Friendships are central to adolescent development: negative peer relations

predict risk for interpersonal incompetence and mental health problems well

into adulthood (Reisman, 1985).

Rejection Sensitivity (RJS) :

• Defined as the disposition to anxiously expect, readily perceive, and intensely

react to social rejection( Downey & Feldman, 1996).

• RJS concurrently associated with troubled romantic relationships, and

with increasingly troubled peer relations, aggressive behavior, and anxiety

one year later (Downey & Feldman, 1996; Downey, Lebolt, Rincon, & Freitas, 1988; London, Downey, &

Bonica, 2007; McCarty, Vander Stoep, & McCauley, 2007).

• Concurrent Links made between rejection and/or maltreatment in family

and rejection sensitivity (Downey, Khouri, & Feldman, 1997; Feldman & Downey, 1994)

Research primarily focuses on RJS in the context of romantic relations, just

beginning to investigate same-sex peer relationship risk factors for RJS, such

as peer rejection (London, Downey, Bonica, & Paltin 2007).

Few studies have more closely examined the risk and protective factors of

peer relations on Rejection Sensitivity from a multi-method, multi-reporter,

longitudinal perspective.

Participants

Data were collected from a multi-method, multi-reporter, longitudinal study of adolescent development in the context of peer and family relationships. Teens and close peers interviewed annually for seven years.

184 target adolescents (48% male, 52% female) and their close peers were interviewed at approximate age 13

Close peers have known adolescents for an average of 5.33 years at Time 1.

Target teens: 56% European American and 44% minority or mixed ethnic group

Median family income: $50, 000

Procedure

Time 1: Adolescents and close peers interviewed at approximately 13 years of age.Time 2: Adolescents re-interviewed at approximately 19 years of age.

Measures Adolescent autonomy/relatedness toward peers. Teens and their close peers participated in an eight-minute, videotaped conflictual

interaction task. The degree to which the teens and peers could use tactics that promote both collaborative and reasoned tactics in the context

of a disagreement was coded utilizing the Autonomy and Relatedness Coding System (Allen. Hauser, Bell, Boykin, & Tate, 1996). Teen use of Negative

Autonomy (high levels of pressuring, overpersonalizing, and avoidant tactics) and friend use of Positive Relatedness (high collaboration and

warmth) were assessed.

Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire Revised. (Buhrmester, Furman, Wittenberg, & Reis, 1998). Close peers reported on the target teen’s

competence in interpersonal relationships. The Relationship Initiation and Conflict Resolution subscales were utilized for the current study.

Popularity. (Coie, Dodge, & Coppotelli, 1982). A limited nomination, grade-based sociometric procedure was used, in which each adolescent, their

closest friend, and two other target peers were asked to nominate up to 10 peers in their grade with whom they would “most like to spend

time on a Saturday night”. The raw number of “like” nominations each teen received was standardized before being utilized as the primary

measure of popularity in the current study.

Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire. (Downey & Feldman, 1996). Teens reported on how concerned or anxious they would be regarding a

variety of interpersonal situations that apply to romantic, plutonic, familial, and vocational relationships. Teens also reported on how

unlikely or likely it would be for them to expect the particular person to respond in a particular way.

1. Allen, J.P., Hauser, S., Bell, K. L., Boykin, K.A., & Tate, D.C. (1996). Autonomy and relatedness coding system manual. Unpublished manuscript. University of Virginia,

Charlottesville.

2. Buhrmester, D., Furman, W., Wittenberg, M.T. & Reis, H.T. (1988). Five domains of interpersonal competence in peer relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6,

991-1008.

3. Coie, J., Dodge, K., Coppotelli, H (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18(4), 557-570.

4. Downey, G. & Feldman, S.I. (1996). Implications of Rejection Sensitivity for Intimate Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6). 1327-1343.

5. Downey, G., Khouri, H., Feldman, S. I., Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (1997). Early interpersonal trauma and later adjustment: The mediational role of rejection sensitivity. In

Developmental perspectives on trauma: Theory, research, and intervention. (pp. 85). Rochester, NY, US: University of Rochester Press.

6. Downey, G., Lebolt, A., Rincón, C., & Freitas, A. L. (1998). Rejection sensitivity and children's interpersonal difficulties. Child Development, 69(4), 1074.

7. London, B., Downey, G., Bonica, C., & Paltin, I. (2007). Social causes and consequences of rejection sensitivity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17(3), 481.

8. McCarty, C. A., Vander Stoep, A., & McCauley, E. (2007). Cognitive features associated with depressive symptoms in adolescence: Directionality and specificity. Journal of Clinical

Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36(2), 147.

9. Reisman, J. (1985). Friendship and its implications for mental health or social competence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 5(3), 383-391.

It appears that teens who are generally more successful at initiating and maintaining

peer relationships may be somewhat insulated against the future development of

exaggerated cognitive and affective reactions when interacting with peers, partners,

and family members.

Support and validation provided by close peers in early adolescence in the context of

conflict also helps to protect teens against the development of rejection sensitivity in

early adulthood.

Self-fulfilling prophecy: teens who rely on more hostile or distancing conflict tactics

that inhibit their friends’ autonomy, may increase their susceptibility to experiencing

negative reactions from others, which may ultimately lead them to be more sensitive to

rejection.

Rejection sensitivity is a cognitive-affective risk factor for a variety of mental

illnesses, such as anxiety, depression, and aggressive behaviors, therefore continued

attention to longitudinal risk and protective factors for RJS can help to inform

appropriate intervention strategies for such disorders.

The current study uses hierarchical regression analyses to explore the following questions:

1. Is teen popularity predictive of lower levels of rejection

sensitivity six years later?

2. Does the peer’s use of constructive conflict tactics predict

lower levels of teen rejection sensitivity six years later?

3. Does the teen’s own use of conflict tactics that undermine

peer autonomy predict heightened rejection sensitivity six

years later?

BACKGROUND

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

METHOD

CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCES

Note. *p < .05 ** p < .01. N =184. Final Beta weights are presented above for analyses covarying gender and total income (not depicted).

A Longitudinal Examination of Peer Influences on Adolescent Rejection Sensitivity Erin M. Miga, Joseph P. Allen, & Emily Marston

University of VirginiaThis study was made possible by funding from the National Institute of Mental Health awarded to Joseph P. Allen, Principal Investigator

( Grant # R01-MH58066)

RESULTS

Observed Conflict Tactics and Rejection Sensitivity

Teen Rejection Sensitivity at age 19

Frienduse of

Collaboration and Warmth

at age 13

Teen use of Avoidant &

Pressuring Tactics at

age 13

.19*

-.19*

R2=.07*

1. Teens who are using tactics that undermine peer’s autonomy at age 13, are reporting higher levels of sensitivity to rejection at age 19.

2. Teens whose peers are using tactics that promote positive relatednessat age 13, are reporting lower levels of rejection sensitivity at age 19.

Teen Popularity and Rejection Sensitivity

Teen Rejection Sensitivity at age 19

Teen Popularityat age 13

-.22*

R2=.07*

1. Teens who are voted by their peers as “well-liked” at age 13, are reporting less rejection sensitivity at age 19.

Note. *p < .05 ** p < .01. N =184. Final Beta weights are presented above for analyses covarying

gender and total income.

Interpersonal Competence and Rejection Sensitivity

Teen Rejection Sensitivity at age 19

Peer Report ofTeen’s

Conflict Resolution Skills at age 13

Peer Report of Teen’s ability to

Initiate Relationships at

age 13

-.22**

-.20*

R2=.07*

1. Teens who are better able to initiate relationships at age 13, are reporting lower levels of rejection sensitivity at age 19.

2. Teens who are negotiating conflict more adaptively at age 13, are also reporting lower levels of rejection sensitivity at age 19.

R2=.08**

Income-.19*