Content uploaded by John Pachankis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John Pachankis
Content may be subject to copyright.
Extension of the Rejection Sensitivity Construct to the Interpersonal
Functioning of Gay Men
John E. Pachankis and Marvin R. Goldfried
State University of New York at Stony Brook
Melissa E. Ramrattan
State University of New York at Albany
On the basis of recent evidence suggesting that gay men are particularly likely to fear interpersonal
rejection, the authors set out to extend the rejection sensitivity construct to the mental health concerns of
gay men. After establishing a reliable and valid measure of the gay-related rejection sensitivity construct,
the authors use this to test the mediating effect of internalized homophobia on the relationship between
parental rejection of one’s sexual orientation and sensitivity to future gay-related rejection. The present
data support this mediational model and also establish rejection sensitivity’s unique contribution to
unassertive interpersonal behavior in the context of internalized homophobia and parental rejection. The
authors conclude that gay-related rejection sensitivity is a useful construct for clinicians working with
gay men given the impact that past gay-related rejection can have on their gay clients’ present
cognitive–affective– behavioral functioning. The authors discuss the possibility of revising rejection-
prone schemas in clinical work with gay men. Future research is necessary to further examine the internal
processing and interpersonal functioning of gay men by using existing constructs (or modifications of
them) that are likely to be particularly relevant to the unique concerns of this population.
Keywords: gay, social anxiety, rejection sensitivity, parents, assertiveness
Recent studies have established that gay men are more likely
than heterosexual men to experience symptoms of social anxiety,
such as fear of negative evaluation and social avoidance and
distress. In one study, gay male undergraduate students reported a
higher fear of negative evaluation and greater social interaction
anxiety than did heterosexual students (Pachankis & Goldfried,
2006), especially in situations involving heterosexuality and male-
stereotypic behavior (e.g., family gatherings, sports). Similarly,
Safren and Pantalone (2006) found higher rates of social anxiety in
a sample of mostly ethnic minority lesbian and gay youths than in
a comparable sample of heterosexual youths. They determined that
social anxiety in gay and lesbian youths was associated with
dissatisfaction with social support, which in turn predicted depres-
sion and suicidality. When sexual minority individuals show more
signs of psychological distress than shown by heterosexuals, it is
most often in domains consistent with the unique stressors they
face as devalued, sometimes rejected, members of society (Meyer,
2003).
Social anxiety shares many features with the more recently
established construct of rejection sensitivity within social psychol-
ogy (cf. Downey & Feldman, 1996). Rejection-related cognitive
biases, heightened emotional arousal in specific interpersonal sit-
uations, and behavioral outcomes such as interpersonal difficulties
underlie both social anxiety (e.g., Goldfried & Sobocinski, 1975;
Kuperminc & Heimberg, 1983; Morrison & Bellack, 1981; Smith
& Sarason, 1975) and rejection sensitivity (e.g., Downey & Feld-
man, 1996; Downey, Freitas, Michaelis, & Khouri, 1998). Yet, the
two constructs also differ. Social anxiety draws on cognitive
models specifically related to self-presentation and self-doubts of
one’s ability to make a positive impression in social situations
(D. M. Clark & Wells, 1995). Rejection sensitivity, on the other
hand, draws on attachment theory and models of the relational self
primarily to understand problematic interpersonal functioning in
important relationships (Downey & Feldman, 1996). Still, it is
possible that rejection sensitivity could be a proxy for social
anxiety disorder, although this remains to be empirically estab-
lished. Rejection sensitivity in particular has proven to be a useful
construct for understanding some of the unique difficulties that
members of a devalued group face. Mendoza-Denton, Purdie,
Downey, and Davis (2002) have recently elucidated the impact of
rejection sensitivity on the interpersonal functioning and mental
health of African American individuals. For example, they found
that African American students high in race-related rejection sen-
sitivity reported greater discomfort during their transition to col-
lege, less trust in the university, declines in grades, and fewer
White friends relative to students who reported lower levels of
race-related rejection sensitivity.
Preliminary evidence also suggests that gay men may similarly
experience cognitive–affective– behavioral symptoms related to
John E. Pachankis and Marvin R. Goldfried, Department of Psychology,
State University of New York at Stony Brook; Melissa E. Ramrattan,
Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Albany.
This research was supported by funding from the following sources:
Malyon-Smith Award (Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian,
Gay, and Bisexual Issues; American Psychological Association Division
44); Grants-in-Aid Award (Society for the Psychological Study of Social
Issues; American Psychological Association Division 9); Department of
Psychology (State University of New York at Stony Brook). We wish to
thank the following individuals for helpful comments on drafts of the
article: Lisa Burckell, Bethany Burum, John Cornwell, Joanne Davila,
Catherine Eubanks-Carter, and Thomas Olino.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John E.
Pachankis, Department of Psychology, State University of New York at
Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794-2500. E-mail: John.pachankis@
sunysb.edu.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association
2008, Vol. 76, No. 2, 306 –317 0022-006X/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-006X.76.2.306
306
potential rejection—including heightened sensitivity to interper-
sonal cues and motivation to hide aspects of their identities—in
addition to fears of negative evaluation (Frable, Blackstone, &
Scherbaum, 1990; Hetrick & Martin, 1987). These difficulties may
arise from the precariousness of developing a nonheterosexual
identity in a threatening social context. Despite increased positive
societal attitudes toward sexual minority individuals in the U.S.,
homosexuality still occupies an equivocal place in American so-
ciety. Mays and Cochran (2001) found that lesbian, gay, and
bisexual (LGB) individuals report more frequent discrimination in
important domains of life, such as being fired from jobs, denied
scholarships, hassled by police, and receiving inferior medical
care, than do heterosexuals. They also found that LGB individuals
are more likely to perceive day-to-day discrimination such as
being harassed or insulted; being treated as inferior; and being
regarded with mistrust, fear, and disrespect. This perceived dis-
crimination has been shown to account for a significant amount of
the association between sexual orientation and mental health prob-
lems (Mays & Cochran, 2001).
Clearly, expectations of negative reactions from others can have
adverse consequences for the behavior of LGB individuals. As
Mendoza-Denton and colleagues (2002) have demonstrated for
African American college students, rejection sensitivity may lead
to decreased support-seeking and decreased contact with majority
group members. A similar process may exist for gay men. In
addition to motivating the concealment of one’s sexual orienta-
tion—which in itself has been shown to be associated with a host
of cognitive–affective difficulties (Pachankis, 2007)—rejection
sensitivity may also prevent assertive interpersonal behavior. Spe-
cifically, if individuals expect to be rejected as a result of their
sexual orientation, they are unlikely to assert their needs in inter-
personal situations (e.g., approaching others, correcting false ru-
mors, asking for clarification, responding to rudeness). Decades
ago, researchers clearly established that irrational, rigid expecta-
tions of rejection produced unassertive interpersonal behavior
(e.g., Alden & Safran, 1978; Hammen, Jacobs, Mayol, & Cochran,
1980; Linehan, Goldfried, & Goldfried, 1979). Therefore, in ad-
dition to experiencing distressing cognitive–affective processing,
gay men may also suffer behaviorally.
Research has shown that some variables moderate the associa-
tion between gay-related stressors and negative mental health
outcomes. Parental acceptance/rejection is one clear moderator of
this relationship. Hershberger and D’Augelli (1995), for example,
found that participants’ ratings of degree of family support, in-
cluding degree of family acceptance of one’s sexual orientation,
significantly reduced the negative mental health outcomes result-
ing from gay-related victimization in a sample of LGB youths.
Indeed, a larger body of research attests to the impact of overall
parental acceptance or rejection on mental health functioning.
Parental acceptance/rejection clearly impacts later views of self,
others, and relationships (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Blatt &
Maroudas, 1992; Bowlby, 1969, 1973). Children and adults who
perceive parental disapproval, especially of their selves as opposed
to their behavior, are more likely to develop views of themselves
as bad, shameful, or unlovable (Rohner, 2004; K. L. Rosenberg,
1998). Resulting interpersonal schemas can become rigid and
inaccurate guides for interpreting interpersonal situations, such
that individuals approach new or ambiguous social situations with
expectations of rejection and perceptions of hostility in others
(Cloitre, Cohen, & Scarvalone, 2002; Safran, 1990; Scarvalone,
Fox, & Safran, 2005). This may in part account for why research
has shown parental rejection to be related to depression, borderline
personality disorder, social anxiety disorder, and sensitivity to
future rejection, largely through the distortion of perceptions and
expectations of others (Benjamin & Wonderlich, 1994; Feldman &
Downey, 1994; Lieb et al., 2000; Rohner, 2004).
If parental rejection indeed distorts an offspring’s interpersonal
cognition as the above research suggests, then LGB individuals are
at particular risk of distorted interpersonal processing, as their
parents are a frequent source of rejection-related stress (Rad-
kowsky & Siegel, 1997). Unlike individuals who are stigmatized
because of their racial or ethnic identities, sexual minorities typi-
cally do not share their minority group status with their parents. In
their review of research on the relationships between sexual mi-
norities and their parents, Radkowsky and Siegel (1997) found that
the disclosure of one’s sexual orientation frequently prompted
parental rejection, at least initially, and nondisclosure was fre-
quently motivated by fears of parental rejection. In a national
survey of LGB adults, Corliss, Cochran, and Mays (2002) found
that self-identified homosexual and bisexual men reported higher
rates of childhood emotional and physical maltreatment by parents
than did heterosexual men (e.g., being kicked, hit, beat, choked,
burned), possibly because the homosexual and bisexual partici-
pants were more likely to exhibit gender atypical behaviors during
childhood. Parental responses that are not outright abusive may
still convey rejection of their offspring’s sexual orientation
through confusion, sadness, shame, or anger (Goldfried & Gold-
fried, 2001; Henderson, 1998). This rejection puts LGB individu-
als at risk for various psychological difficulties.
Parents’ and society’s negative views of nonheterosexual orien-
tations can also produce internalized homophobia in LGB individ-
uals (Herek, 2004). Internalized homophobia operates as an inter-
personal schema that guides interpersonal perceptions and
interpretations in ambiguous situations. Gay individuals may see
themselves and other gay men as inferior, morally unacceptable, or
shameful and may perceive that their sexual orientation has a
negative impact on others (Shidlo, 1994). In this way, internally
homophobic gay men reject their own sexual orientation. Not
surprisingly, internalized homophobia is associated with a variety
of psychological difficulties. Meyer (1995) found that internalized
homophobia was related to demoralization, guilt, suicidality, sex-
ual problems, traumatic response to HIV-related stress, and a more
severe negative impact of antigay violence and discrimination.
Yet, no research to date has examined the relationship of inter-
nalized homophobia with both past experiences of gay-related
rejection and anxious expectations of future gay-related rejection.
The rejection sensitivity construct seems to particularly befit an
examination of the interpersonal concerns of gay men given (a) the
role of internalized homophobia as an organizing schema that may
guide the interpersonal expectations and perceptions of gay men in
interactions with heterosexual others; (b) the utility of the rejection
sensitivity construct for understanding the difficulties faced by
other stigmatized groups; and (c) the frequency of identity-related
rejection in gay men, especially by close others such as parents.
In order to examine gay-specific rejection sensitivity, it is first
necessary to establish a psychometrically sound assessment of this
construct. Researchers have previously conducted analyses of in-
terpersonal situations that are particularly distressing and uncom-
307
GAY-RELATED REJECTION SENSITIVITY
fortable for gay men (i.e., Cole, Kemeny, & Taylor, 1997;
Pachankis & Goldfried, 2006), but neither examined anxious ex-
pectations of rejection, including the perceived likelihood of being
rejected, in those situations. After attempting to establish a mea-
sure of gay-related rejection sensitivity that demonstrates a coher-
ent factor structure as well as convergent and discriminant validity,
we then use the measure to elucidate the mental health concerns of
gay men. Specifically, we propose a mediational relationship
whereby internalized homophobia mediates the relationship be-
tween parental rejection and rejection sensitivity. We also test
rejection sensitivity’s unique contribution to unassertive interper-
sonal behavior in the context of internalized homophobia and
parental rejection.
We focus solely on gay men, as opposed to lesbians or bisexual
individuals, as the sexual-orientation-related experiences of men
are probably quite different from the sexual-orientation-related
experiences of women (Diamond, 2003). Further, men who violate
gender and sexuality norms are more likely to face hostility than
are women who demonstrate nontraditional behavior in these
domains (Herek, 1988). We also limit our focus to the degree of
acceptance/rejection by one’s parents. In doing so, we do not deny
the impact of other types of rejection (e.g., from peers, religious
organizations, society at large) in shaping either the rejection of
one’s own sexual orientation or the behavioral outcomes of that
internalized rejection. However, given the particularly central role
that parents’ responses often play in shaping their offsprings’
views of themselves and their standings in the world, and given the
uncommon opportunity to study parental rejection in a group of
individuals who often do not share their stigmatized status with
their parents, we begin this research endeavor by focusing on the
particular risk posed by parental rejection.
Method
Preliminary Data Collection for Development of the Gay-
Related Rejection Sensitivity (RS) Scale
In order to generate items for the RS scale, 75 male participants
were recruited from predominantly gay venues (e.g., beach, coffee
shop) in the New York City metropolitan area during the summer
of 2005. Participants, from whom written informed consent was
obtained after the research assistants’ brief introduction and study
description, were asked to complete a short demographic question-
naire and to list specific situations in which they have felt uncom-
fortable because of the possibility of being rejected as a result of
their sexual orientation. Their names were entered into a lottery
drawing for $50.
Participants were asked to identify their sexual orientation, age,
ethnicity, education, income, and openness and comfort being gay.
Participants indicated their sexual orientation among the following
choices: gay; bisexual, but mostly gay; bisexual, equally gay and
heterosexual; bisexual, mostly heterosexual; heterosexual; uncer-
tain, don’t know for sure; queer. Of the 75 participants, the
breakdown of sexual orientation was gay (n ⫽ 72); bisexual,
mostly gay (n ⫽ 2); bisexual, equally gay and heterosexual (n ⫽
1). No participants indicated being heterosexual or bisexual,
mostly heterosexual.
The average age of the participants was 40.85 (SD ⫽ 9.72).
Their ethnicity was as follows: Black or African American (n ⫽ 2,
2.7%), White or Caucasian American (n ⫽ 64, 85.3%), Latino or
Hispanic American (n ⫽ 6, 8.0%), and Asian American (n ⫽ 3,
4.0%). Participants were also asked to indicate their education by
using the following scale: 1 (did not finish high school),2(high
school degree or GED),3(Associate’s degree),4(Bachelor’s
degree), or 5 (graduate degree). The mean level of education was
4.16 (SD ⫽ 1.03). Participants’ incomes were also measured on a
5-point scale: 1 (⬍ $9,999),2($10,000–$29,999),3($30,000 –
$50,000),4($50,000 –$99,999),5(⬎$100,000). The mean income
score for this sample was 4.09 (SD ⫽ 1.09).
Additionally, participants rated their level of openness being gay
on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (sexual orientation
completely hidden from others), to 4 (sexual orientation not quite
hidden but not quite open), to 7 (completely open with others about
sexual orientation). Comfort with being gay was measured on a
5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very uncomfortable
being gay)to5(very comfortable being gay). The mean openness
score was 6.17 (SD ⫽ 1.04). The mean comfort score was 4.66
(SD ⫽ 0.74).
After completing the demographic questionnaire, participants
were asked to describe problematic situations related to their
sexual orientation. They were told that their responses should
include specific situations in which they have felt uncomfortable
because of the possibility of being rejected as a result of their
sexual orientation. Participants were told that it was unimportant
whether or not rejection actually occurred, only whether or not the
participant was concerned that rejection was possible. They were
also given an example of the level of specificity required. Thus
they were told that the statement, “going to a job interview,” would
be too general and that instead they should provide a level of
specificity such as “I’m at a job interview that is going great and,
then, the straight interviewer asks me if I’m married.” In order to
facilitate recall of these situations, we provided prompts for par-
ticipants to generate situations in various interpersonal domains,
namely, work, medical/health, family, leisure/recreation, social,
and other. Because we had no a priori assumptions about the types
of situations in which gay men would be most sensitive to rejection
(e.g., close others or strangers), the domains for which we
prompted span the closeness–stranger range.
The 75 participants provided 298 situations in all. Each partic-
ipant provided, on average, 3.97 situations (SD ⫽ 1.31). The
division of situations by each domain was as follows: work (n ⫽
67), medical/health (n ⫽ 54), family (n ⫽ 62), leisure/recreation
(n ⫽ 45), social (n ⫽ 58), and other (n ⫽ 12).
To narrow the item pool, three independent coders each formed
clusters of items within each of the six domains. For example,
clusters within the family domain for one coder included religion,
dating/marriage, children, special occasions (weddings, birthdays),
and extended family. After independently generating item clusters,
the coders attempted to arrive at a consensus regarding the repre-
sentative clusters. The coders agreed on 14 clusters of items and
were instructed to create one item representing each cluster. They
were given instructions that (a) the final list of situations should
reflect each of the clusters, (b) all gay men should be able to easily
imagine themselves in these situations even if they have never
experienced the situation, and (c) situations should be likely to
elicit a variety of responses from gay men (i.e., from neutral to
anxious expectation of rejection). The resulting measure consists
of 14 items (see Table 1).
308
PACHANKIS, GOLDFRIED, AND RAMRATTAN
Participants
Participants (n ⫽ 150) were recruited from a predominantly gay
public park in New York City during the spring and summer of
2006. One participant indicated that he was heterosexual and was
therefore dropped from all analyses. Of the remaining 149 partic-
ipants, the breakdown of sexual orientation was gay (n ⫽ 140);
bisexual, mostly gay (n ⫽ 7); and queer (n ⫽ 2). No participants
identified as bisexual, equally gay and heterosexual; bisexual,
mostly heterosexual; or uncertain.
The average age of the participants was 35.46 years (SD ⫽
10.15), and their ethnicity was as follows: Black or African Amer-
ican (n ⫽ 7, 4.7%), White or Caucasian American (n ⫽ 116,
77.9%), Latino or Hispanic American (n ⫽ 9, 6.0%), Asian Amer-
ican (n ⫽ 11, 7.4%), and Other Ethnicities (n ⫽ 6, 4%). They were
also asked to indicate their education by using the following scale:
1(did not finish high school),2(high school degree or GED), 3
(Associate’s degree),4(Bachelor’s degree),5(graduate degree).
The mean level of education was 4.09 (SD ⫽ 0.97). Participants’
incomes were also measured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (⬍
$9,999),2($10,000 –$29,999),3($30,000 –$50,000),4($50,000 –
$99,999), to 5 (⬎$100,000). The mean income score for this
sample was 3.62 (SD ⫽ 1.08).
Participants also rated their level of openness being gay and
comfort with being gay by using the scales described above. The
mean openness score was 5.98 (SD ⫽ 1.19), and the mean comfort
score was 4.58 (SD ⫽ 0.85).
Measures
RS scale. By using the framework of Mendoza-Denton et al.
(2002), we presented the 14 situations of our gay-related rejection
sensitivity measure to participants followed by two response
stems. Participants first indicated how concerned or anxious they
would be that the situation occurred because of their sexual ori-
entation. They then indicated the likelihood that this situation
occurred because of their sexual orientation. For example, Situa-
tion 1 (“You bring a male partner to a family reunion. Two of your
old-fashioned aunts don’t come talk to you even though they see
you”) was presented to participants followed by the questions,
“How concerned or anxious would you be that they don’t talk to
you because of your sexual orientation?” (1 ⫽ very unconcerned,
6 ⫽ very concerned) and “How likely is it that they didn’t talk to
you because of your sexual orientation?” (1 ⫽ very unlikely, 6 ⫽
very likely).
Past conceptualizations have viewed status-based rejection sen-
sitivity as a cognitive–affective processing dynamic (Downey &
Feldman, 1996; Mendoza-Denton et al., 2002; Mischel & Shoda,
1995) and have therefore measured it as a conflation of the
likelihood of perceiving rejection and the anxiety generated by this
perceived rejection. As we found a similar pattern of association
with other measures for the Likelihood subscale, the Anxiety
subscale, and the combined scale (see Table 2), we followed the
lead of Mendoza-Denton et al. (2002) in combining the perception
likelihood score and anxious responding score into a Likelihood ⫻
Anxiety combined score. To arrive at this score, we derived the
product of the Likelihood and Anxiety subscales for each item and
divided the sum of the 14 resulting scores by 14. The statistical and
theoretical rationale for combining these two subscales in this
manner is described by Mendoza-Denton et al. (2002) for their
measure of status-based rejection sensitivity in African American
university students.
Because no a priori assumptions guided the possible factor
structure of this measure, we conducted an exploratory principal
components factor analysis to determine the underlying structure
of the 14 items. Factor analysis was deemed appropriate as the
correlations of all items with each other were moderate to high and
the partial correlations (the correlations between each pair of
variables partialing out all other variables) were typically lower, as
Table 1
Gay-Related Rejection Sensitivity (RS) Scale Items and Factor Loadings
Item
number Item
Factor
loading
Item 11 You go to a party and you and your partner are the only gay people there. No one seems interested in talking to you. .786
Item 12 You are in a locker room in a straight gym. One guy nearby moves to another area to change clothes. .775
Item 13 Some straight colleagues are talking about baseball. You force yourself to join the conversation, and they dismiss
your input.
.762
Item 10 You and your partner are on a road trip and decide to check into a hotel in a rural town. The sign out front says
there are vacancies. The two of you go inside, and the woman at the front desk says that there are no rooms left.
.730
Item 7 You go get an STD check-up, and the man taking your sexual history is rude towards you. .724
Item 14 Your colleagues are celebrating a co-worker’s birthday at a restaurant. You are not invited. .722
Item 6 You go to donate blood and the person who is supposed to draw your blood turns to her co-worker and says, “Why
don’t you take this one?”
.697
Item 9 Only you and a group of macho men are on a subway train late at night. They look in your direction and laugh. .690
Item 4 You go to a job interview and the interviewer asks if you are married. You say that you and your partner have been
together for 5 years. You later find out that you don’t get the job.
.680
Item 8 You bring a guy you are dating to a fancy restaurant of straight patrons, and you are seated away from everyone else
in a back corner of the restaurant.
.667
Item 3 You’ve been dating someone for a few years now, and you receive a wedding invitation to a straight friend’s
wedding. The invite was addressed only to you, not you and a guest.
.598
Item 2 A 3-year old child of a distant relative is crawling on your lap. His mom comes to take him away. .580
Item 5 You are going to have surgery, and the doctor tells you that he would like to give you an HIV test. .574
Item 1 You bring a male partner to a family reunion. Two of your old-fashioned aunts don’t come talk to you even though
they see you.
.470
309
GAY-RELATED REJECTION SENSITIVITY
indicated by the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin index of .88. An examina-
tion of the scree plot of eigenvalues indicated that the data were
adequately fit with a one-factor solution accounting for 46.35% of
the variance. The first 10 eigenvalues were 6.49, 1.36, 1.15, .75,
.68, .63, .59, .48, .46, and .40. Table 1 orders the 14 items by factor
loading.
Individual item distributions were examined in order to elimi-
nate those items that were highly skewed or otherwise imbalanced
(L. A. Clark & Watson, 1995). The highest absolute value of
skewness across all items was 1.69 (SE ⫽ .20). Means for the 14
items ranged from 7.63 to 17.03. The standard deviations for the
items ranged from 8.09 to 11.58. No item was sufficiently skewed
to merit elimination from the scale, and each item generated a
sufficient variance in responses. The internal consistency of the 14
scale items as indexed by Cronbach’s alpha was .91. The mean
inter-item correlation of these items was .42, which is sufficient for
a scale measuring a narrow-band construct such as gay-related
rejection sensitivity (L. A. Clark & Watson, 1995).
By using the 14 items derived as described above, we then
established the convergent and discriminant validity of the RS
scale. We expected that the measures that are seemingly most
closely related to the RS scale (e.g., those assessing fear of
negative evaluation, assertiveness, perceived gay discrimination,
internalized homophobia, and interpersonal sensitivity) would
yield moderate correlations with the RS scale. We also examined
the pattern of correlations between the RS scale and the subscales
of the Internalized Homophobia Scale (IHS) and the Interpersonal
Sensitivity Measure (IPSM). We expected that the RS measure
would demonstrate higher correlations with theoretically related
subscales of related measures (e.g., Perception of Gay Stigma,
Interpersonal Worry and Dependency) than with unrelated sub-
scales of those measures (e.g., Low Self-Esteem, Public Identifi-
cation as Gay, Moral/Religious Acceptability of Being Gay).
Correlations between our measure and related measures were
examined (see Table 2). As expected, we found that the RS scale
was moderately correlated with the Brief Fear of Negative Eval-
uation Scale, the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule, the Perceived
Gay Discrimination scale, the IHS, and the IPSM. The RS scale
produced a small but significant correlation with the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale. The measure and subscale that are most closely
related to the RS scale—the IPSM and the Perception of Gay
Stigma subscale of the IHS—produced moderate correlations,
which suggests that these measures are not interchangeable with
the RS scale, that there is a substantial amount of remaining
variance in relevant criteria variables to be accounted for by the RS
scale, and that this variance is not accounted for by a broader
tendency toward interpersonal sensitivity or toward perceiving gay
stigma.
The pattern of correlations presented in Table 2 also supports
the discriminant validity of the scale. In order to establish dis-
criminant validity, we compared the pattern of correlations be-
tween our measure and the subscales of the IHS and IPSM. The RS
scale was more highly correlated with theoretically related sub-
scales of the IHS and IPSM (i.e., Perception of Gay Stigma,
Interpersonal Worry and Dependency) than with unrelated sub-
scales (i.e., Low Self-Esteem, Public Identification as Gay, Moral/
Religious Acceptability of Being Gay). We then tested the differ-
ences of the correlations of RS with these related versus unrelated
subscales by using Meng, Rosenthal, and Rubin’s (1992) equation
for comparing two correlations drawn from the same sample,
sharing one variable. All of the following comparisons yielded
significant differences (or differences that approached signifi-
cance): Perception of Gay Stigma versus Low Self-Esteem (Z ⫽
1.95, p ⫽ .05), Perception of Gay Stigma versus Public Identifi-
cation as Gay (Z ⫽2.26, p ⬍ .05), Perception of Gay Stigma versus
Moral/Religious Acceptability of Being Gay (Z ⫽ 3.19, p ⬍ .001),
Interpersonal Worry and Dependency versus Low Self-Esteem
(Z ⫽ 3.23, p ⬍ .001), Interpersonal Worry and Dependency versus
Public Identification as Gay (Z ⫽ 2.96, p ⬍ .01), Interpersonal
Worry and Dependency versus Moral/Religious Acceptability of
Table 2
Zero-Order Correlations Between the 14-Item Gay-Related Rejection Scale and Related
Measures for Likelihood of Perceiving Rejection, Anxiety That Sexual Orientation Was Targeted,
and Interaction of Likelihood of Perceiving and Anxiety (n ⫽ 149)
Measure Likelihood Anxiety
Likelihood ⫻
Anxiety
Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale .31
**
.44
**
.39
**
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale ⫺.14 ⫺.24
**
⫺.22
**
Rathus Assertiveness Schedule ⫺.23
**
⫺.34
**
⫺.30
**
Perceived Gay Discrimination .31
**
.34
**
.34
**
Internalized Homophobia Scale—Total .24
**
.26
**
.26
**
Public Identification as Gay .12 .16 .14
Perception of Gay Stigma .36
**
.31
**
.35
**
Social Comfort With Gay Men .16 .20
*
.21
*
Moral/Religious Acceptability of Being Gay ⫺.02 .03 ⫺.02
Interpersonal Sensitivity Measure—Total .38
**
.42
**
.42
**
Interpersonal Worry and Dependency .37
**
.45
**
.43
**
Low Self-Esteem .17
*
.17
*
.16
*
Unassertive Interpersonal Behavior .22
**
.30
**
.29
**
Parental Rejection of Son’s Sexual Orientation
a
.27
**
.17 .24
*
a
Only 112 participants reported disclosing their sexual orientation to at least one of their parents; therefore, for
this item, n ⫽ 112.
*
p ⬍ .05.
**
p ⬍ .01.
310
PACHANKIS, GOLDFRIED, AND RAMRATTAN
Being Gay (Z ⫽ 4.11, p ⬍ .001). We had no specific prediction for
RS’s pattern of correlations with the theoretically related subscales
(i.e., Perception of Gay Stigma, Interpersonal Worry and Depen-
dency) versus the Social Comfort with Gay Men and Unassertive
Interpersonal Behavior subscales. We found that the correlations
between the RS scale and the following pairs of subscales involv-
ing one of the two theoretically relevant subscales (i.e., Perception
of Gay Stigma, Interpersonal Worry and Dependence) were not
significantly different: Perception of Gay Stigma and Social Com-
fort with Gay Men (Z ⫽ 1.36, p ⫽ .17), Perception of Gay Stigma
and Unassertive Interpersonal Behavior (Z ⫽ 0.61, p ⫽ .54), and
Interpersonal Worry and Dependence and Unassertive Interper-
sonal Behavior (Z ⫽ 1.78, p ⫽ .07). However, the correlation with
the RS scale was significantly higher for the Interpersonal Worry
and Dependence subscale than for the Social Comfort with Gay
Men subscale (Z ⫽ 2.30, p ⬍ .05),
Brief Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (BFNE; Leary, 1983).
Based on the original Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (Watson
& Friend, 1969), the BFNE measures concern about others’ eval-
uations and distressing thoughts about incurring disapproval and
criticism. The BFNE, for which we used a dichotomous response
option for each of the 12 items (false ⫽ 1, true ⫽ 2), is a short
version of the original 30-item Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale
(Watson & Friend, 1969). The BFNE has strong psychometric
properties (Leary, 1983). Cronbach’s alpha of the BFNE in the
present sample was .90. Examples of BFNE items include “I am
afraid that others will not approve of me,” “I am frequently afraid
of other people noticing my shortcomings,” and “I often worry that
I will say or do the wrong things.”
Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (RAS; Rathus, 1973). The RAS
is a 30-item self-report measure of assertive behavior. It has
moderate-to-strong test–retest and split-half reliability and is pre-
dictive of the impression that respondents make on others and of
their ability to generate assertive responses in relevant situations.
Participants respond on a 6-point Likert-type scale with the end-
points 1 (very uncharacteristic of me)and6(very characteristic of
me). Cronbach’s alpha of the RAS in the present sample was .89.
Sample items of the RAS include “To be honest, people often take
advantage of me,” “I avoid arguing over prices with clerks and
salesmen” (reversed scored item), and “I am open and frank about
my feelings.” The item “I often don’t know what to say to
attractive persons of the opposite sex” was replaced with “I often
don’t know what to say to attractive persons of the same sex.”
IHS (Ross & Rosser, 1996). The IHS measures gay men’s
internalization of negative societal attitudes toward (or rejection
of) homosexuality. Its 26-items assess public identification of
being gay, perception of stigma associated with being gay, social
comfort with other gay men, and the moral and religious accept-
ability of being gay. This measure demonstrates associations with
length and satisfaction of personal relationships, disclosure of
sexual orientation, participation in gay social groups, and propor-
tion of time spent with other gay people. Participants rated each
item by using a 5-point Likert-type scale with the following
anchors: 1 (strongly disagree),2(disagree),3(neutral),4(agree),
and5(strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha of the IHS in the present
sample was .80. Sample items of the IHS include “Obviously
effeminate homosexual men make me feel uncomfortable,” “I
would prefer to be more heterosexual,” and “Even if I could
change my sexual orientation, I wouldn’t” (reverse scored item).
IPSM (Boyce & Parker, 1989). We measured non-gay-related
interpersonal sensitivity by using the IPSM. This measure was
created to measure hypersensitivity to interpersonal rejection, a
trait that has been shown to be a risk factor for depression (Boyce
et al., 1990) and to correlate with social anxiety disorder (Harb,
Heimberg, Fresco, Schneier, & Leibowitz, 2001). This measure
was deemed more appropriate than the Rejection Sensitivity Ques-
tionnaire of Downey and colleagues (Downey & Feldman, 1996),
as the wording of items in the Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire
applies mostly to college-aged students. The IPSM, however, is
well-suited for use in a community sample of adults. The IPSM
demonstrates high reliability and validity in depressed individuals
and individuals with social anxiety disorder.
Participants respond to the 36 items of the IPSM by using a
4-point Likert-type scale with the following anchors: 1 (very unlike
me), 2 (moderately unlike me), 3 (moderately like me), and 4 (very
like me). In addition to total scores on the scale, we examined
participants’ scores on the three subscales reported by Harb et al.
(2001), namely the Interpersonal Worry and Dependency subscale,
the Low Self-Esteem subscale, and the Unassertive Interpersonal
Behavior subscale.
Sample items include “If other people knew what I am really
like, they would think less of me,” “I always notice if someone
doesn’t respond to me,” and “I am always aware of how other
people feel.” Cronbach’s alpha was .88 in the current sample.
Perceived Gay Discrimination (adapted from Garstka, Schmitt,
Branscombe, & Hummert, 2004). We assessed perceived gay
discrimination with four items by usinga1(strongly disagree)to
7(strongly agree) Likert-type scale adapted from the Perceived
Age Discrimination scale of Garstka, Schmitt, Branscombe, and
Hummert (2004). The items were as follows: “I feel like I am
personally a victim of society because of my sexual orientation,”
“I consider myself a person who has been deprived of the oppor-
tunities that are available to others because of my sexual orienta-
tion,” “Gay men as a group have been victimized by society,”
“Historically, gay men have been discriminated against more than
heterosexual men.” The mean of these four items was calculated,
with higher values representing greater perceived discrimination
against gay men. In this sample, Cronbach’s alpha was .73.
Parents’ attitudes toward son’s sexual orientation. Partici-
pants were asked whether or not they had told their mother (closest
female guardian) and father (closest male guardian) that they are
not heterosexual. Those participants who indicated that they had
disclosed their sexual orientation to their mother and/or father
were asked, “How tolerant is she (he) towards your sexual orien-
tation currently?” Participants answered this question with a
7-point Likert-type scale ranging between 1 (completely tolerant
and accepting),2(mostly tolerant and accepting),3(somewhat
tolerant and accepting),4(neither accepting nor rejecting), 5
(somewhat hostile and rejecting), 6 (mostly hostile and rejecting),
and7(completely hostile and rejecting). Scores for maternal
attitude and paternal attitude were averaged for each participant.
For those participants who had disclosed their sexual orientation to
only one parent, only the score for that parent’s attitude was used.
Thirty-seven participants had not disclosed their sexual orientation
to either parent; therefore, they did not receive a score on this
variable.
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE; M. Rosenberg, 1965). The
RSE measures how positively or negatively participants view
311
GAY-RELATED REJECTION SENSITIVITY
themselves. Participants complete the 10 items of the RSE by
using a Likert-type scale with 4 points: 1 (strongly agree), 2
(agree),3(disagree), and 4 (strongly disagree). The scale gener-
ally has high reliability. Sample items include “I take a positive
attitude toward myself” (reverse scored item), “I certainly feel
useless at times,” and “At times I think I am no good at all.”
Cronbach’s alpha in the current sample was .85.
Procedure
Research assistants introduced themselves, asked participants to
sign a consent form, and then provided participants with the packet
consisting of the measures described above. Participants com-
pleted the measures described above at the recruitment location
and received $10.00 once they completed the packet.
Results
We attempted to establish preliminary evidence for the validity
of the gay-related rejection sensitivity construct as measured by
the RS scale. To do this, we tested the relationships among
parental rejection of one’s sexual orientation, the internalization of
this rejection as an interpersonal schema that guides views of self
and interactions with others as a gay man (i.e., internalized homo-
phobia), and anxious expectations of future gay-related rejection.
As noted earlier, parental rejection toward any child or adolescent,
regardless of his or her stigmatized status, can produce distorted
schemas of self and others, such as the internalization of negative
self-views and sensitivity to future rejection from others (Feldman
& Downey, 1994; Rohner & Rohner, 1980). The internalization of
sexual-orientation-related rejection (as internalized homophobia)
may at least partially mediate the association between parental
rejection of sexual orientation and sensitivity to future gay-related
rejection. Support for this mediation analysis would provide pre-
liminary evidence for the utility of applying the rejection sensitiv-
ity construct to the rejection-related experiences of gay men and
also evidence for the construct validity of the current measure.
Preliminary Analyses
Of the 149 participants, 37 indicated that they had not disclosed
their sexual orientation to at least one parent. Therefore, for all
remaining analyses involving parental reactions to participants’
sexual orientation, n ⫽ 112. However, in order to determine
whether those participants who had disclosed to parents differed
from those who had not, we conducted a one-way multivariate
analysis of variance with internalized homophobia and gay-related
rejection sensitivity entered as dependent variables. This analysis
revealed a significant effect for whether or not participants had
disclosed to at least one parent (Wilks’s lambda ⫽ .95,
2
⫽ .05),
F(2, 146) ⫽ 3.48, p ⬍ .05, with the independent variable account-
ing for 5% of the variance in the set of dependent variables (1 –
Wilks’s lambda). Follow-up univariate analyses of the main effect
of disclosure indicated significantly higher scores on the internal-
ized homophobia measure (
2
⫽ .04), F(1, 147) ⫽ 5.71, p ⬍ .05,
for those participants who had not disclosed to their parents.
However, the difference between the groups on the gay-related
rejection sensitivity measure only approached significance (
2
⫽
.02), F(1, 147) ⫽ 2.83, p ⫽ .10. The mean score on the scale of
parental attitudes toward their son’s sexual orientation was 1.79
(SD ⫽ 1.03). Participants’ scores ranged from 1.00 to 5.50.
Mediation of the Relationship Between Parental Rejection
and Rejection Sensitivity by Internalized Homophobia
We hypothesized that the relationship between parental rejec-
tion and rejection sensitivity would be mediated by participants’
levels of internalized homophobia. In order to test whether we had
met the conditions for mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986), we
conducted a series of regression analyses. In the first regression
analysis, we predicted rejection sensitivity from parental rejection.
Parental rejection was significantly related to rejection sensitivity
(⫽.24), t(110) ⫽ 2.53, p ⬍ .05. We then conducted a regression
analysis to test whether the predictor, parental rejection, was
related to the mediator, internalized homophobia. This analysis
was also significant (⫽.39), t(110) ⫽ 4.39, p ⬍ .0001. Finally,
to demonstrate that internalized homophobia was related to rejec-
tion sensitivity in the context of parental rejection, and that inter-
nalized homophobia mediates the relationship between parental
rejection and sensitivity to future rejection, we conducted a regres-
sion analysis in which we entered parental rejection and internal-
ized homophobia as the predictor variables and rejection sensitiv-
ity as the outcome variable. The results of this regression support
our hypothesis. The relationship between parental rejection and
sensitivity to future rejection dropped (⫽.15), t(109) ⫽ 1.47, ns,
in the context of internalized homophobia. Internalized homopho-
bia, which was correlated .39 ( p ⬍ .01) with parental rejection and
.29 ( p ⬍ .01) with rejection sensitivity, retained a significant
relationship with rejection sensitivity (⫽.23), t(109) ⫽ 2.37,
p ⬍ .05, when parental rejection was included in the model.
In order to directly test the proposed mediation, we used Sobel’s
test as recommended by MacKinnon, Warsi, and Dwyer (1995) to
test the significance of the joint path from parental rejection to
internalized homophobia and from internalized homophobia to
rejection sensitivity. The results of this test indicated that this joint
path remained significant in the context of the direct path from
parental rejection to rejection sensitivity (Z ⫽ 2.08, p ⬍ .05).
These results support our hypothesis that internalized homophobia
mediates the effect of parental rejection on rejection sensitivity.
To verify that an alternate mediational relationship could not
better describe the association among the three variables tested
above, we tested the possibility that rejection sensitivity mediated
the relationship between parental rejection and internalized homo-
phobia. Results of this analysis suggest that this is not the case. In
the first regression, parental rejection was significantly related to
internalized homophobia (⫽.39), t(110) ⫽ 4.39, p ⬍ .0001.
Parental rejection was also related to rejection sensitivity (⫽
.24), t(110) ⫽ 2.53, p ⬍ .05. The relationship between parental
rejection and internalized homophobia did not substantially drop in
the context of rejection sensitivity and remained significant (⫽
.34), t(109) ⫽ 3.80, p ⬍ .0001. The association between rejection
sensitivity and internalized homophobia also remained significant
(⫽.21), t(109) ⫽ 2.37, p ⬍ .05, after controlling for the
contribution of parental rejection. Further, Sobel’s test did not
yield a significant reduction for this mediation (Z ⫽ 1.14, p ⫽ .25,
ns). This also supports our hypothesized association among these
three variables—that is, that internalized homophobia mediates the
link between parental rejection and rejection sensitivity, instead of
312
PACHANKIS, GOLDFRIED, AND RAMRATTAN
rejection sensitivity mediating the link between parental rejection
and internalized homophobia. As we propose that parental rejec-
tion precedes the formation of problematic gay-related cognitive–
affective processing (i.e., internalized homophobia, rejection sen-
sitivity), we tested only the above two mediational analyses.
Unique Contribution of Rejection Sensitivity to
Unassertiveness in the Context of Parental Rejection
and Internalized Homophobia
Table 3 shows bivariate correlations, means, and standard de-
viations for parental attitudes, internalized homophobia, rejection
sensitivity, and assertiveness. The strongest relationship was be-
tween parental rejection and internalized homophobia (r ⫽ .39,
p ⬍ .01). Both of these variables had a moderate relationship with
rejection sensitivity (rs ⫽ .24, p ⬍ .01; and .29, p ⬍ .01, respec-
tively), and assertiveness (rs ⫽ –.25, p ⬍ .01; and –.37, p ⬍ .01,
respectively).
We conducted a hierarchical regression analysis to determine if
the addition of gay-related rejection sensitivity improved the pre-
diction of unassertiveness over and above that committed by
parental rejection and internalized rejection of sexual orientation.
Table 4 displays R, R
2
, and the change in R
2
, as well as F, df, and
 for each step of the analysis. R was significantly different from
zero at the end of each step. At the second step, in which parental
rejection was entered along with internalized homophobia, R
2
equaled .15, F(1, 109) ⫽ 9.61, p ⬍ .0001. After the third step, in
which rejection sensitivity was added to parental and internalized
homophobia, R
2
equaled .19, F(1, 108) ⫽ 8.49, p ⬍ .0001;
yielding a .04 change in R
2
, p ⬍ .05. Addition of rejection
sensitivity then makes a significant contribution to the ability to
predict unassertive interpersonal behavior over and above parental
rejection and internalized rejection of participants’ sexual orienta-
tion (i.e., internalized homophobia).
Discussion
In order to examine the influence of rejection sensitivity on the
cognitive–affective– behavioral functioning of gay men, we first
established a measure for examining this construct as it applies to
this population. The scale developed here seems to adequately
represent the rejection-related concerns of gay men as its items
represent a unitary factor and generate sufficient variance in our
sample. Further, the scale demonstrates adequate convergent and
discriminant validity when compared with other measures, sug-
gesting that rejection sensitivity as assessed by the current measure
represents a useful construct not already captured by other mea-
sures.
We then establish evidence for the utility of the gay-related
rejection sensitivity construct in understanding the interpersonal
concerns of gay men. Specifically, we found support for the
predicted relationships involving rejection sensitivity and parental
rejection, internalized homophobia, and unassertive interpersonal
behavior. Clinical and empirical accounts of the experiences of gay
men have long suggested that rejection-related concerns rank at the
forefront of this population’s presenting difficulties (D’Augelli,
1992; Martin, 1982; Radkowsky & Siegel, 1997; Roesler & De-
isher, 1972). Clinicians working with gay men may recognize the
impact of past gay-related rejection on their gay clients’ present
cognitive–affective– behavioral functioning. The present study of-
fers empirical support for this clinical observation while also
testing the mediating effect of the internalized rejection of one’s
own sexual orientation (i.e., internalized homophobia). Specifi-
cally, we found that internalized homophobia mediates the rela-
tionship between parental rejection of one’s sexual orientation and
sensitivity to future gay-related rejection. We also found that
gay-related rejection sensitivity significantly predicts unassertive
interpersonal behavior beyond the prediction afforded by parental
rejection and internalized homophobia.
Clinically, the alleviation of distorted cognitive–affective pro-
cessing, such as sensitivity to gay-related rejection, depends on
incorporating a new understanding of self and others. The concept
of schema revision has proven to be an important factor in many
therapeutic approaches (Goldfried, 2003). The usefulness of
schema revision rests on the premise that past experiences shape
internal views of self and others. When these past experiences are
traumatic or otherwise stressful, as is often the case for gay men
who have experienced rejection of their sexual orientation, dis-
torted schemas of self and others may become inaccurate and
distressing. Although gay men’s expectations of rejection may not
always be inaccurate, rejection-sensitive gay clients may benefit
from therapeutic techniques that have proven effective for promot-
ing schema revision, especially if internalized homophobia drives
their rejection sensitivity. First, for example, clinicians may need
to help certain gay clients understand the processes by which the
Table 3
Correlations Among Major Variables
Variable 1234
1. Parental rejection
a
— .39
**
.24
**
⫺.25
**
2. Internalized homophobia — .29
**
⫺.37
**
3. Rejection sensitivity — ⫺.31
**
4. Assertiveness —
M 1.79 63.99 11.49 17.56
SD 1.03 11.89 6.86 27.88
a
Only 112 participants reported disclosing their sexual orientation to at
least one of their parents; therefore, for analyses involving this item, n ⫽
112.
**
p ⬍ .01.
Table 4
Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression of Parental
Rejection, Internalized Homophobia, and Rejection Sensitivity
on Assertive Interpersonal Behavior
Variable R
total
R
2
total
R
2
change
F
change
df 
Step 1
Parental .25 .06 .06 7.28 1, 110 ⫺.25
**
Step 2
Parental ⫺.13
Internalized .39 .15 .09 11.25 1, 109 ⫺.32
**
Step 3
Parental ⫺.09
Internalized ⫺.27
**
Sensitivity .44 .19 .04 5.47 1, 108 ⫺.21
*
*
p ⬍ .05.
**
p ⬍ .01.
313
GAY-RELATED REJECTION SENSITIVITY
attitudes of society, parents, and others become internalized. Be-
yond this, however, therapists may also promote corrective expe-
riences both within and outside of therapy sessions to aid schema
revision. For example, gay clients who expect to be rejected by a
particular group of people (e.g., heterosexual men) may benefit
from learning how to develop trusting relationships with accepting
members of this group (including the therapist if he or she happens
to be a member of this previously threatening group). In this way,
gay clients accrue schemas of acceptance by others, which can
eventually replace the more presently salient schemas of rejection
by others. This may in turn lead to more satisfying mixed-
orientation relationships as well as more satisfying same-sex rela-
tionships. Clinical evidence attests to the benefits of promoting this
type of corrective experience for gay men (Haldeman, 2006).
As our findings also support the hypothesis that rejection sen-
sitivity contributes to unassertive interpersonal behavior in gay
men, future clinicians and researchers may wish to extend inves-
tigations of assertiveness training to this population. Clinicians and
researchers in the 1970s fully recognized the implications of
applying assertiveness training to the unique concerns of women
(Goldfried & Davison, 1994). Indeed, assertiveness training was
used to promote the development of a healthy female identity,
awareness of the ways in which women internalized society’s
negative view of their gender, and success in interpersonal rela-
tionships at home and in the workplace. Today, given the similarly
devalued status of gay men across many domains of society,
assertiveness training for this group seems promising. The need for
research in this area is particularly compelling, especially given the
recent evidence of increased rates of social anxiety symptomatol-
ogy in this population (Pachankis & Goldfried, 2006; Safren &
Pantalone, 2006), the relationship between unassertiveness and
social anxiety (see below), and the role of unassertiveness and
social anxiety in unsafe sexual behavior (Hart & Heimberg, 2005;
Weinhardt, Carey, Carey, & Verdecias, 1998).
Expectations of rejection may lead not only to unassertiveness,
as the present study suggests, but also to social anxiety. Many
studies have established that unassertiveness and social anxiety are
closely related constructs (e.g., Arrindell et al., 1990; Chambless,
Hunter, & Jackson, 1982; Davila & Beck, 2002; Linehan &
Walker, 1983). Rejection-prone beliefs about self and others and
heightened emotional arousal in response to perceived rejection
underlie both constructs (e.g., Goldfried & Sobocinski, 1975;
Kuperminc & Heimberg, 1983; Morrison & Bellack, 1981; Smith
& Sarason, 1975). Future research could test the relationship
between rejection sensitivity and social anxiety by looking at the
prevalence of rejection sensitivity in samples of socially anxious
and non-socially anxious gay men. Studies of this type could refine
the field’s present conceptualization of social anxiety in stigma-
tized populations such that these individuals would not be diag-
nosed as socially anxious given the sometimes realistic and rea-
sonable nature of their social fears and the incompatible DSM–IV
(American Psychiatric Association, 1994) criteria for social anxi-
ety disorder specifying that “the person recognizes that this fear is
unreasonable or excessive” (p. 456).
Our study also found that over one-quarter of the present sample
had not disclosed their sexual orientation to at least one parent.
Analyses of the present data revealed that those men who had not
disclosed to their parents reported significantly higher internalized
homophobia than did those who had disclosed. Additionally, the
difference between these two groups on the gay-related rejection
measure approached significance. These findings suggest that in-
ternalized homophobia or sensitivity to gay-related rejection may
underlie decisions to reveal a nonheterosexual orientation to par-
ents and, thus, may precede parental rejection. In fact, D’Augelli,
Hershberger, and Pilkington (1998) suggested that gay individuals
may avoid disclosure to parents because they expect their parents
to reject them. Yet, it is also possible that rejection sensitivity,
internalized homophobia, and nondisclosure to parents all share a
common determinant, such as inhibited temperament.
1
Therefore,
it is possible that rejection sensitivity may develop without paren-
tal rejection, as a result of factors such as behavioral inhibition,
and that the avoidance of parental rejection (through the avoidance
of disclosing) may also be explained by this inhibition.
Despite its strengths, the present research has limitations. Given
its cross-sectional nature, the present study cannot definitely es-
tablish the causal influence of parental rejection on the develop-
ment of internalized homophobia, anxious expectations of future
rejection, or unassertive interpersonal behavior. Further, the
study’s cross-sectional approach cannot establish the temporal
sequence required for true mediation. One could assume temporal
mediation if one also assumes that parental rejection conceptually
precedes internalized homophobia and rejection sensitivity. Yet,
only a prospective approach to the present variables could test that
hypothesis. The study’s self-report nature also limits the strength
of our conclusions. For example, parental rejection may be con-
founded with our measure of rejection sensitivity, such that those
who self-report parental rejection are indeed more sensitive to
rejection (and thus more likely to perceive rejection from their
parents regardless of their parents’ actual degree of rejection). The
gay participants in this study may have drawn on their own
rejection of their gay identity in ascertaining the attitude of their
parents toward this identity.
The present research did not assess the relative importance of
gay-related rejection in the context of the overall quality of the
parent–son relationship. Therefore, it is possible that our measure
of parental rejection of sexual orientation may have reflected
overall parental rejection, which could have numerous conse-
quences, only two of which are a negative view of one’s own
sexual orientation and anxious expectations of rejection. It will
therefore be incumbent on future research to determine the relative
impact of parental rejection of sexual orientation versus broader
parental rejection. Future research might also test the relative
contributions of rejection by parents versus rejection by others
1
In his exotic-becomes-erotic theory, Bem (1996) suggested that tem
-
peramental styles like inhibition could even produce same-sex attraction.
He argued that genes coding for certain temperamental characteristics,
namely low aggression and low activity level, will produce sex-atypical
behavior in boys, which eventually results in erotic attraction to same-sex
peers. Specifically, Bem suggested that sex-atypical behavior leads boys to
feel different from their same-sex peers, which results in autonomic arousal
(eventually sexual arousal) in response to same-sex peers. Further, data
suggest that inhibited temperament appears to predict sensitivity, espe-
cially in response to social cues, into adulthood (Schwartz, Wright, Shin,
Kagan, & Rauch, 2003). These data together with Bem’s theory suggest
that temperament—in addition to contributing to rejection sensitivity,
internalized homophobia, and nondisclosure of sexual orientation— could
also explain the development of a homosexual orientation itself.
314
PACHANKIS, GOLDFRIED, AND RAMRATTAN
(e.g., peers, other family members), as parental rejection may not
produce the same extent of distressing consequences if it occurs in
the context of acceptance by others.
The participants in the present study were all men; were rela-
tively educated, wealthy, and urban; and were predominantly
White compared with the overall U.S. population. The participants
were also likely to report being quite comfortable with and open
about their sexual orientation. Despite the limitations of this some-
what unrepresentative sample, however, we still found support for
the hypotheses of the present study. Nonetheless, it would be
important to investigate the processes tested here in a more rep-
resentative sample of LGB men and women. Future research may
find that the intersection of multiple stigmatized identities (e.g.,
sexual orientation, race, socioeconomic status) establishes unique
processes for multiply stigmatized individuals contending with
rejection-related concerns. The present study, though, cannot sup-
port the operation of the gay-related rejection sensitivity construct
in a more diverse sample, especially since the items in our rejec-
tion sensitivity measure do not reflect the experiences of all gay
men (e.g., those who are unemployed may have difficulty respond-
ing to the “job interview” item). Further, one could assume that
those gay men who do not possess a strong gay identity (e.g.,
because they are not open about being gay, are uncomfortable with
being gay, do not have contact with other gay men, have other
more central group-based identities) would not expect to be re-
jected because of their sexual orientation, as they do not use this
aspect of themselves in organizing information directed toward
them. Further, gay men with these attributes may also have diffi-
culty imagining themselves in the situations included in our mea-
sure (e.g., being with a same-sex partner in public). Of course, one
could make a case for why these men would be even more
sensitive to rejection than would more open, comfortable gay men
who possess a strong gay identity. The conceptual model set forth
in this study, therefore, must be interpreted with caution when
extrapolating to individuals who do not match the participants in
our samples.
In sum, the present research draws on a cognitive–affective–
behavioral paradigm to examine the process by which gay men
experience rejection of their sexual orientation. We established a
measure of the gay-related rejection sensitivity construct and
found that it is a useful measure of the construct as it operates in
our sample. More research of this type is needed that applies
mainstream psychological constructs to examinations of the expe-
riences of underrepresented groups. Examining mainstream para-
digms in a unique group like gay men can potentially support or
challenge our present understanding of assumed psychological
processes. In this study, we applied the examination of rejection
sensitivity to a group of individuals for whom rejection is quite
common. As predicted, we found that rejection of an important
aspect of one’s self is associated with unfortunate internal and
interpersonal consequences, potentially shifting someone’s expe-
rience of self, others, and everyday life.
References
Alden, L., & Safran, J. D. (1978). Irrational beliefs and non-assertive
behavior. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 2, 357–364.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical man-
ual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Arrindell, W. A., Sanderman, R., Hageman, W. J. J. M., Pickersgill, M. J.,
Kwee, M. G. T., van der Molen, H. T., et al. (1990a). Correlates of
assertiveness in normal and clinical samples: A multidimensional ap-
proach. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 12, 153–282.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173–1182.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among
young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 61, 226 –244.
Bem, D. J. (1996). Exotic becomes erotic: A developmental theory of
sexual orientation. Psychological Review, 103, 320 –335.
Benjamin, L. S., & Wonderlich, S. A. (1994). Social perceptions and
borderline personality disorder. The relation to mood disorder. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 610 – 624.
Blatt, S. J., & Maroudas, C. (1992). Convergence of psychoanalytic and
cognitive behavioral theories of depression. Psychoanalytic Psychology,
9, 157–190.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York:
Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York:
Basic Books.
Boyce, P., & Parker, G. (1989). Development of a scale to measure
interpersonal sensitivity. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psy-
chiatry, 23, 341–351.
Boyce, P., Parker, G., Hickie, I., Wilhelm, K., Brodaty, H., & Mitchell, P.
(1990). Personality differences between patients with remitted melan-
cholic and nonmelancholic depression. American Journal of Psychiatry,
147, 1476 –1483.
Chambless, D. L., Hunter, K., & Jackson, A. (1982). Social anxiety and
assertiveness: A comparison of the correlations in phobic and college
student samples. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 20, 403– 404.
Clark, D. M., & Wells, A. (1995). A cognitive model of social phobia. In
R. G. Heimberg, M. R. Liebowitz, D. A. Hope, & F. R. Schneier (Eds.),
Social phobia: Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment (pp. 69–93). New
York: Guilford Press.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. B. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues
in scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309 –319.
Cloitre, M., Cohen, L. R., & Scarvalone, P. (2002). Understanding revic-
timization among childhood sexual abuse survivors: An interpersonal
schema approach. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 16, 91–112.
Cochran, S. D., & Mays, V. M. (2000). Relation between psychiatric
syndromes and behaviorally defined sexual orientation in a sample of the
U.S. population. American Journal of Epidemiology, 151, 516 –523.
Cole, S. W., Kemeny, M. E., & Taylor, S. E. (1997). Social identity and
physical health: Accelerated HIV progression in rejection-sensitive gay
men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 320 –335.
Corliss, H., Cochran, S. D., & Mays, V. M. (2002). Reports of parental
maltreatment during childhood in a United States population-based
survey of homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual adults. Child Abuse
and Neglect, 26, 1165–1178.
D’Augelli, A. R. (1992). Lesbian and gay male undergraduates’ experi-
ences of harassment and fear on campus. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 7, 383–395.
D’Augelli, A. R., Hershberger, S. L., & Pilkington, N. W. (1998). Lesbian,
gay, and bisexual youths and their families: Disclosure of sexual orien-
tation and its consequences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68,
361–371.
Davila, J., & Beck, J. G. (2002). Is social anxiety associated with impair-
ment in close relationships? A preliminary investigation. Behavior Ther-
apy, 33, 427– 446.
Diamond, L. (2003). New paradigms for research on heterosexual and
315
GAY-RELATED REJECTION SENSITIVITY
sexual-minority development. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology, 32, 490 – 498.
Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity
for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
70, 1327–1343.
Downey, G., Freitas, A. L., Michaelis, B., & Khouri, H. (1998). The
self-fulfilling prophecy in close relationships: Do rejection sensitive
women get rejected by their partners? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75, 545–560.
Feldman, S., & Downey, G. (1994). Rejection sensitivity as a mediator of
attachment behavior in young adults exposed to family violence. Devel-
opment and Psychopathology, 6, 231–247.
Frable, D. E., Blackstone, T., & Scherbaum, C. (1990). Marginal and
mindful: Deviants in social interactions. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 59, 140 –149.
Garstka, T. A., Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., & Hummert, M. L.
(2004). How young and older adults differ in their responses to per-
ceived age discrimination. Psychology and Aging, 19, 326 –335.
Goldfried, M. (2003). Cognitive–behavior therapy: Reflections on the
evolution of a therapeutic orientation. Cognitive Therapy and Research,
27, 53– 69.
Goldfried, M. R., & Davison, G. C. (1994). Clinical behavior therapy. New
York: Wiley.
Goldfried, M. R., & Goldfried, A. P. (2001). The importance of parental
support in the lives of gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals. Journal of
Clinical Psychology/In Session: Psychotherapy in Practice, 57, 681–
693.
Goldfried, M., & Sobocinski, D. (1975). Effect of irrational beliefs on
emotional arousal. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43,
504 –510.
Haldeman, D. (2006). Queer eye on the straight guy: A case of gay male
heterophobia. In M. Stevens & M. Englar-Carlson (Eds.), In the room
with men: A casebook for psychotherapy with men (pp. 301–317).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hammen, C. L., Jacobs, M., Mayol, A., & Cochran, S. D. (1980). Dys-
functional cognitions and the effectiveness of skills and cognitive be-
havioral assertion training. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 48, 685– 695.
Harb, G. C., Heimberg, R. G., Fresco, D. M., Schneier, F. R., & Liebowitz,
M. R. (2001). The psychometric properties of the Interpersonal Sensi-
tivity Measure in social anxiety disorder. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 40, 961–979.
Hart, T. A., & Heimberg, R. G. (2005). Social anxiety as a risk factor for
unprotected intercourse among gay and bisexual male youth. AIDS and
Behavior, 9, 505–512.
Henderson, M. G. (1998). Disclosure of sexual orientation: Comments
from a parental perspective. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68,
372–375.
Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay
men: Correlates and gender difference. The Journal of Sex Research, 25,
451– 477.
Herek, G. M. (2004). Beyond “homophobia”: Thinking about sexual
stigma and prejudice in the twenty-first century. Sexuality Research and
Social Policy, 1, 6 –24.
Hershberger, S. L., & D’Augelli, A. R. (1995). The impact of victimization
on the mental health and suicidality of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths.
Developmental Psychology, 31, 65–74.
Hetrick, E. S., & Martin, A. D. (1987). Developmental issues and their
resolution for gay and lesbian adolescents. Journal of Homosexuality,
14, 25– 44.
Kuperminc, M., & Heimberg, R. G. (1983). Consequence probability and
utility as factors in the decision to behave assertively. Behavior Therapy,
14, 637– 646.
Leary, M. R. (1983). A brief version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation
Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 371–376.
Lieb, R., Wittchen, H.-U., Hofler, M., Fuetsch, M., Stein, M. B., &
Merikangas, K. R. (2000). Parental psychopathology, parenting styles,
and the risk of social phobia in offspring. Archives of General Psychi-
atry, 57, 859 – 866.
Linehan, M. M., Goldfried, M. R., & Goldfried, A. P. (1979). Assertion
therapy: Skill training or cognitive restructuring? Behavior Therapy, 10,
372–388.
Linehan, M. M., & Walker, R. (1983). The components of assertion: Factor
analysis of a multi-method assessment battery. The British Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 22, 277–281.
MacKinnon, D. P., Warsi, G., & Dwyer, J. H. (1995). A simulation study
of mediated effect measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30,
41– 62.
Martin, A. D. (1982). Learning to hide: The socialization of the gay
adolescent. Adolescent Psychiatry, 10, 52– 65.
Mays, V. M., & Cochran, S. D. (2001). Mental health correlates of
perceived discrimination among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the
United States. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1869 –1876.
Mendoza-Denton, R., Purdie, V., Downey, G., & Davis, A. (2002). Sen-
sitivity to status-based rejection: Implications for African-American
students’ college experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 83, 896 –918.
Meng, X.-L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing correlated
correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172–175.
Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal
of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 38 –56.
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress and mental health in lesbian,
gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence.
Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674 – 697.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of
personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and
invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246–
268.
Morrison, R. L., & Bellack, A. S. (1981). The role of social perception in
social skills. Behavior Therapy, 12, 69 –79.
Pachankis, J. E. (2007). The psychological implications of concealing a
stigma: A cognitive–affective– behavioral model. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 133, 328 –345.
Pachankis, J. E., & Goldfried, M. R. (2006). Social anxiety in young gay
men. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 20, 996 –1015.
Radkowsky, M., & Siegel, L. (1997). The gay adolescent: Stressors,
adaptations, and psychosocial interventions. Clinical Psychology Re-
view, 17, 191–216.
Rathus, S. A. (1973). A 30-item schedule for assessing assertive behavior.
Behavior Therapy, 4, 398 – 406.
Roesler, T., & Deisher, R. W. (1972). Youthful male homosexuality:
Homosexual experience and the process of developing homosexual
identity in males aged 16 to 22 years. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 219, 1018 –1023.
Rohner, R. P. (2004). The parental “acceptance–rejection syndrome”:
Universal correlates of perceived rejection. American Psychologist, 59,
827– 840.
Rohner, R. P., & Rohner, E. (1980). Antecedents and consequences of
parental rejection: A theory of emotional abuse. Child Abuse and Ne-
glect, 4, 189 –198.
Rosenberg, K. L. (1998). The socialization of shame and guilt. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 58 (10), 5673B.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ross, M. W., & Rosser B. R. (1996). Measurement and correlates of
internalized homophobia: A factor analytic study. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 52, 15–21.
316
PACHANKIS, GOLDFRIED, AND RAMRATTAN
Safran, J. D. (1990). Towards a refinement of cognitive therapy in light
of interpersonal theory: I. Theory. Clinical Psychology Review, 10,
87–105.
Safren, S. A., & Pantalone, D. (2006). Social anxiety and barriers to
resilience in lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents. In A. M. Omoto &
H. Kurtzman (Eds.), Sexual orientation and mental health: Examining
identity and development in lesbian, gay, and bisexual people (pp.
55–71). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Scarvalone, P., Fox, M., & Safran, J. D. (2005). Interpersonal schemas:
Clinical theory, research, and implications. In M. Baldwin (Ed.), Inter-
personal cognition (pp. 359 –387). New York: Guilford Press.
Schwartz, C. E., Wright, C. I., Shin, L. M., Kagan, J., & Rauch, S. L.
(2003, June 20). Inhibited and uninhibited infants “grown up”: Adult
amygdalar response to novelty, Science, 300, 1952–1953.
Shidlo, A. (1994) Internalized homophobia: Conceptual and empirical
issues in measurement. In B. Greene & G. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay
psychology: Theory, research and clinical applications (pp. 176 –205).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Smith, R. E., & Sarason, I. G. (1975). Social anxiety and the evaluation of
negative interpersonal feedback. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 43, 429.
Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxi-
ety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 448 – 457.
Weinhardt, L. S., Carey, M. P., Carey, K. B., & Verdecias, R. N. (1998).
Increasing assertiveness skills to reduce HIV risk among women living
with a severe and persistent mental illness. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 66, 680 – 684.
Received May 25, 2007
Revision received November 8, 2007
Accepted November 13, 2007 䡲
317
GAY-RELATED REJECTION SENSITIVITY
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
