The Effect of Rejection Sensitivity on Perceptions of Inclusion in Cyberball THESIS Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requ
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Effect of Rejection Sensitivity on Perceptions of Inclusion in Cyberball THESIS Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Courtney Kristine Shade Graduate Program in Psychology The Ohio State University 2010 Master's Examination Committee: Robert Arkin, Adviser Russell Fazio Lisa Libby Copyright by Courtney Kristine Shade 2010 Abstract Rejection sensitivity (RS) is the tendency to anxiously expect, readily perceive, and overreact to rejection (Downey & Feldman, 1996). The role of RS in perceptions of inclusion in a social interaction (Cyberball) and reactions to various degrees of inclusion were investigated in two studies. Participants played Cyberball (Williams & Jarvis, 2006) and were asked to estimate the percentage of tosses they received in the game. It was hypothesized that, when distracted, participants high in RS would underestimate the degree to which they were included in a situation of equal inclusion (Study 1). It was also hypothesized that participants high in RS would have more accurate perceptions than participants low in RS when participants experienced conditions other than equal inclusion (Study 2). In addition, participants high and low in RS were expected to differ in their affective reactions to the same objective event. In Study 1, participants were included (in the Cyberball game) equally to the supposed others playing. Half of the participants were distracted while playing Cyberball; the remaining half was able to devote full attention to the game. Overall, participants’ estimates did not differ as a function either of distraction or RS; however, RS and ii concern for rejection predicted males’ estimates of inclusion but not females’ estimates. There were no differences in affective reactions to the game. In Study 2, participants were either extremely excluded, slightly excluded, equally included, or over-included in Cyberball. Concern for rejection (but not RS or expectations of rejection) predicted the accuracy of participants’ responses: Specifically, concern for rejection predicted females’ perceptions of inclusion in the game. The special relevance of concern for rejection as well as the surprising gender effects are discussed. iii Dedicated to Ryan iv Acknowledgments This project does not simply represent me. It is the product of the guidance, support, encouragement, and love I have received from many people in my life. First, I want to thank my adviser, Bob Arkin, for his guidance throughout the project. I would also like to thank Russ Fazio and Lisa Libby for serving on my committee. I am extremely grateful to Alison Pfent, Kenneth Demarree, Pat Carroll and Michael Edwards for taking time out of their busy schedules and sharing their expertise with me. I would also like to thank Randi Shedlosky, Matt Braslow, and Jean Hancock for their encouragement and entertainment when I’ve needed it most. I am also extremely thankful for my dear friends. My new “Ohio family” has been amazing throughout the past two years. I am grateful for their patience, support, and encouragement throughout this endeavor. They have done a wonderful job at distracting me when I need to step back and encouraging me when I need to push through. Finally, I will be forever grateful for the patience, love, and support of my family. The support of my parents has carried me for years and I will be forever grateful. Ryan, my amazing fiancé, has been my rock. He has not only calmed me down when I don’t think I can go on, but he reminds me of my true purpose and goals. I know without a doubt that I could not have done this without him and cannot begin to express my gratitude for my family. v Vita June 2004 .................................................... Peters Township High School 2008 ............................................................ B.S. Cognitive Studies, Vanderbilt University 2008-2009 ................................................... Graduate Fellow, Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University 1980 to present ........................................... Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University Fields of Study Major Field: Psychology vi Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................... ii Dedication ..................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgments ...........................................................................................................v Vita ............................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables...................................................................................................................x List of Figures ............................................................................................................... xi Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................... 1 Ostracism ............................................................................................................. 1 Cyberball ............................................................................................................. 2 Individual Differences in Reactions to Ostracism ................................................. 3 Rejection Sensitivity ............................................................................................ 4 RS as a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy .......................................................................... 7 Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire ...................................................................... 7 Overview of the Present Studies ........................................................................... 8 Chapter 2: Study 1 ......................................................................................................... 11 Overview ........................................................................................................... 11 Method .............................................................................................................. 12 vii Results ............................................................................................................... 14 Discussion.......................................................................................................... 21 Chapter 3: Study 2 ......................................................................................................... 24 Overview ........................................................................................................... 24 Method .............................................................................................................. 25 Results ............................................................................................................... 27 Discussion.......................................................................................................... 36 Chapter 4: General Discussion ....................................................................................... 39 Study 1............................................................................................................... 39 Study 2............................................................................................................... 40 Use of RS Subscales .......................................................................................... 41 Gender Differences ............................................................................................ 42 The Role of Ambiguity in RS ............................................................................. 42 Future Directions ............................................................................................... 43 References ..................................................................................................................... 45 End Notes ...................................................................................................................... 49 Appendix A: Tables and Figures .................................................................................... 50 Appendix B: Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire........................................................... 61 Appendix C: Study 1: PANAS Items ............................................................................. 68 Appendix D: Study 1: Anagram Task Instructions and Solutions ................................... 69 viii Appendix E: Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale .................................................................... 72 Appendix F: Study 2: PANAS items .............................................................................. 73 ix List of Tables Table A.1. Principal component analysis and for Study 1 PANAS data .......................... 51 Table A.2. Principal component analysis and for Study 2 PANAS data .......................... 52 x List of Figures Figure A.3. Number of anagrams remembered with distraction condition and: A total RSQ score, B expectation of rejection score, C concern for rejection score.. .................. 53 Figure A.4. Percent estimates predicted by gender and: A RSQ total score, B concern for rejection .......................................................................................................................