidal thoughts in psychiatric patients.
If you or a loved one are having suicidal thoughts, contact the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at for support and assistance from a trained counselor. If you or a loved one are in immediate danger, call For more mental health resources, see our National Helpline Database. If you suspect that you're sensitive to rejection, recognizing the symptoms—and the problems rejection sensitivity causes—can be the first step in creating change. Getting help could not only reduce your vulnerability to mental illness , but with appropriate help and intervention, also could improve your relationships.
In fact, research suggests that self-regulation, which involves monitoring and controlling one's emotional and behavioral responses, may be the key to coping with rejection sensitivity. For instance, when you perceive a potential sign of rejection, it may help to stop and reflect on the situation rather than responding immediately. One way to do this is to look for alternative explanations for the behavior instead of assuming the worst.
If you're unable to make these changes on your own, you may need to enlist the help of a counselor.
Start by talking to your physician, who can assist you with determining the appropriate next steps. Many times, cognitive behavioral therapy can help you deal with the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that fuel the fear of rejection. And if you're already in a relationship, couples therapy could help both of you work to establish a healthier, more secure relationship.
It can be scary to take steps to grow closer to someone, because the deeper the relationship grows, the more being rejected could hurt. But learning how to build deeper, healthier connections is key to reducing loneliness and isolation. Rejection sensitivity is not something you should ignore. In fact, symptoms often worsen over time if they're left untreated. Consequently, if you're prone to overwhelming emotional reactions including intense anger, anxiety, and sadness when you feel criticized or rejected, talk to your doctor or a mental health professional.
Learning to address your sensitivity and respond more appropriately to rejection is the key to improving your overall quality of life. Learn the best ways to manage stress and negativity in your life. Rejection sensitivity as a vulnerability marker for depressive symptom deterioration in men. PLoS One.
0コメント