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

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

When Does Rejection Trigger Aggression? A Test of the Multimotive Model.

Research has sought to identify the conditions under which rejection leads to retaliation. The Multimotive Model (MMM) proposes that there are three primary behavioral responses to rejection: prosocial (e.g., befriending others), asocial (e.g., withdrawal), and antisocial behavior (e.g., aggression toward others). In this study, we conducted the first full test of the MMM as well as expanded the model. Based on research linking aggression and "perceived groupness," construal items were added assessing whether the rejection was perceived as extending beyond the individual to one's peers. We also included self-harm behavioral responses as this outcome was not sufficiently captured by existing antisocial or asocial operationalizations. This expanded model was then tested with two high school student samples (Ns of 231 and 374) who reported experiencing aggressive rejection (i.e., experienced physical, verbal, relational, or cyber aggression from peers). The MMM was compared to a saturated model separately in each of the two datasets using structural equation modeling. Results indicate that the saturated model provides a better fit for the data than the MMM across all models examined (all p < 0.001). In part, this is due to certain paths having different associations than hypothesized. For example, perceiving the rejection as carrying a higher cost was predicted to promote prosocial behavior, where instead it predicted asocial responses. Perceived groupness was the strongest predictor of antisocial responses. Self-harm outcomes were significantly and consistently associated with higher perceived costs across the models. These results and others will be discussed in the context of how we can better encourage prosocial and discourage antisocial and self-harm responses to social rejection, including bullying.

Registered Replication Report: Study 1 From Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Hannon (2002).

Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, and Hannon (2002, Study 1) demonstrated a causal link between subjective commitment to a relationship and how people responded to hypothetical betrayals of that relationship. Participants primed to think about their commitment to their partner (high commitment) reacted to the betrayals with reduced exit and neglect responses relative to those primed to think about their independence from their partner (low commitment). The priming manipulation did not affect constructive voice and loyalty responses. Although other studies have demonstrated a correlation between subjective commitment and responses to betrayal, this study provides the only experimental evidence that inducing changes to subjective commitment can causally affect forgiveness responses. This Registered Replication Report (RRR) meta-analytically combines the results of 16 new direct replications of the original study, all of which followed a standardized, vetted, and preregistered protocol. The results showed little effect of the priming manipulation on the forgiveness outcome measures, but it also did not observe an effect of priming on subjective commitment, so the manipulation did not work as it had in the original study. We discuss possible explanations for the discrepancy between the findings from this RRR and the original study.