Negative Self-Schemas and Social Rejection Decisions

Gili Freedman1 and Justin Dainer-Best2

1
St. Mary’s College of Maryland
2
Bard College

How do self-schemas and their consequences guide social rejection decisions? When making
rejection decisions, individuals consider the difficulty and emotional consequences of rejecting,
and both of these considerations are likely to involve self-schemas. In three preregistered stud-
ies, we examine the roles of self-esteem, rejection sensitivity, and symptoms of depression and
anxiety in rejection decisions. In an initial set of studies (N1a = 214, N1b = 264), participants
forecast their willingness to reject and their emotional responses in friendship (Study 1a) and
romantic (Study 1a–1b) vignettes. In Study 2 (N2 = 259), participants who recently rejected
rated that experience on the same measures. Correlates of negative self-schema were associated
with negative emotions. Self-esteem, rejection sensitivity, and general distress were associated
with forecasted difficulty rejecting, but only anxiety and general distress were associated with
retrospectively-reported increased difficulty. Taken together, psychological distress may de-
crease willingness to reject in a way that participants cannot predict.

Keywords: social rejection, self-esteem, rejection sensitivity, depression, anxiety, self-schema

Introduction they may stay in unhealthy relationships and experience

further negative emotional consequences. Therefore, the
Sometimes relationships need to end—but negative self- present work focuses on the relationship between negative
schemas and their emotional consequences can make it less self-schemas, emotions, and individuals’ attitudes toward en-
likely for people to be willing to engage in social rejec- gaging in social rejection.
tion. Despite a recognition of the negative emotional con- Self-schemas, representations of the self that result from
sequences that result from both being socially rejected (e.g., past experience (Beck, 1967; Segal, 1988), play an impor-
Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Buckley et al., 2004; Feeney, tant role in the experience of being rejected, and negative
2004; Leary, 1990; Tang & Richardson, 2013; Williams, self-schemas may be particularly influential. One aspect of
2007) and of performing that rejection (e.g., Baumeister et negative self-schema is lower feelings of self-worth (i.e., low
al., 1993; Freedman et al., 2016; Kansky & Allen, 2018; self-esteem). Such negative self-schemas may have down-
Legate et al., 2013; Poulsen & Kashy, 2012), we know very stream associations with rejection-relevant constructs such as
little about the emotional antecedents that might be associ- anxious concerns about interpersonal acceptance (i.e., high
ated with decision-making about whether to terminate a re- rejection sensitivity) and memories of ended relationships.
lationship. Understanding the role of negative self-schemas Viewing self-esteem as a measure of one?s level of inter-
and emotions in rejection decisions is critical: if individu- personal acceptance (Leary et al., 1995) clarifies why being
als are reluctant to reject due to low self-esteem or mood, rejected reduces self-esteem (e.g., Leary, 1990; Williams,
2007). Similarly, individuals with higher levels of rejec-
tion sensitivity anxiously expect—and strongly react to—
This is a preprint posted to PsyArXiv in March of 2022. A final experiences of rejection (Downey & Feldman, 1996).
published manuscript may be different from this copy. Furthermore, rejection experiences can be an impetus for
St. Mary’s College of Maryland, 18952 E. Fisher Rd., St. Mary’s
experiencing depressive and anxiety symptoms (Beck & Bre-
City, MD 20686, USA. Bard College, 30 Campus Rd, Annandale-
demeier, 2016; Kendler et al., 2003; Nolan et al., 2003;
on-Hudson, NY 12504, USA
Gili Freedman; Justin Dainer-Best Slavich et al., 2010; Slavich et al., 2009). However, it is un-
Authors’ contributions: GF and JDB collaboratively designed the clear whether these consequences of negative self-schemas
study, analyzed the data, and drafted the manuscript. GF managed directly impact individuals’ active use of social rejection.
data collection and privacy. Such rejection may take various forms, from minor (turning
Availability of data, code, and material: Data, code (in SPSS and down a coffee invitation) to major (ending a friendship or
R syntax), and materials are available on the Open Science Frame- romantic relationship). How might an individual’s feelings
work (OSF). about engaging in rejection be impacted by their self-schema
2 FREEDMAN & DAINER-BEST

and self-concept? Will they impact anticipated feelings or themselves when engaging in ostracism compared to inclu-
those experienced? sion, but they also felt more superior to others in that same
Social rejection occurs in a wide range of contexts and context (Zadro et al., 2005). Taken together, social rejec-
with many types of relationships including romantic rela- tion and self-esteem are clearly linked, yet there is some am-
tionships as well as friendships. Yet, despite the ubiquity biguity regarding the direction of the relationship. To our
of social rejection, engaging in rejection can be a difficult knowledge, no studies have measured the effects of reject-
endeavor for the rejector. First, engaging in social rejec- ing others in romantic relationships on self-esteem. How-
tion is generally perceived as effortful (Ciarocco et al., 2001; ever, based on Sociometer Theory and the finding that peo-
Williams et al., 2000). Individuals are often reluctant to re- ple may feel worse about themselves after rejecting (Zadro et
ject romantic suitors even when they are not interested in pur- al., 2005), we hypothesized that individuals with lower self-
suing a romantic relationship with them (Joel et al., 2014). esteem would view engaging in rejection as more difficult
Second, engaging in social rejection can lead to unpleasant and more likely to induce negative emotions, and they would
emotional experiences, including guilt and negative affect indicate less inclination to reject.
(e.g., Baumeister et al., 1993; Legate et al., 2013; Perilloux
& Buss, 2008; Poulsen & Kashy, 2012). The effortfulness of
rejecting coupled with the potential for negative emotional Rejection Sensitivity
consequences make for a potentially difficult decision for
a would-be-rejector. How a would-be-rejector thinks about
Like self-esteem, rejection sensitivity is closely connected
themself, particularly in relation to others, is likely to play an
to experiences of social rejection. Rejection sensitivity is the
important role in that decision-making process. Thus, in the
tendency to anxiously expect rejection and to react partic-
present research we examine the role of two aspects of neg-
ularly negatively to rejection (Downey & Feldman, 1996).
ative self-schema (low self-esteem and rejection sensitivity)
Thus, individuals who experience higher levels of rejection
and two emotional corollaries of negative self-schema (anx-
sensitivity tend to have stronger emotional and interpersonal
ious and depressive symptoms)—in vignette-based affective
reactions to being rejected. For example, rejection sensitive
forecasts and actual experiences of social rejection decisions.
individuals are more likely to respond to rejection with anger,
We argue that each will be invoked in the decision-making
hostility, and aggression (e.g., Ayduk et al., 1999; Downey et
process as individuals consider rejecting others, and when
al., 2000; Romero-Canyas et al., 2010). Furthermore, rejec-
they actually do so.
tion sensitivity has been linked to several other constructs as-
sociated with negative self-schema including anxiety symp-
Negative Self-Schemas toms, depressive symptoms, and low self-esteem (e.g., Ay-
duk et al., 2001; Downey & Feldman, 1996; P. Gilbert et
Low Self-Esteem
al., 2006; London et al., 2007; J. Watson & Nesdale, 2012;
Self-esteem is a central component of self-schema and is Zhou et al., 2018). For instance, women with higher levels
directly linked to social rejection. According to the Sociome- of rejection sensitivity experience higher levels of depressive
ter Theory, self-esteem functions as a monitor of the degree symptoms after they are broken up with (Ayduk et al., 2001).
to which others value an individual: high self-esteem signals Similarly, rejection sensitivity has been shown to mediate the
interpersonal acceptance, and low self-esteem signals social relationship between low self-esteem and depressive symp-
exclusion (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Leary et al., 1995). toms in an adolescent sample (Zhou et al., 2018).
Thus, being rejected is likely to reduce one’s self-esteem. Al- Yet, much of the research on rejection sensitivity has fo-
though there is some controversy surrounding the degree to cused on expectations toward and reactions to being rejected,
which social rejection paradigms affect self-esteem (Black- and less is known about the role of rejection sensitivity in
hart et al., 2009; Gerber & Wheeler, 2009), there is evidence expectations toward and reactions to engaging in rejection.
that specific episodes of rejection do in fact threaten self- Given the links between rejection sensitivity, mood symp-
esteem (Bernstein & Claypool, 2012). toms, and self-esteem, it is possible that rejection sensitive
Research on the relationship between engaging in rejec- individuals may forecast feeling worse about engaging in
tion and self-esteem suggests that the relationship between rejection and may also experience engaging in rejection as
self-esteem and ostracism varies depending on the reason more difficult and emotionally negative. However, rejection
for ostracizing. In a recalled experiences study, individu- sensitivity has been shown to be associated with depressive
als higher in self-esteem were more likely to use ostracism symptoms for women who experienced a partner-initiated
to end a relationship, while those lower in self-esteem were breakup, but not those who engaged in rejection (Ayduk et
more likely to use ostracism to avoid getting rejected them- al., 2001). Thus, in the present research, we specifically ex-
selves (Sommer et al., 2001). In a laboratory experiment amine the role of rejection sensitivity in both forecasting and
involving instructed ostracism, participants felt worse about experiencing the act of engaging in rejection.
 PREPRINT: SELF-SCHEMAS AND SOCIAL REJECTION 3

Consequences of Negative Self-Schemas similar forecasting discrepancies. For example, when would-
be rejectors imagine how likely they would be to engage in
While self-esteem and rejection sensitivity are compo- romantic rejection, they express a higher likelihood of re-
nents of self-schema, they also have down-stream effects in jecting than when they are faced with the real potential rejec-
negative emotions and disturbances in mood. Theories of tion situation (Joel et al., 2014). Similarly, individuals may
self-schema suggest that individuals process information or not accurately predict the negative emotional consequences
situations through the lens of their schema, which impacts of engaging in rejection. Although being rejected is clearly
symptoms of anxiety and depression. For example, an am- perceived as emotionally negative and difficult, would-be-
biguous situation will be interpreted negatively if one is feel- rejectors also face a negative interpersonal process. For ex-
ing depressed or anxious (Watkins et al., 1992), , or mo- ample, when individuals engage in rejection, they report that
ments of potential rejection may be processed through past it is difficult and emotionally taxing, and they often do not
experiences of rejection. It is clear that ending a relationship know the best way to approach the situation (e.g., Baumeis-
is depressing—for example, in a meta-analysis of 21 stud- ter et al., 1993; Ciarocco et al., 2001; Freedman et al., 2016;
ies, the dissolution of relationships was positively associated Legate et al., 2013; Poulsen & Kashy, 2012; Wesselmann
with depressive symptoms (Mirsu-Paun & Oliver, 2017). It et al., 2013; Williams et al., 2000). When individuals fore-
is also evident that rejecting is anxiety-provoking, especially cast their willingness to reject, they do not always consider
within the context of a relationship (Rizvi et al., 2021). Fur- the emotional consequences for themselves and for the tar-
thermore, both depressive and anxiety symptoms are associ- get of rejection in the same way that they do when actually
ated with the experience of romantic rejection (e.g., Field et engaging in rejection (Joel et al., 2014). Thus, the potential
al., 2009; Kansky & Allen, 2018). Current mood or anxiety disconnect between forecasting the difficulty and emotions
may shape whether and how an individual rejects a partner associated with rejecting compared to the true level of dif-
or friend, as well as their experience of being rejected. ficulty and emotion is important for understanding rejection
Additionally, the general feelings of negative affect and decisions.
diffuse symptoms of mood and anxiety are markers of
what can sometimes be rephrased as “general distress”: Present Research
the commonly-experienced nonspecific symptoms of depres-
sion, anxiety, and other disorders (Clark & Watson, 1991; In the present research, we test whether individuals with
D. Watson et al., 1995). Such experiences of general dis- more negative views of themselves and of the world around
tress may be compounded by other factors such as low self- them 1) are likely to predict rejection would be difficult and
esteem. Based on this research, we hypothesized that higher unpleasant to accomplish and that they would be unwilling
symptoms of anxiety, depression, and general distress are to do so, and 2) will recall experiences of engaging in rejec-
likely to be associated with increased difficulty of rejecting tion as difficult and emotionally negative. These hypotheses
someone else and with more negative emotions experienced are tested in three studies using two different methods. The
during such a rejection. first set of studies (Studies 1a and 1b) use vignette paradigms
to assess forecasts about likelihood of rejecting, method of
Forecasting hypothetical rejection, perceived difficulty, and perceptions
about negative emotions that would be felt after rejecting.
To understand the role of self-schema and its correlates The final study uses a recall paradigm in which participants
in social rejection, it is important to consider both the actual who had engaged in social rejection within the last two to
experience of rejecting as well as expectations about that ex- three weeks wrote about their rejection experience and then
perience. Affective forecasting is the idea that individuals try rated the difficulty and negative emotions they experienced.
to predict how they will feel in the future (Wilson & Gilbert, In all studies, we measure self-esteem, rejection sensitiv-
2003)—that is, using a vignette or description of an experi- ity, anxiety symptoms, and depressive symptoms. We report
ence to place oneself into that situation and predict emotional all manipulations, measures, and exclusions in these studies.
responses. Such forecasting tends to be guided by one’s self- The hypotheses, materials, analyses, and stopping plans for
schema (Liberman et al., 2002), suggesting that it may re- all studies were pre-registered on the Open Science Frame-
spond to mood states, and be most accurate when a respon- work. We have reported all pre-registered analyses in the
dent has had similar past experiences. However, forecasting main body of the manuscript and supplemental materials, and
is not always accurate. Early between-participants studies clearly marked any deviations from the preregistered anal-
of forecasting about rejections showed that people believe ysis plan in the main body of the paper. All studies were
a breakup will make them feel worse than it actually does approved by institutional review boards: Bard College In-
(D. T. Gilbert et al., 1998), and similar longitudinal studies stitutional Review Board (approval: 2019MAR25-DAI) and
show that this is in fact the case (Eastwick et al., 2008). St. Mary?s College of Maryland Institutional Review Board
The experience of engaging in rejection appears to elicit (approvals: Study 1a: SP19_36, Study 1b: SP20_03, Study
4 FREEDMAN & DAINER-BEST

2: SU21_04). Measures. For the vignette responses, participants were

first asked how likely they would be to end the friendship
Study 1 or relationship on a 1 (extremely unlikely) to 5 (extremely
likely) scale (see Table 2 for means and standard deviations).
For Studies 1a and 1b, we measured the associations be- Next, they were told to imagine that they had decided to end
tween constructs connected to negative self-schemas (i.e., the friendship or romantic relationship and were asked how
self-esteem, rejection sensitivity, depressive and anxiety likely they would be to use explicit rejection (“How likely
symptoms) and rejection decision forecasts. In Study 1a, would you be to explicitly reject the person [i.e., tell them
we studied both friendships and romantic relationships in a that the friendship is over]?”) and passive rejection (“How
sample of undergraduate students; in Study 1b, we used an likely would you be to passively reject the person [i.e., ghost
online sample of similar age but focused solely on romantic them, ignore them until they get the message]?”), in a ran-
relationships. domized order. Finally, they were told, “Imagine you de-
cided to end the relationship. Regardless of whether you’ve
done so passively or explicitly, indicate how much you agree
Study 1a with the following statements about ending the relationship”
and were asked to rate a set of ten statements on a 1 (strongly
Study 1a focused on self-reported willingness to engage
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale. The ten statements as-
in two different types of social rejection.
sessed difficulty of engaging in rejection (“It would be dif-
ficult for me to end it” and “It would take a lot of effort on
Method my part to end it”; α = .90), negative emotion (“I would
feel...” distressed, upset, guilty, ashamed; α = .92), and pos-
Participants. Two hundred and ninety-two participants itive emotion (“I would feel?” proud, strong, determined,
were recruited from two college psychology participant relieved; α = .94).
pools from February to December of 2019. Participants re-
ceived course credit for participating in this study. We con- To assess past experiences with rejection, participants
ducted a power analysis in R for a small correlation (r = .2) were asked about their number of previous romantic rela-
with 95% power and an alpha of .05, which indicated a target tionships. Romantic relationship was defined liberally: “an
sample size of 194. We decided to oversample to account for intimate relationship with an individual that lasts for more
exclusions. The pre-registered stopping rule was that data than two dates.” They were then asked how many of those
collection would end after collecting data from 300 partici- relationships they had ended, how many the other person
pants or by the end of December 2019; it ended at the end had ended, and how many were ended mutually. Percent of
of December with data collected from 292 participants. The relationships ended by the participant was calculated as the
final sample consisted of 214 participants (see Table 1 for number the participant ended divided by the number of total
demographics and exclusions). A sensitivity analysis per- relationships.
formed in R for a correlation with a two-tailed test and an To measure anxiety and depression, participants com-
alpha of .05 indicated that our sample provides 95% power pleted the short-form of the MASQ (Clark & Watson, 1991;
to detect a correlation of r = .24 and 80% power to detect a Wardenaar et al., 2010), a 30-item inventory with three sub-
correlation of r = .19. scales: General Distress (α = .91), Anxious Arousal (α =
Procedure. After consenting to participate, participants .87), and Anhedonic Depression (α = .90). The General Dis-
were directed to a survey presented on the Qualtrics platform. tress subscale is thought of as measuring negative affect and
They read a set of 10 brief vignettes describing a friendship incorporating both depressive and anxiety symptoms (Clark
or romantic situation in which there were possible grounds & Watson, 1991).
for ending the relationship (see Materials on OSF). For each
To measure self-esteem, participants completed the RSE
situation, participants were asked a set of questions about
(Rosenberg, 1965), which consists of ten items (e.g., “On the
engaging in rejection in that situation. The vignettes were
whole, I am satisfied with myself”) rated on a 1 (strongly
presented in a randomized order. After completing the vi-
disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) scale (α = .91) with higher
gnette measures, participants completed a 30-item version of
numbers indicating higher levels of self-esteem.
the Mood and Anxiety Symptom Questionnaire (MASQ) the
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE), and the 8-item Rejec- Rejection sensitivity was included as an exploratory mea-
tion Sensitivity Questionnaire (RSQ) in a randomized order sure in Study 1a. For the RSQ-8 (Downey & Feldman, 1996),
(see Supplemental Table A1 for intercorrelations). Finally, participants read eight scenarios and for each scenario indi-
participants completed questions about past experiences with cated how likely they would be to experience acceptance on
rejection, demographic questions, an attention check, and a 1 (very unlikely) to 6 (very likely) scale and how concerned
were asked if we should use their data. they would be about being rejected on a 1 (very unconcerned)
 PREPRINT: SELF-SCHEMAS AND SOCIAL REJECTION 5

Table 1

Demographics and Exclusions for all studies. Parts (a) and (b) show sample demographics; part (c) shows
participants dropped due to exclusion criteria.
Gender
(a)
a a
n Age, M (SD) No. Women (%) No. Men (%) Non-binary gender responses
Study 1a 292 19.27 (1.65) 146 (50%) 63 (21%) 5: 2 gender fluid, 2 non-binary, 1 demigirl
Study 1b 264 21.36 (1.99) 125 (47%) 133 (50%) 6: 3 non-binary, 2 agender, 1 genderqueer
Study 2 259 21.55 (2.02) 137 (53%) 88 (34%) 14: 13 non-binary, 1 agender

Race/Ethnicity
(b)
White Black Asian/Asian Hispanic/ American Indian Multiracial Another
American Latinx or Alaska Native race/ethnicity
Study 1a 162 (75%) 15 (7%) 12 (6%) 8 (4%) 2 (1%) 11 (5%) 4 (2%)
Study 1b 153 (58%) 26 (10%) 32 (12%) 27 (10%) 2 (1%) 23 (9%) 1
Study 2 147 (57%) 17 (7%) 31 (12%) 26 (10%) 3 (1%) 15 (6%) 0

Exclusion criteriab
(c)
Recruited Failed attention Incomplete Left vignettes Had not No description Asked not to Final
check MASQ blank rejected of rejection use data sample
Study 1a 292 62 34 24 N/A N/A 38 214
Study 1b 309 25 21 N/A N/A N/A 17 264
Study 2 329 40 18 N/A 16 2 12 259
Note. a Participants reported free response gender; cis- and transgender respondents are grouped together.
b Some participants were excluded due to multiple criteria.

to 6 (very concerned)1 scale (α = .78). The overall score linear mixed effects model showed, however, that there was
reflects anxious expectation and concern about rejection. an interaction between relationship type and general distress
Analyses. Analyses were conducted using a pre- in the prediction of likelihood of rejecting, t(206) = −3.669,
registered alpha criterion of p = .05 and were performed β = −0.020, p < .001, such that, for friendships, general
in SPSS and R (R Core Team, 2021). distress was positively correlated with increased likelihood
rejecting but for romantic relationships it was negatively cor-
Results related (see Table 3 for correlations).
Contrary to predictions, there was no association between
Self-esteem and Rejection. Self-esteem was negatively general distress and the percent of romantic relationships
correlated with forecasted difficulty of engaging in rejection ended by the participant, r(156) = .127, p = .110. A lin-
as predicted: r(209) = −.325, p < .001. Similarly, self- ear mixed effects model with predictors of general distress
esteem was negatively correlated with forecasting negative and whether rejection was explicit or passive found no effect
emotions in response to thinking about hypothetical rejec- of general distress on method of rejection: t(211) = 0.784,
tion: r(209) = −.399, p < .001. However, contrary to hy- β = 0.006, p = .434. As predicted in the secondary hypothe-
potheses, self-esteem was not associated with likelihood of ses, general distress was positively correlated with negative
engaging in rejection in the vignettes: r(204) = .049, p = emotions in response to thinking about rejecting in the hypo-
.485. Self-esteem was also not associated with percent of thetical scenarios: r(212) = .391, p < .001.
relationships participants had ended: r(155) = −.145, p = Anxiety and Rejection. Contrary to hypotheses, anxi-
.073. ety was not associated with forecasted difficulty of engag-
General Distress and Rejection. As predicted, there ing in rejection (r[212] = .096, p = .161), likelihood of re-
was a positive correlation between general distress and fore-
casted difficulty of engaging in rejection: r(212) = .317, 1
The labeling on the concern scale was inadvertently reversed
p < .001. Contrary to predictions, there was no association in the survey such that 1 corresponded to “very concerned” and 6
between general distress and the overall likelihood of reject- corresponded to “very unconcerned.” Therefore, the concern items
ing in the vignettes, r(207) = .017, p = .808. An exploratory were reverse-scored before the composite was calculated.
6 FREEDMAN & DAINER-BEST

Table 2 forecasted negative emotions in response to thinking about

hypothetical rejection, r(210) = .202, p = .003. Rejection
Means and standard deviations for overall likelihood of sensitivity was not associated with likelihood of engaging in
engaging in rejection, likelihood of explicit rejection, and rejection: r(205) = −.017, p = .811.
likelihood of ghosting in response to the vignettes in Study 1a A set of exploratory analyses was conducted to examine
and Study 1b. whether the correlations between depression, anxiety, self-
Study 1a Study 1a Study 1b esteem and the vignette responses differed based on type of
Friendship Romantic Romantic relationship scenario (i.e., friendship versus romantic). Over-
all, the patterns were similar across friendship and romantic
Overall likelihood 3.44 3.76 3.82
scenarios (see Table 3) with somewhat stronger correlations
of rejecting (0.65) (0.63) (0.64)
for romantic scenarios. However, there were weak and op-
Explicit rejection 3.21 3.98 4.17
posing correlations between general distress and likelihood
(0.86) (0.66) (0.65)
of engaging in rejection for romantic versus friend relation-
Ghosting 3.36 2.48 2.34
ships such that negative affect was weakly, positively cor-
(0.97) (1.03) (0.97)
related with likelihood of ending a friendship, but weakly,
Note. Responses were on a 1 (extremely unlikely) to 5 (extremely negatively correlated with likelihood of ending a romantic
likely) Likert scale. relationship (see Table 3).

Study 1b
jecting in rejection vignettes (r[207] = .015, p = .834), or
the percent of romantic relationships ended by the partici- Study 1b was designed as a replication of Study 1a with
pant (r[156] = .094, p = .239). The hypothesis that indi- only romantic relationship vignettes. Additionally, the ro-
viduals with more anxiety symptoms would be more likely mantic vignettes were modified to describe a shorter period
to engage in ghosting than explicit rejection was likewise of dating. Furthermore, as it is possible that the term “ghost-
not supported: t(211) = 0.968, β = 0.008, p = .334. ing” has negative connotations (Freedman et al., 2019) and
As predicted in secondary hypotheses, anxiety symptoms that participants were reluctant to admit they would consider
were positively correlated with negative emotions in re- engaging in ghosting, the expression “ghost them” was re-
sponse to thinking about rejecting in the hypothetical sce- moved from the survey.
narios: r(212) = .249, p < .001.
Method
Anhedonic Depression. Analyses examined the rela-
tionship between the Anhedonic Depression subscale and the Participants. Participants between the ages of 18 and
rejection variables. Because this subscale was unintention- 24 who were living in the United States and spoke English
ally excluded from the pre-registration, it might be consid- as their first language were recruited via Prolific. We aimed
ered exploratory; we report the analyses as parallel to the to collect data from a similar number of participants as in
other sub-scales of the MASQ. There was a positive correla- Study 1a. Thus, the pre-registered stopping rule for data col-
tion between anhedonic depressive symptoms and forecasted lection was when 300 participants completed the study. Data
difficulty of engaging in rejection: r(212) = .166, p = .015. were collected on February 24 and 25, 2020. The final sam-
However, there was no association between anhedonic de- ple had 264 participants (see Table 1 for demographics and
pressive symptoms and the likelihood of rejecting in the vi- exclusions). Participants were paid $2.17 for their participa-
gnettes, r(207) = −.035, p = .614, or the percent of romantic tion, which took a median of 14 minutes and 15 seconds. A
relationships ended by the participant, r(156) = .053, p = sensitivity analysis performed in R for a correlation with a
.510. Similarly, a linear mixed effects model with predic- two-tailed test and an alpha of .005 indicated that our sample
tors of anhedonic depressive symptoms and whether rejec- provides 95% power to detect a correlation of r = .27 and
tion was explicit or passive found no effect of anhedonic de- 80% power to detect a correlation of r = .22.
pressive symptoms on method of rejection: t(211) = 0.624, Procedure. After consenting to participate, participants
β = 0.006, p = .533. Finally, anhedonic depressive symp- read the five romantic vignettes from Study 1a with the modi-
toms were positively correlated with negative emotions in fication that all relationships were described as lasting a “few
response to thinking about rejecting in the hypothetical sce- weeks” instead of a “few months.” For each vignette, partic-
narios: r(212) = .271, p < .001. ipants were asked a set of questions about engaging in re-
Exploratory analyses. A set of analyses was conducted jection in that situation. The vignettes were presented in a
to examine the relationship between rejection sensitivity and randomized order. After completing the vignette measures,
forecasts about engaging in rejection. Rejection sensitivity participants completed identical questionnaires to Study 1a
was significantly positively correlated with forecasted diffi- (see Supplemental Table A2 for intercorrelations). Analy-
culty of engaging in rejection, r(210) = .240, p < .001, and ses were conducted using a preregistered alpha criterion of
 PREPRINT: SELF-SCHEMAS AND SOCIAL REJECTION 7

Table 3

Correlations between depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, self-esteem, rejection sensitivity and negative emotion and
difficulty in Studies 1a, 1b, and 2.
Study 1a Study 1b Study 2
Friend Romantic Explicit Rejection Ghosting All experiences
Difficulty Negative Difficulty Negative Difficulty Negative Difficulty Negative Difficulty Negative
Emotion Emotion Emotion Emotion Emotion
Anhedonic depression .295** .179* .413** .117 .111 .018 .032 .083 -.04 .14*
Anxious arousal .040 .181* .131 .271** .116 .168* .151* .105 .15* .30**
General distress .222* .295** .341** .413** .302** .271** .242** .236** .20** .40**
Self-esteem -.279** -.331** -.296** -.391** -.304** -.227** -.190** -.214** .00 -.22**
Rejection sensitivity .236** .177* .189* .190* .245** .157* .186* .170* .04 .22**
Note. ** p < .005, * p < .05

p = .005, chosen to highlight findings from Study 1a that β = 0.02, p = .012. There was a main effect of preference to
replicated unequivocally. explicitly reject, t(262) = −11.95, β = −2.27, p < .001.
Measures. For the vignette responses, participants were As in Study 1a, general distress, anxiety symptoms, and
first asked how likely they would be to end the relationship, self-esteem were not significantly correlated with the percent
as in Study 1a. Next, they were told to imagine that they of relationships that participants had ended (general distress:
had decided to end the relationship and were asked how r[195] = −.017, p = .813; anxiety symptoms: r[195] =
likely they would be to use explicit rejection and passive −.047, p = .511; self-esteem: r[193] = .058, p = .423),
rejection/ghosting, in a randomized order. (Exact wording the reported likelihood of ending the relationships described
of questions is available on OSF.) To allow for an examina- in the vignettes (general distress: r[262] = −.034, p = .583;
tion of how participants would feel about each rejection op- anxiety symptoms: r[262] = −.026, p = .678; self-esteem:
tion (i.e., explicit rejection and ghosting), after each of those r[259] = .066, p = .289), or the reported likelihood of end-
questions, participants were instructed to imagine they had ing the relationships described in the vignettes via explicit
ended it in that way and were asked to rate the ten state- rejection or ghosting (see Table 3).
ments from Study 1a, which assessed difficulty of engaging Exploratory Analyses. Again, the Anhedonic Depres-
in rejection (difficulty α = .90; negative emotion α = .93; sion subscale from the MASQ was not included in the pre-
positive emotion α = .91). Participants also completed the registration; we report the analyses here. Contrary to the
MASQ (AD α = .92, AA α = .87, GD α = .93), the RSE general prediction, anhedonic depressive symptoms were not
(α = .93), the RSQ (α = .77), and the same questions from significantly associated with forecasting of negative emo-
Study 1a about past experiences ending relationships. tions for explicit rejection (r[262] = .018, p = .777) or
ghosting (r[262] = .083, p = .180). Anhedonic depressive
Results
symptoms were also not associated with the percent of rela-
As predicted, increased general distress and lower self- tionships that participants had ended: r(195) = −.022, p =
esteem were associated with forecasting higher levels of dif- .760. Finally, there was no statistical support for the hypoth-
ficulty of engaging in rejection for both explicit rejection esis that individuals with more anhedonic depressive symp-
and ghosting (see Table 3). In addition, as predicted, in- toms were more likely to engage in ghosting than explicit
creased general distress and lower self-esteem were asso- rejection, t(262) = −1.07, β = −0.009, p = .283.
ciated with the forecast that engaging in rejection would As in Study 1a, rejection sensitivity was significantly pos-
lead to more negative emotions for both explicit rejection itively associated with perceived difficulty of ending rela-
and ghosting (see Table 3). Contrary to predictions, anxi- tionships via explicit rejection, r(262) = .245, p < .001,
ety symptoms were not significantly associated at the pre- and ghosting, r(262) = .186, p = .002. Based on the pre-
registered criterion level with forecasting negative emotions registered criterion level of p < .005, rejection sensitivity
for explicit rejection (r[262] = .168, p = .006) or ghost- was not significantly correlated with overall likelihood of
ing (r[262] = .105, p = .089). The hypothesis that indi- ending the relationships, r(262) = −.169, p = .006. Nor was
viduals with more anxiety symptoms would be more likely it significantly correlated with negative emotions in response
to engage in ghosting than explicit rejection was not sig- to explicitly rejecting, r(262) = .157, p = .011, or ghosting,
nificant at the pre-registered criterion level, t(262) = 2.52, r(262) = .170, p = .006. Scores on the RSQ were also not
8 FREEDMAN & DAINER-BEST

associated with the percent of relationships that participants eligibility for the main study, a prescreening questionnaire
had ended, r(195) = −.096, p = .179. was administered. The eligibility criterion was that the par-
ticipants had socially rejected someone in the last two weeks.
Discussion Participants were paid $0.30 for their participation in the pre-
Studies 1a and 1b found that two aspects of negative self- screening survey, which took a median of 78 seconds. For the
schema (lower self-esteem and rejection sensitivity) and one prescreening questionnaire, 1472 participated and 400 indi-
correlate (general distress) were associated with forecasts of cated that they had rejected someone in the last two weeks.
greater difficulty and more negative emotion. Specifically, Those 400 participants were then invited to participate in
general distress and lower self-esteem were associated with the main survey and 329 elected to participate. Based on a
forecasts about the difficulty of rejecting and the negative power analysis conducted in R with 95% power, p = .05, and
emotions that would result from rejecting. Rejection sen- r = .222 (Study 1b, correlation between MASQ-GD and per-
sitivity was also associated with forecasting rejection to be ceived difficulty in rejecting a friend), data collection contin-
more difficulty and negatively emotional, though the correla- ued until 258 participants completed the study and qualified
tions did not reach the preregistered alpha criterion value in according to pre-registered exclusion criteria. The final sam-
Study 1b. Anxious arousal was not consistently associated ple had 259 participants (see Table 1 for demographics and
with difficulty forecasts but was associated with forecasting exclusions). Participants were paid $1.60 for their participa-
more negative emotions after rejecting in both studies, but in tion in the main survey, which took a median of 6 minutes 54
Study 1b this did not meet the preregistered criterion. seconds. Data were collected between June 4, 2021 and June
There were not, however, significant differences in how 27, 2021.
these correlates of negative self-schema related to predicted
Procedure
willingness to engage in different types of rejection (i.e., ex-
plicit rejection vs. ghosting). There was some indication that Prescreening. After consenting to participate in the pre-
higher levels of anxiety might be associated with an unwill- screening survey, participants were asked to check off the
ingness to explicitly reject in Study 1b, but the interaction things they had done within the last two weeks from a list
did not meet the pre-registered criterion level of p < .005. of five items that included the rejection question (see Mea-
We therefore chose to investigate this possible relationship sures) and four filler items. Then, participants completed
in Study 2. three items from the Adult Rejection Sensitivity Question-
naire (ARSQ; Berenson et al., 2009) and were debriefed. The
Study 2 ARSQ was used in this study as the questions are more ap-
In Study 2, we broadened the scope of how we defined plicable to a broader sample than the RSQ.
rejection and used a different methodology to assess feelings Main Survey. Participants who indicated that they had
about the emotional consequences and difficulty of rejection rejected someone in the previous two weeks were sent an
episodes. Although Studies 1a-b provide converging evi- invitation to participate in the main survey. After providing
dence about the roles of depressive symptoms, self-esteem, consent, they read the following definition of social rejection:
and (to a lesser degree) rejection sensitivity in how likely in- [Social rejection is] a time when you told a
dividuals are to perceive the process of engaging in rejection, friend, romantic partner, colleague, acquain-
both studies relied on vignette methodology. These vignettes tance, or family member that you did not want
in Study 1 provided useful forecasts; however, in Study 2 to engage in a social interaction with them (e.g.,
we focused on how people report having felt in real situa- turning down a date, saying no to a lunch re-
tions where they rejected someone else—and how this expe- quest, telling someone you didn’t want to come
rience connects to the consequences and components of self- over to their place) OR a time when you ig-
schema discussed in Study 1. We thus used a recall paradigm nored someone’s request for an interaction (e.g.,
to assess how depression, anxiety, self-esteem, and rejection ghosting, not responding to text messages) OR
sensitivity relate to a previous, retrospectively reported re- a time when you ended a relationship (e.g., a ro-
jection experience. We predicted similar patterns to those mantic breakup, ending a friendship).
observed in the forecasts of individuals described in Study 1.
After reading the definition, participants were asked when
Method they had last socially rejected someone and if they answered
that it had occurred within the last three weeks, they were
Participants
directed to a set of questions about the experience and then
Participants between the ages of 18 and 24 who were liv- a set of questionnaires (see Supplemental Table A3 for in-
ing in the United States and spoke English as their first lan- tercorrelations): the MASQ, the RSE, the ARSQ, attention
guage were recruited via Prolific Academic. To determine check, data usage, and demographics. If the participants had
 PREPRINT: SELF-SCHEMAS AND SOCIAL REJECTION 9

not rejected anyone in the last three weeks, they were sent however, positively correlated with negative emotions expe-
directly to the questionnaires, and were compensated but not rienced while rejecting, r(252) = .22, 95% CI [.10, .34],
included in analyses. Three weeks was used to allow for time p < .001. A logistic regression did not find a signifi-
that had elapsed since participants completed the prescreen- cant effect of adult RSQ score predicting the method par-
ing. (However, only 14 participants responded about a rejec- ticipants had used to reject, β = −0.04, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.00],
tion that had occurred more than 2 weeks prior to completing z = −1.82, p = .069.
the survey.)
General Distress and Rejection
Measures As predicted, general distress was positively correlated
Prescreening. Respondents were asked to indicate if with difficulty experienced rejecting others, r(256) = .20,
they had “done each of the following within the past two 95% CI [.08, .32], p = .001; increased scores on the MASQ-
weeks” for a series of five items presented in randomized GD were associated with increased difficulty rejecting. Gen-
order, four of which were filler items. The filler items in- eral distress was also positively correlated with negative
cluded questions such as, “Have you engaged in your favorite emotions experienced while rejecting, r(256) = .40, 95% CI
hobby? (e.g., have you gardened, read a book, played a sport, [.29, .50], p < .001; increased scores on the MASQ-GD were
or done yoga?)”, going out to eat, going on a date, and argu- associated with more negative emotions about the experience
ing with someone. The item of interest asked “Have you (see the lower portion of Figure 1).
told a friend or romantic interest that you cannot do some-
Anhedonic Depression and Rejection
thing together, ignored them when they tried to talk to you,
or indicated that you wanted to end the relationship? (i.e., Anhedonic depression was not correlated with difficulty
have you rejected anyone?).” Participants who said that they rejecting others, r(256) = −.04, 95% CI [-.17, .08], p = .479.
had done so were invited to participate in the main survey. It was, however, positively correlated with negative emotions
(Additionally, participants responded to questions 5, 7, and 9 experienced while rejecting, r(256) = .14, 95% CI [.01,
from the Adult RSQ.) .25], p = .029, such that increased scores on MASQ-AD
Main Survey. Following their response to the rejection were associated with more negative emotions about having
item described in Procedures, above, participants were asked rejected someone. A logistic regression did not find a sig-
about their method of rejection—whether it had been passive nificant effect of MASQ-AD predicting the method partici-
(“I used an indirect approach [e.g., ghosting, ignoring, not pants had used to reject, β = −0.02, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.01],
responding]”), active (“I used a direct approach [e.g., telling z = −1.15, p = .249.
them face-to-face, via text, via email, via a phone call]”), or
a different approach. Participants were also asked to spend at Anxiety and Rejection
least one minute writing about how the rejection occurred. As predicted, anxiety symptoms on the MASQ were pos-
Following this question, participants rated the ten state- itively correlated with the negative emotions experienced
ments from Study 1. These assessed difficulty of engaging while rejecting, r(256) = .30, 95% CI [.19, .41], p <
in rejection (difficulty α = .87; negative emotion α = .87; .001—increased anxiety was associated with more negative
positive emotion α = .76). Participants also completed the emotions to having rejected someone. Although not pre-
MASQ (AD α = .92, AA α = .88, GD α = .93), the RSE registered due to the results from Studies 1a and 1b, anxiety
(α = .93), the ARSQ (α = .81), and provided demographics. was also negatively associated with how difficult participants
The MASQ was modified to ask about the past two weeks found it to reject others, r(256) = .15, 95% CI [.03, .27],
rather than one. p = .013 (see the top of Figure 1).
A logistic regression did not find a significant effect of
Results anxiety symptoms predicting the method participants had
used to reject, β = −0.02, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.01], z =
Self-esteem and Rejection Sensitivity −1.47, p = .143.
Contrary to predictions, self-esteem was not significantly
Discussion
correlated with difficulty rejecting, r(252) = −.003, 95% CI
[-.13, .12], p = .959. Self-esteem was, however, negatively In these data, individuals with elevated levels of gen-
correlated with negative emotions experienced while reject- eral distress and anxious arousal reported increased difficulty
ing, r(252) = −.22, 95% CI [-.34, -.10], p < .001. choosing to reject another person, as well as increased neg-
Contrary to predictions, rejection sensitivity was not sig- ative emotions after doing so. The other measurements re-
nificantly correlated with difficulty rejecting, r(252) = .04, lating to negative self-schema (self-esteem, rejection sensi-
95% CI [-.08, .16], p = .539. Rejection sensitivity was, tivity, and depressive symptoms) were also associated with
10 FREEDMAN & DAINER-BEST

Figure 1

Anxious arousal (top) and general distress (bottom) are associated with difficulty (left) and negative emotions (right)
of rejecting in Study 2.

Note. Points show individual responses with a .3/.1 x/y jitter; blue trend lines show the linear trend, with 95% confidence intervals in gray.

negative emotions experienced after rejecting, but were not tively associated—with forecasting rejection to be difficult
significantly associated with difficulty doing so. In this sam- and emotionally negative. However, when participants re-
ple, there was no indication that any of these symptoms mod- counted their most recent rejection experience, only the neg-
erated the method of rejection individuals used, be it passive ative emotional consequences of rejection were associated
(ghosting) or active (direct). However, the types of rejec- with self-esteem and rejection sensitivity. In other words,
tions described by participants were highly varied (includ- although the forecasts of how difficult rejection would be
ing, e.g., a breakup, or ignoring a text), and it remains possi- were associated with self-esteem and rejection sensitivity, the
ble that negative self-schema may moderate rejection method difficulty of the actual experience of rejection difficulty was
for only more serious rejections. Regardless, the results from not. Prior research on rejection sensitivity has focused on
Study 2 demonstrate that mood and anxiety symptoms, as how individuals with differing levels of rejection sensitivity
well as low self-esteem and heightened rejection sensitivity, respond to being rejected (e.g., Downey et al., 1998; London
may increase the negative experience of having to turn some- et al., 2007; Mendoza-Denton et al., 2002), but less research
one down or otherwise reject them. has considered the role of rejection sensitivity on engaging
in rejection. The present research begins to address this gap
General Discussion and provides evidence that rejection sensitivity is important
for understanding both sides of the rejection process. It may
Across three studies, the present research shows that neg- be the down-stream effects of negative self-schema—general
ative self-schema and its correlates are associated with fore- distress and low mood or anxiety—that predict how individ-
casts and actual experiences of engaging in rejection. First, uals will feel after rejecting someone.
in terms of components of negative self-schema, self-esteem In the present set of studies, depressive symptoms, includ-
is negatively associated—and rejection sensitivity is posi- ing those of general distress, were associated with predic-
 PREPRINT: SELF-SCHEMAS AND SOCIAL REJECTION 11

tions that engaging in rejection will be more difficult and will sociations between forecasts and experiences do not always
lead to more negative emotions. Furthermore, these predic- match.
tions were accurate: in Study 2, individuals with higher lev- These findings build on prior work indicating that per-
els of depressive symptoms were more likely to recount their forming social rejection is an effortful task (Ciarocco et al.,
most recent experience of engaging in rejection as difficult 2001; Williams et al., 2000) and that initiators of social re-
and emotionally negative. This result is in line with what jection experience a range of negative emotions (Baumeis-
participants in Study 1 predicted. ter et al., 1993; Davis et al., 2003; Kansky & Allen, 2018;
In addition, anxious symptoms were associated with fore- Legate et al., 2013; Perilloux & Buss, 2008; Poulsen &
casts of negative emotion, though not consistently at the pre- Kashy, 2012). Importantly, the present research adds to
registered criterion levels below .05 in Study 1b. However, this literature by examining the ways in which existing self-
anxious symptoms were significantly associated with both perceptions may change how individuals perceive the pro-
perceived difficulty and negative emotions for the recalled cess of social rejection. That is, self-concept, especially the
rejection experience. This suggests that while anxiety may negative measures described here, was associated with the
in fact play a role in whether a rejection is carried out, partic- perception that engaging in social rejection is more difficult
ipants are not necessarily able to predict this when forecast- and more likely to lead to further negative emotion. Fur-
ing. thermore, these constructs were also associated with actual
difficulty of rejecting (for depressive symptoms and anxi-
Taken together, the results indicate that negative self-
ety symptoms) and with the experience of negative emotion
schemas, and the constructs that stem from them, may play
when rejecting (for depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms,
an important role in both how individuals forecast rejection
rejection sensitivity, and self-esteem). It will be important for
experiences as well as the actual experiences of rejection.
future work to longitudinally examine how a given individ-
These results also have clinical implications: they provide
ual’s forecasts of rejection relate to future rejection decisions.
evidence that young adults experiencing elevated depressive
It is also important to consider the context, as rejections
and anxiety symptoms may be less willing to consider en-
occur across a wide range of social scenarios and relation-
gaging in social rejection, as they believe that doing so will
ships. Across the three studies in the present research, there
increase their negative emotions. And, in the retrospective
were a number of different contexts. In Study 1a, the vi-
report of other young adults, it appears that these beliefs
gnettes depicted several reasons that one might engage in so-
are correct: rejection does increase their negative emotions.
cial rejection within both friendships and romantic relation-
This raises the possibility that such internalizing symptoms
ships. In Study 1b, the vignettes were only within the con-
may have measurable external consequences. For exam-
text of short-term romantic relationships. Finally, in Study
ple, heightened anxiety may lead a young adult to not end
2, individuals wrote about a variety of experiences ranging
a friendship that is causing harm because of the forecasted
from not responding to a text to a breakup. Thus, it will be
emotional repercussions of doing so, when in fact ending that
important in future research to examine how negative self-
friendship might be a psychologically healthy decision.
schemas operate within specific rejection contexts including
These studies also revealed two potential forecasting er- the type of relationship in which the rejection occurs and the
rors when individuals think about how engaging in rejec- magnitude of the rejection (e.g., is the rejection ending a re-
tion will feel. First, higher levels of rejection sensitivity and lationship or is it turning down an offer to get coffee?).
lower self-esteem were associated with forecasting rejection
as more difficult and more emotionally negative, yet rejection Limitations and Future Directions
sensitivity and self-esteem were only associated with nega-
tive emotions and not difficulty when participants recounted A strength of the present research was the replication of
their most recent rejection. That is, individuals with higher findings from Study 1a in a generalized (but similarly-aged)
levels of rejection sensitivity and lower self-esteem thought sample in Study 1b; further, the lowered alpha criterion in
engaging in rejection would be more difficult, but when par- Study 1b highlighted results that replicated unequivocally.
ticipants in Study 2 recalled their most recent rejection ex- Additionally, Study 2 provided evidence about how individ-
perience, difficulty was not associated with these constructs uals actually feel after having engaged in rejection, allowing
of negative self-schema. Second, anxious symptoms were us to consider forecasting errors. However, all three studies
not associated with forecasted difficulty, but when partici- relied on non-clinical samples, and findings may be differ-
pants recounted their most recent rejection experience, anx- ent in patients diagnosed with anxiety or mood disorders, or
ious symptoms were positively associated with how difficult those currently seeking psychological treatment. Findings
it felt to reject as well as negative emotional responses. Thus, are based on a short version of the Mood and Anxiety Symp-
it seems that negative self-schema and its consequences are toms Questionnaire (Clark & Watson, 1991), which is in-
at times associated with forecasts of rejection difficulty and tended for non-clinical samples; nonetheless, the use of such
at other times with actual perceived difficulty, but the as- a scale means that we cannot make direct connections to di-
12 FREEDMAN & DAINER-BEST

agnoses. However, correlations between the 30-item MASQ References

and traditional measures of depression such as the Beck De-
Ayduk, Ö., Downey, G., & Kim, M. (2001). Rejection sensi-
pression Inventory (BDI-II; Beck et al., 1996) show good
tivity and depressive symptoms in women. Person-
convergent validity (Wardenaar et al., 2010).
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(7), 868–
Additionally, there are several constraints on generaliz-
877. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201277009
ability. First, the samples in the present research were age-
(Cited on p. 2)
restricted. Study 1a was conducted in college participant
Ayduk, Ö., Downey, G., Testa, A., Yen, Y., & Shoda, Y.
pools and Studies 1b and 2 were restricted to ages 18 to 24 to
(1999). Does rejection elicit hostility in rejection
match the initial sample. Thus, it will be important to repli-
sensitive women? Social Cognition, 17(2), 245–
cate the current research with participants of other ages to
271. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1999.17.2.245
understand how negative self-schemas relate to the forecasts
(Cited on p. 2)
and experiences of engaging in rejection across the lifespan.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to
In addition, all three samples were majority White (1a: 75%,
belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a
1b: 58%; 2: 57%), although the samples for Studies 1b and
fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bul-
2 were more diverse in terms of race/ethnicity than Study 1a.
letin, 117(3), 497–529. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1037 /
Finally, all three studies were conducted with participants
0033-2909.117.3.497 (Cited on pp. 1, 2)
from the United States, and there may be important differ-
Baumeister, R. F., Wotman, S. R., & Stillwell, A. M. (1993).
ences in self-schema and in rejection experiences in other
Unrequited love: On heartbreak, anger, guilt, script-
countries. For example, there is some evidence for cross-
lessness, and humiliation. Journal of Personality
cultural differences in levels of rejection sensitivity and in
and Social Psychology, 64(3), 377–394. https://doi.
the affective experience of being rejected (e.g., Garris et al.,
org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.377 (Cited on pp. 1–3,
2010; Sato et al., 2014).
11)
Finally, although Study 2 allowed for an examination of
Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Clinical, experimental,
how negative self-schemas relate to actual rejection expe-
and theoretical aspects. University of Pennsylvania
riences, it used a retrospective method, and memory errors
Press. (Cited on p. 1).
and biases may occur when individuals recount even recent
Beck, A. T., & Bredemeier, K. (2016). A unified model
experiences. To minimize errors, we specifically recruited
of depression. Clinical Psychological Science,
individuals who had engaged in rejection within the past two
4(4), 596–619. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1177 /
weeks, but future research would benefit from longitudinal
2167702616628523 (Cited on p. 1)
studies with prospective designs that allow for more immedi-
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual
ate recounting of rejection experiences, e.g., using ecological
for the Beck Depression Inventory-II. San Antonio,
momentary assessment. Future work could also differentiate
TX: Psychological Corporation. (Cited on p. 12).
between experiences of rejection compared to wanting to re-
Berenson, K. R., Gyurak, A., Ayduk, Ö., Downey, G., Gar-
ject, but not doing so.
ner, M. J., Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., & Pine, D. S.
Conclusion (2009). Rejection sensitivity and disruption of at-
tention by social threat cues. Journal of Research in
The present research points to the importance of consider- Personality, 43(6), 1064–1072. https://doi.org/10.
ing the roles of negative self-schemas and their consequences 1016/j.jrp.2009.07.007 (Cited on p. 8)
when examining forecasts and experiences of engaging in re- Bernstein, M. J., & Claypool, H. M. (2012). Not all social
jection. Markers associated with negative self-schema were exclusions are created equal: Emotional distress fol-
associated with experiencing more negative emotions in re- lowing social exclusion is moderated by exclusion
sponse to engaging in rejection and some were also associ- paradigm. Social Influence, 7(2), 113–130. https://
ated with forecasting and experiencing rejection as more dif- doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2012.664326 (Cited on
ficult. These results suggest that when individuals with psy- p. 2)
chological distress are faced with the question of whether to Blackhart, G. C., Nelson, B. C., Knowles, M. L., & Baumeis-
turn a friend or romantic partner down, they anticipate neg- ter, R. F. (2009). Rejection elicits emotional reac-
ative emotions, but believe that they will be able to make tions but neither causes immediate distress nor low-
that rejection. And in situations where individuals do reject, ers self-esteem: A meta-analytic review of 192 stud-
those same markers of distress are in fact associated with the ies on social exclusion. Personality and Social Psy-
experience of negative emotions and finding rejection more chology Review, 13(4), 269–309. https://doi.org/10.
difficult. 1177/1088868309346065 (Cited on p. 2)
Buckley, K. E., Winkel, R. E., & Leary, M. R. (2004).
Reactions to acceptance and rejection: Effects of
 PREPRINT: SELF-SCHEMAS AND SOCIAL REJECTION 13

level and sequence of relational evaluation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(3), 905–
of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1), 14–28. 924. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517748791
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022- 1031(03)00064- 7 (Cited on p. 6)
(Cited on p. 1) Freedman, G., Williams, K. D., & Beer, J. S. (2016). Soft-
Ciarocco, N. J., Sommer, K. L., & Baumeister, R. F. (2001). ening the blow of social exclusion: The responsive
Ostracism and ego depletion: The strains of si- theory of social exclusion. Frontiers in Psychology,
lence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01570 (Cited
27(9), 1156–1163. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1177 / on pp. 1, 3)
0146167201279008 (Cited on pp. 2, 3, 11) Garris, C. P., Ohbuchi, K.-i., Oikawa, H., & Harris,
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1991). Tripartite model of anxi- M. J. (2010). Consequences of interpersonal rejec-
ety and depression: Psychometric evidence and tax- tion. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(6),
onomic implications. Journal of Abnormal Psychol- 1066–1083. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1177 /
ogy, 100(3), 316–336. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1037 / 0022022110381428 (Cited on p. 12)
0021-843x.100.3.316 (Cited on pp. 3, 4, 11) Gerber, J., & Wheeler, L. (2009). On being rejected: A meta-
Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., & Vernon, M. L. (2003). Physi- analysis of experimental research on rejection. Per-
cal, emotional, and behavioral reactions to breaking spectives on Psychological Science, 4(5), 468–488.
up: The roles of gender, age, environmental involve- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01158.x
ment, and attachment style. Personality and Social (Cited on p. 2)
Psychology Bulletin, 29(7), 871–884. https : / / doi . Gilbert, D. T., Pinel, E. C., Wilson, T. D., Blumberg, S. J., &
org/10.1177/0146167203252884 (Cited on p. 11) Wheatley, T. P. (1998). Immune neglect: A source
Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejec- of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of
tion sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 617–638.
of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1327– https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.617 (Cited
1343. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1327 on p. 3)
(Cited on pp. 1, 2, 4) Gilbert, P., Irons, C., Olsen, K., Gilbert, J., & McEwan,
Downey, G., Feldman, S. I., & Ayduk, Ö. (2000). Rejection K. (2006). Interpersonal sensitivities: Their links
sensitivity and male violence in romantic relation- to mood, anger and gender. Psychology and Psy-
ships. Personal Relationships, 7(1), 45–61. https : chotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 79(1),
// doi.org/ 10.1111/ j.1475- 6811.2000.tb00003.x 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1348/147608305x43856
(Cited on p. 2) (Cited on p. 2)
Downey, G., Freitas, A. L., Michaelis, B., & Khouri, H. Joel, S., Teper, R., & MacDonald, G. (2014). People over-
(1998). The self-fulfilling prophecy in close rela- estimate their willingness to reject potential roman-
tionships: Rejection sensitivity and rejection by ro- tic partners by overlooking their concern for other
mantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social people. Psychological Science, 25(12), 2233–2240.
Psychology, 75(2), 545–560. https : / / doi . org / 10 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614552828 (Cited
1037/0022-3514.75.2.545 (Cited on p. 10) on pp. 2, 3)
Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., Krishnamurti, T., & Loewen- Kansky, J., & Allen, J. P. (2018). Making sense and moving
stein, G. (2008). Mispredicting distress following on: The potential for individual and interpersonal
romantic breakup: Revealing the time course of the growth following emerging adult breakups. Emerg-
affective forecasting error. Journal of Experimental ing Adulthood, 6(3), 172–190. https://doi.org/10.
Social Psychology, 44(3), 800–807. https://doi.org/ 1177/2167696817711766 (Cited on pp. 1, 3, 11)
10.1016/j.jesp.2007.07.001 (Cited on p. 3) Kendler, K. S., Hettema, J. M., Butera, F., Gardner, C. O.,
Feeney, J. A. (2004). Hurt feelings in couple relationships: & Prescott, C. A. (2003). Life event dimensions of
Towards integrative models of the negative effects loss, humiliation, entrapment, and danger in the pre-
of hurtful events. Journal of Social and Personal diction of onsets of major depression and general-
Relationships, 21(4), 487–508. https://doi.org/10. ized anxiety. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60(8),
1177/0265407504044844 (Cited on p. 1) 789. https:// doi.org/ 10.1001/ archpsyc.60.8.789
Field, T., Diego, M., Pelaez, M., Deeds, O., & Delgado, (Cited on p. 1)
J. (2009). Breakup distress in university students. Leary, M. R. (1990). Responses to social exclusion: Social
Adolescence, 44(176), 705–727 (Cited on p. 3). anxiety, jealousy, loneliness, depression, and self-
Freedman, G., Powell, D. N., Le, B., & Williams, K. D. esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
(2019). Ghosting and destiny: Implicit theories of 9(2), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1990.9.
relationships predict beliefs about ghosting. Journal 2.221 (Cited on p. 1)
14 FREEDMAN & DAINER-BEST

Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. anxiety. The Family Journal, 106648072110219.
(1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1177 / 10664807211021969
The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality (Cited on p. 3)
and Social Psychology, 68(3), 518–530. https://doi. Romero-Canyas, R., Downey, G., Berenson, K., Ayduk, Ö.,
org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.518 (Cited on pp. 1, & Kang, N. J. (2010). Rejection sensitivity and
2) the rejection-hostility link in romantic relationships.
Legate, N., DeHaan, C. R., Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. M. Journal of Personality, 78(1), 119–148. https://doi.
(2013). Hurting you hurts me too. Psychological org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00611.x (Cited on
Science, 24(4), 583–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/ p. 2)
0956797612457951 (Cited on pp. 1–3, 11) Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-
Liberman, N., Sagristano, M. D., & Trope, Y. (2002). The image. Princeton University Press. (Cited on p. 4).
effect of temporal distance on level of mental con- Sato, K., Yuki, M., & Norasakkunkit, V. (2014). A socio-
strual. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, ecological approach to cross-cultural differences in
38(6), 523–534. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1016 / s0022 - the sensitivity to social rejection. Journal of Cross-
1031(02)00535-8 (Cited on p. 3) Cultural Psychology, 45(10), 1549–1560. https : / /
London, B., Downey, G., Bonica, C., & Paltin, I. (2007). doi . org / 10 . 1177 / 0022022114544320 (Cited on
Social causes and consequences of rejection sensi- p. 12)
tivity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17(3), Segal, Z. V. (1988). Appraisal of the self-schema construct in
481–506. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1111 / j . 1532 - 7795 . cognitive models of depression. Psychological Bul-
2007.00531.x (Cited on pp. 2, 10) letin, 103(2), 147–162 (Cited on p. 1).
Mendoza-Denton, R., Downey, G., Purdie, V. J., Davis, A., Slavich, G. M., O’Donovan, A., Epel, E. S., & Kemeny, M. E.
& Pietrzak, J. (2002). Sensitivity to status-based re- (2010). Black sheep get the blues: A psychobiolog-
jection: Implications for african american students’ ical model of social rejection and depression. Neu-
college experience. Journal of Personality and So- roscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(1), 39–45.
cial Psychology, 83(4), 896–918. https://doi.org/10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.01.003
1037/0022-3514.83.4.896 (Cited on p. 10) (Cited on p. 1)
Mirsu-Paun, A., & Oliver, J. A. (2017). How much does love Slavich, G. M., Thornton, T., Torres, L. D., Monroe, S. M., &
really hurt? a meta-analysis of the association be- Gotlib, I. H. (2009). Targeted rejection predicts has-
tween romantic relationship quality, breakups and tened onset of major depression. Journal of Social
mental health outcomes in adolescents and young and Clinical Psychology, 28(2), 223–243. https : / /
adults meta-analysis of the association between ro- doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2009.28.2.223 (Cited on p. 1)
mantic relationship quality, breakups and mental Sommer, K. L., Williams, K. D., Ciarocco, N. J., & Baumeis-
health outcomes in adolescents and young adults. ter, R. F. (2001). When silence speaks louder than
Journal of Relationships Research, 8. https : / / doi . words: Explorations into the intrapsychic and in-
org/10.1017/jrr.2017.6 (Cited on p. 3) terpersonal consequences of social ostracism. Ba-
Nolan, S. A., Flynn, C., & Garber, J. (2003). Prospective re- sic and Applied Social Psychology, 23(4), 225–243.
lations between rejection and depression in young https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1207 / s15324834basp2304 _ 1
adolescents. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- (Cited on p. 2)
chology, 85(4), 745–755. https://doi.org/10.1037/ Tang, H. H. Y., & Richardson, R. (2013). Reversing the
0022-3514.85.4.745 (Cited on p. 1) negative psychological sequelae of exclusion: In-
Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2008). Breaking up ro- clusion is ameliorative but not protective against
mantic relationships: Costs experienced and cop- the aversive consequences of exclusion. Emotion,
ing strategies deployed. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(1), 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029521
6(1), 147470490800600. https://doi.org/10.1177/ (Cited on p. 1)
147470490800600119 (Cited on pp. 2, 11) Wardenaar, K. J., van Veen, T., Giltay, E. J., de Beurs, E.,
Poulsen, J. R., & Kashy, D. A. (2012). Two sides of the os- Penninx, B. W., & Zitman, F. G. (2010). Develop-
tracism coin: How sources and targets of social ex- ment and validation of a 30-item short adaptation
clusion perceive themselves and one another. Group of the Mood and Anxiety Symptoms Questionnaire
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(4), 457–470. (MASQ). Psychiatry Research, 179(1), 101–106.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211430517 (Cited https:// doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.psychres.2009.03.005
on pp. 1–3, 11) (Cited on pp. 4, 12)
Rizvi, M. S., Tram, J. M., & Bergström, B. (2021). Fear of Watkins, P. C., Mathews, A., Williamson, D. A., & Fuller,
rejecting others: An overlooked construct in dating R. D. (1992). Mood-congruent memory in depres-
 PREPRINT: SELF-SCHEMAS AND SOCIAL REJECTION 15

sion: Emotional priming or elaboration? Journal of

Abnormal Psychology, 101(3), 581–586. https : / /
doi . org / 10 . 1037 / 0021 - 843X . 101 . 3 . 581 (Cited
on p. 3)
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., Weber, K., Assenheimer, J. S.,
Strauss, M. E., & McCormick, R. A. (1995). Testing
a tripartite model: II. exploring the symptom struc-
ture of anxiety and depression in student, adult, and
patient samples. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
104(1), 15–25. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1037 / 0021 -
843x.104.1.15 (Cited on p. 3)
Watson, J., & Nesdale, D. (2012). Rejection sensitivity, so-
cial withdrawal, and loneliness in young adults.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(8), 1984–
2005. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559- 1816.2012.
00927.x (Cited on p. 2)
Wesselmann, E. D., Wirth, J. H., Pryor, J. B., Reeder,
G. D., & Williams, K. D. (2013). When do we os-
tracize? Social Psychological and Personality Sci-
ence, 4(1), 108–115. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1177 /
1948550612443386 (Cited on p. 3)
Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psy-
chology, 58(1), 425–452. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.psych.58.110405.085641 (Cited on p. 1)
Williams, K. D., Bernieri, F. J., Faulkner, S. L., Gada-Jain,
N., & Grahe, J. E. (2000). The Scarlet Letter study:
Five days of social ostracism. Journal of Personal
and Interpersonal Loss, 5(1), 19–63. https : / / doi .
org/10.1080/10811440008407846 (Cited on pp. 2,
3, 11)
Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2003). Affective forecast-
ing. Advances in experimental social psychology
(pp. 345–411). Academic Press. https : / / doi . org /
10.1016/s0065-2601(03)01006-2. (Cited on p. 3)
Zadro, L., Williams, K. D., & Richardson, R. (2005). Riding
the “O” train: Comparing the effects of ostracism
and verbal dispute on targets and sources. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8(2), 125–143.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430205051062 (Cited
on p. 2)
Zhou, J., Li, X., Tian, L., & Huebner, E. S. (2018). Lon-
gitudinal association between low self-esteem and
depression in early adolescents: The role of rejec-
tion sensitivity and loneliness. Psychology and Psy-
chotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 93(1),
54–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/papt.12207 (Cited
on p. 2)
16 FREEDMAN & DAINER-BEST

Appendix Study 1b: Preregistered Gender Analyses

Study 1a: Exploratory Gender Analyses Contrary to the findings of Study 1a, participant
gender did not play a role in perceived difficulty for engaging
The role of gender on perceived difficulty of re-
in explicit rejection (t[253] = −0.756, p = .450, d = 0.10)
jecting and likelihood of rejecting was examined. Men re-
or ghosting (t[253] = −0.402, p = .688, d = 0.05). Par-
ported finding rejecting less difficult (M = 4.47, S D = 1.15)
ticipant gender also did not play a statistically significant
than women (M = 4.81, S D = 0.96); t(205) = −2.20, p =
role in participants’ willingness to engage in explicit re-
.029, d = 0.31, 95% CI on mean difference [-0.65, -0.04]),
jection (t[253] = −0.304, p = .761, d = 0.04), ghosting
but men (M = 3.41, S D = 0.52) were also less likely to re-
(t[253] = −1.748, p = .082, d = 0.22), or in their overall
port being willing to end the relationships than women (M =
likelihood of ending the relationship (t[253] = −1.860, p =
3.70, S D = .48); t(200) = −3.78, p < .005, d = 0.53, 95% CI
.064, d = 0.23).
[-.43, -.14]). There were no gender differences in predicted
willingness to engage in the specific behaviors of explicit re-
jection (t[205] = −0.46, p = .649, d = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.23, Supplemental Tables
0.15]) or ghosting (t[205] = −1.46, p = .146, d = 0.20, 95%
CI [-0.44, 0.07]). See next page.
 PREPRINT: SELF-SCHEMAS AND SOCIAL REJECTION 17

Table A1

Intercorrelations between variables in Study 1a

Variable 1 2 3 4
1. General Distress
2. Anhedonic Depression .459** -
3. Anxious Arousal .639** .250** -
4. Self-esteem -.716** -.555** -.532** -
5. Rejection Sensitivity .332** .225** .187* -.410**
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .005

Table A2

Intercorrelations between variables in Study 1b

Variable 1 2 3 4
1. General Distress
2. Anhedonic Depression .422** -
3. Anxious Arousal .588** .072 -
4. Self-esteem -.710** -.594** -.405** -
5. Rejection Sensitivity .439** .311** .281* -.500**
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .005

Table A3

Intercorrelations between variables in Study 2

Variable 1 2 3 4
1. General Distress
2. Anhedonic Depression .472** -
3. Anxious Arousal .523** .041 -
4. Self-esteem -.764** -.668** -.318** -
5. Rejection Sensitivity .493** .434** .254* -.563**
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .005