Adding insult to injury: Effects of interpersonal rejection types, rejection sensitivity, and self-regulation on obsessive relational intrusion

Department of Psychology, Mississippi State University, Mississippi, USA.
Aggressive Behavior (Impact Factor: 2.28). 11/2011; 37(6):503-20. DOI: 10.1002/ab.20412
Source: PubMed


This study tested the I(3) model [Finkel, 2007; 2008] of intimate partner violence as applied to obsessive relational intrusion (ORI) to assess the relation among self-regulation, rejection, rejection sensitivity (RS), and stalking-related aggression. In Study 1, participants (N=221) read one of three vignettes: no relationship termination, an "internal" rejection (involves an internal attribution to the rejected as cause of relationship ending), or an "external" rejection (external attributions for relationship demise). Next, participants experienced one of two conditions manipulating self-regulation (no depletion vs. depletion). Finally, participants rated their likelihood of engaging in ORI (e.g. unwanted pursuit and/or aggression). Consistent with predictions, participants receiving an internal rejection reported higher aggression than participants experiencing an external rejection, especially when depleted of self-regulation. Study 2 extended the design of Study 1 by adding in a screening survey of RS. Internal rejections still yielded more aggression than other conditions, but this was especially so when rejection-sensitive persons were depleted of self-regulation. In addition to providing support for the I(3) model of aggression, this research shows that not all types of rejection are created equal.

Download full-text


Available from: H. Colleen Sinclair, Oct 04, 2015
81 Reads
  • Source
    • "There are methodological challenges in neuroimaging the response to social rejection, the chief challenge being simulating the direct rejection experience. As rejection is an interpersonal emotion expressed both verbally9,10) and non-verbally,2,5) task designs need to engage the person in social interaction. Neuroimaging studies have employed a range of paradigms to study different types of perceived social rejection, the most prominent being rejection as peer exclusion. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Rejection sensitivity is the heightened tendency to perceive or anxiously expect disengagement from others during social interaction. There has been a recent wave of neuroimaging studies of rejection. The aim of the current review was to determine key brain regions involved in social rejection by selectively reviewing neuroimaging studies that employed one of three paradigms of social rejection, namely social exclusion during a ball-tossing game, evaluating feedback about preference from peers and viewing scenes depicting rejection during social interaction. Across the different paradigms of social rejection, there was concordance in regions for experiencing rejection, namely dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), subgenual ACC and ventral ACC. Functional dissociation between the regions for experiencing rejection and those for emotion regulation, namely medial prefrontal cortex, ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC) and ventral striatum, was evident in the positive association between social distress and regions for experiencing rejection and the inverse association between social distress and the emotion regulation regions. The paradigms of social exclusion and scenes depicting rejection in social interaction were more adept at evoking rejection-specific neural responses. These responses were varyingly influenced by the amount of social distress during the task, social support received, self-esteem and social competence. Presenting rejection cues as scenes of people in social interaction showed high rejection sensitive or schizotypal individuals to under-activate the dorsal ACC and VLPFC, suggesting that such individuals who perceive rejection cues in others down-regulate their response to the perceived rejection by distancing themselves from the scene.
    Clinical Psychopharmacology and Neuroscience 12/2012; 10(3):144-54. DOI:10.9758/cpn.2012.10.3.144
  • Source
    • "Instead, the theory most frequently used to study stalking is attachment theory (Hazan and Shaver 1987 in US college students (Dutton and Winstead 2006; Davis et al. 2000; Dye and Davis 2003; Patton et al. 2010), and US and Australian clinical/forensic samples (Kienlen et al. 1997; MacKenzie et al. 2008; Tonin 2004). Other relevant theories that have been applied to the study of stalking perpetration but were not originally stalking-specific include routine activities theory (Mustaine and Tewksbury 1999), social learning theory (Brewster 2003; Fox et al. 2011), object relations theory (Meloy 1998), and the I 3 model of intimate partner violence (Sinclair et al. 2011). Two articles in this special issue add to this literature as they outline theories that could be or have been applied to stalking, and discuss how gender could be taken into consideration (Davis et al. 2010; Duntley and Buss 2010). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Stalking research has increased substantially in the past 20 years. This special issue is intended to contribute to this literature by using gender as a focus point in 1) applying new theoretical perspectives that incorporate the role of gender to the study of stalking perpetration (Davis et al. 2010; Duntley and Buss 2010), 2) addressing divergent find-ings regarding gender in experiences of victims (Sheridan and Lyndon 2010) and perpetrators (Thompson et al. 2010), and 3) furthering the study of how gender influences perceptions of stalking (Cass and Rosay 2011; Dunlap et al. 2011; Sinclair 2010; Yanowitz and Yanowitz 2010). To place this special issue in context of the current state of knowledge on gender and stalking, we review the state of the existing research as it relates to the domains covered by articles present in this issue.
    Sex Roles 03/2012; 66(5-6):299-310. DOI:10.1007/s11199-011-0106-2 · 1.47 Impact Factor
  • Sex Roles 01/2014; DOI:10.1007/s11199-014-0402-8 · 1.47 Impact Factor
Show more