Predictions from the Rejection Sensitivity (RS) model concerning the social causes and consequences of RS were examined in a longitudinal study of 150 middle school students. Peer nominations of rejection, self-report measures of anxious and angry rejection expectations, and social anxiety, social withdrawal, and loneliness were assessed at two time points. Results indicate that peer rejection at Time 1 predicted an increase in anxious and angry expectations of rejection at Time 2, but only for boys. Being liked by peers, irrespective of level of dislike, predicted a reduction in anxious rejection expectations in both boys and girls. Further, anxious expectations of rejection were uniquely predictive of increased social anxiety and withdrawal. Angry expectations of rejection, an established unique predictor of increased aggression, predicted decreased social anxiety. Both anxious and angry expectations predicted increased loneliness, but neither were unique predictors of loneliness. Implications of viewing anxious and angry expectations of rejection as distinct cognitive-affective vulnerabilities for adolescents are discussed.Being rejected by one's peers is a potent predictor of both current and future relational difficulties

Rejection sensitivity (RS) is the disposition to anxiously expect, readily perceive, and intensely react to rejection. This study used the startle probe paradigm to test whether the affect-based defensive motivational system is automatically activated by rejection cues in people who are high in RS. Stimuli were representational paintings depicting rejection (by Hopper) and acceptance (by Renoir), as well as nonrepresentational paintings of either negative or positive valence (by Rothko and Miro, respectively). Eyeblink startle magnitude was potentiated in people high in RS when they viewed rejection themes, compared with when they viewed nonrepresentational negative themes. Startle magnitude was not attenuated during viewing of acceptance themes in comparison with nonrepresentational positive themes. Overall, the results provide evidence that for people high in RS, rejection cues automatically activate the defensive motivational system, but acceptance cues do not automatically activate the appetitive motivational system.

Qualitative research has indicated that bisexual women’s experiences may differ based on the gender of their current relationship partner. Given that partner gender may function as an indicator of sexual orientation, bisexual women in same-sex relationships are likely assumed to be lesbians, whereas bisexual women in different-sex relationships are likely assumed to be heterosexual, and these assumptions likely impact experiences of minority stress and components of sexual identity. The goals of the current study were twofold: (a) to compare bisexual women in different types of relationships (same-sex, different-sex, and single) on dimensions of sexual identity and minority stress, and (b) to examine mediators of these differences. One hundred six bisexual women completed an online survey that included measures of sexual identity and minority stress. Results indicated that bisexual women in same-sex relationships reported higher sexual identity uncertainty, outness, and frequency of assumed lesbian identity, as well as lower frequency of experiences of binegative exclusion and rejection by lesbians/gay men compared with bisexual women in different-sex relationships. Bisexual women in same-sex relationships also reported lower depression compared with those in different-sex relationships and those who were single. The higher sexual identity uncertainty of bisexual women in same-sex relationships was mediated by higher frequency of assumed lesbian identity, whereas the higher depression of bisexual women in different-sex relationships was mediated by higher frequency of experiences of binegative exclusion and rejection by lesbians/gay men. Potential explanations for these differences, as well as their implications, are discussed.

Building on prior work on rejection sensitivity, we propose a social-cognitive model of gender-based rejection sensitivity (Gender RS) to account for individual differences in how women perceive and cope with gender-based evaluative threats in competitive, historically male institutions. Study 1 develops a measure of Gender RS, defined as anxious expectations of gender-based rejection. Studies 2-5 support the central predictions of the model: Gender RS is associated with increased perceptions of gender-based threats and increased coping by self-silencing--responses that reinforce feelings of alienation and diminished motivation. Study 2 shows that Gender RS is distinct from overall sensitivity to rejection or perceiving the world through the lens of gender. Study 3 shows that Gender RS becomes activated specifically when gender-based rejection is a plausible explanation for negative outcomes. Study 4 provides experimental evidence that Gender RS predicts lower academic self-confidence, greater expectations of bias, and avoidance of opportunities for further help from a weakness-focused expert evaluator. Study 5 tests the Gender RS model in situ, using daily diaries to track women's experiences during the first weeks in a highly competitive law school. Implications for women's coping with the subtle nature of contemporary sexism are discussed as well as the importance of institution-level checks to prevent the costs of gender-based rejection.

Research suggests the need to examine theoretically founded psychosocial factors influencing the underrepresentation of women in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). In a longitudinal and daily diary study during women's transition to undergraduate education, greater perceived identity compatibility and perceived social support during women's first 3 weeks of college predicted greater sense of belonging, motivation, and less insecurity in STEM disciplines. In addition, identity compatibility and support on a given day corresponded to motivation and sense of belonging on subsequent days. One semester later, cross-sectional data revealed that both factors predicted lower expectations of women dropping out of their STEM major.