Motivation and emotion/Book/2025/Rejection sensitivity

Scenario Sam's partner Riley came home and went straight to the kitchen without their usual spritely kiss hello. Sam started to think, "they're pulling away from me". When Riley quietly made dinner, Sam interpreted the silence as anger. "They must be upset at me", Sam concluded. During dinner, Riley mentioned feeling tired, which Sam heard as code for "tired of us." When Riley went to bed early, Sam stayed awake catastrophising about their relationship. The next morning, Riley mentioned they'd received difficult news about a family member's health and had been processing it quietly. Sam realised he had constructed an entire narrative of rejection from Riley's normal response to personal stress, rather than checking in to see if Riley was OK.

This chapter examines rejection sensitivity (RS), a psychological construct that describes individual differences in the tendency to anxiously expect, readily perceive, and intensely react to rejection cues in interpersonal situations (Downey and Feldman, 1996). Drawing on attachment theory research (Baumeister and Vohs, 2007), and importantly the rejection sensitivity model (Downey and Feldman, 1996), this chapter explores how rejection sensitivity develops, how it manifests behaviourally, and impacts interpersonal functioning, specifically romantic / intimate relationships, and mental health. The chapter integrates theoretical frameworks, like the RS model (Downey and Feldman, 1996), and empirical research to provide a comprehensive understanding of this psychological phenomenon and its implications for social functioning.

Rejection sensitivity (RS) is the disposition to anxiously expect, readily perceive, and intensely react to rejection (Downey et al., 2004)

Rejection has long been philosophized and written about, though, concrete theories of rejection are more recent. Attachment theory was among the first to theorise the effect paternal rejection has on cognitions and behaviours (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007). The Rejection Sensitivity (RS) model was later developed which proposes that early experiences of rejection develop a disposition to anxiously expect, readily perceive and intensely react to rejection, ultimately undermining later interpersonal functioning (Pietrzak et al., 2005).

John Bowlby’s attachment theory links early relational experiences to later relational functioning, the model suggests that early relationship dynamics imprint a learned understanding of how significant relationships operate and determine social behaviours and interactions (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007). If the child’s needs are met in safe and loving relationships, the imprint is such in adulthood. If the paternal relationships are unsafe or emotionally unable to meet the needs of the child, insecure imprints are made and consequently the person becomes insecure in close relationships (Ayduk et al., 1999). Attachment theory shows a pathway for how those who develop insecure attachments may also become disposed to rejection sensitivity in intimate relationships (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007).  

Downey & Feldman, 1996's Rejection Sensitivity (RS) model proposes that RS is a cognitive-affective processing disposition. The model posits that RS originates from early experiences of rejection in close relationships (Mishra & Allen, 2023). The theory assumes children need to develop emotionally secure attachments with paternal figures through their emotional needs being met (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007).

When a child's needs are continually met with rejection, they develop anxious expectations of rejection (Pietrzak et al., 2005). The model argues that anxious expectations cause person to develop vigilance to signs of rejection which leads them to readily perceive rejection from ambiguous or insensitive behaviours (Downey and Feldman, 1996, Mishra and Allen, 2023).

Once rejection is perceived, it is likely the person will overreact (Pietrzak et al., 2005). Cognitive-affective responses are often maladaptive behaviours like anger, jealousy, hostility, emotional withdrawal, despondency and control (Downey & Feldman, 1996). Often these behaviours will cause people to reject them, effectively reinforcing anxious expectations of rejection. Rejection sensitivity becomes self fulfilling (Downey et al., 2004; Mishra & Allen, 2023). This feedback loop can be seen in Figure 1.

Table 1. The Rejection Sensitivity model is comprised of three components summarised in the table below (Mishra & Allen, 2023)

The Defensive motivational system (DMS) is the body’s automatic response to threatening stimuli (Gao et al., 2021). The DMS by prepares the body for defensive / survival action like fight/flight (Downey, Mougios, et al., 2004). Generally this system functions to protect you, if activated unnecessarily it can become maladaptive (Pietrzak et al., 2005).

(Downey, Mougios, et al., 2004) argue that RS operates like the body's DMS. Situations where rejection is possible (like asking someone on a date or requesting a favour) trigger threat. In contrast, people low in RS don't experience this activation because they see rejection as less likely and less concerning (Downey, Mougios, et al., 2004).

Once activated, the DMS makes individuals hypervigilant to threat cues and primes them for quick defensive responses (Gao et al., 2021). In their study (Downey, Mougios, et al., 2004) hypothesised this happens automatically in high RS individuals during rejection relevant situations.

The research found high RS individuals showed significantly amplified startle responses when exposed to rejection cues, confirming automatic DMS activation. High RS individuals did not show reduced startle responses when exposed to acceptance cues, confirming that their system is not particularly wired to detect acceptance opportunities (Downey, Mougios, et al., 2004).

These findings support that rejection triggers the DMS. People with high RS see rejection as a threat, RS functions to protect the individual from that threat via DMS activation. This means whether wrongly perceived or not, rejection triggers a survival response in people with high RS which potentially explains the intensity of the response behaviours (Downey, Mougios, et al., 2004).

Negative early experiences of rejection give rise to the disposition of RS (Gao et al., 2021). Relational victimisation, family violence, conditional love, childhood teasing, sexual / physical / emotional abuse, and strict discipline are all antecedents in the development of RS (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007; Butler et al., 2007; Downey & Feldman, 1996; Gao et al., 2021; London et al., 2007; Zwolinski, 2008).

Some of the research findings for the above argued antecedent links to RS are listed below:

The behavioural responses in individuals with rejection sensitivity have significant implications on personal well-being, and go on to undermine interpersonal relationships (Ayduk et al., 1999). For clarification of the behavioural implications of RS, the most commonly observed behaviours elicited by RS have been selected to demonstrate potential manifestations and outcomes from their expression in a simple way.

Individuals with high RS often experience intense emotional reactions when they perceive they are being rejected. These reactions are part of a cognitive-affective process that aims to protect them from rejection. Unfortunately, it often results in behaviours that undermine social and emotional wellbeing. (Downey & Feldman, 1996) found that high RS individuals were hypervigilant to social threat cues and more likely to interpret ambiguous partner behaviour as intentional rejection. More current research shows that RS can lead to two main types of behavioural responses: fight/angry reactions and flight/withdrawal reactions (Zimmer-Gembeck & Nesdale, 2013).

The form that rejection reactions take is modulated by ambiguity in social cues: under ambiguous rejection, anxious RS tends to elicit withdrawal, whereas expectation of rejection (especially angry RS) is more linked to retribution in ambiguous settings (Zimmer-Gembeck & Nesdale, 2013).

Angry expectation of rejection leads toward more overt behaviours such as aggressive, violent, controlling, jealous, coercive type behaviours (Zimmer-Gembeck & Nesdale, 2013). Angry expectations of rejection do not increase social anxiety, though responding to perceived rejection with aggressive or controlling behaviours may cause peers to overtly reject them which can result in loneliness (London et al., 2007). A meta analysis shows substantial support linking aggression to the DMS activating which makes individuals respond in self-defence (Gao et al., 2021). It is well supported that these responses lead to retribution and hostility in high RS individuals (Gao et al., 2021).

• Those with angry rejection expectations are likely to react overtly with jealousy, hostility, aggressiveness, controlling behaviour, and retribution (Zimmer-Gembeck & Nesdale, 2013)
• In longitudinal adolescent studies, angry RS combined with blame toward peers predicts retributive behaviour, which in turn forecasts increases in aggression over time (Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2016)
• In intimate relationship contexts, hostile reactions may provoke reciprocal rejection from the partner, fuelling a self-fulfilling cycle of conflict (Downey et al., 1998).
• Several studies within (Mishra & Allen, 2023)’s meta-analysis, show that men with high RS were associated with intimate partner violence through controlling, jealous, or aggressive behaviours in response to perceived rejection or emotional threat within relationships.

Anxious behaviours such as social withdrawal, avoidance of potential rejection and anxious expectation of rejection can manifest in social anxiety. Noting: RS is distinct from social anxiety by the attribution of harmful intent (Downey & Feldman, 1996). Where social anxiety wants to avoid rejection, rejection sensitivity interprets the rejection as intentional (Downey & Feldman, 1996). Ultimately, the withdrawal and socail anxiety behaviours can also predict loneliness (London et al., 2007).

• Anxious rejection sensitivity drives avoidance, withdrawal, and suppression of social approach behaviours (Zimmer-Gembeck & Nesdale, 2013).
• In a task involving cooperative touch, women high in RS exhibited less physical contact or affiliative behaviour, indicating withdrawal from potential social engagement (Schaan et al., 2020)
• In longitudinal designs, anxious RS, when paired with self-blame, predicted withdrawal, which then predicted later depressive symptoms (Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2016).
• Moreover, in adolescence, RS is linked with higher levels of social anxiety and depressive symptoms. However, (McDonald et al., 2010) found withdrawal is less severe when relationships are protective.
• Under perceived threat, many high RS people default to retreating rather than engaging, which may protect them from immediate emotional pain but ultimately isolates them in the longer term. withdrawal / anxious behavioural responses are victimization, over compliance - people pleasing

Rejection sensitivity not only impacts how individuals with high RS behave, but also significantly impacts how their relationships evolve and often deteriorate over time. Many of the expectations, perspectives and behaviours discussed above can be corrosive to interpersonal relationships (Downey & Feldman, 1996). Self-fulfilling cycles of rejection, diminished partner satisfaction, break up predictions and diminished conflict resolution are among the negative impacts of RS on relationships (Downey, Freitas, et al., 2004; Mishra & Allen, 2023).

Below are the relevant effects documented in the literature.

• Because high-RS individuals readily interpret ambiguous partner behaviour as rejection, their defensive responses (anger, hostility, withdrawal) can elicit reciprocal rejection from others. This establishes a self-fulfilling prophecy: fearing rejection, behaving defensively, and thereby provoking it (Downey et al., 1998; Downey & Feldman, 1996)
• In conflict interactions, high RS women have been observed to display more negative affect and hostility; their partners, in turn, respond with rejecting behaviour reinforcing the cycle (Downey et al., 1998)

RS contributes to relational instability, not only by internal perception but by generating interpersonal dynamics that degrade connection.

• A meta-analysis of 60 studies found that higher rejection sensitivity is moderately associated with lower romantic relationship satisfaction, diminished closeness, and greater conflict (Mishra & Allen, 2023).
• RS is also linked with harmful relational traits: jealousy, self-silencing, and emotional volatility in romantic partnerships (Mishra & Allen, 2023).
• RS shows positive associations with intimate partner violence perpetration and victimisation; individuals higher in RS are at greater risk of both initiating conflict and being victimised (Mishra & Allen, 2023).
• (Downey, Freitas, et al., 2004) draw lines between partner dissatisfaction as a predictor of break up, and RS as a predictor of partner dissatisfaction. Their study supported this hypothesis - 44% of couples with high RS women broke up within a year; and 42% of couples with a high RS man broke up within a year. This compared to 15% of separated couples with either low RS in women or men.

• In peer and adolescent networks, RS-driven withdrawal or aggression strains friendship quality and peer acceptance over time (Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2016).
• Risk of social loneliness or relational isolation also increases individuals high in RS often feel disconnected, partly because others respond negatively to their defensive or avoidant strategies (Zimmer-Gembeck & Nesdale, 2013; McDonald et al., 2010).
• High RS can make social relationships fragile: supportive peers or parents can buffer many of its harmful effects, but in their absence, relational functioning deteriorates (McDonald et al., 2010).

In essence, rejection sensitivity destabilises relationships through both perceptual distortion and reactive behaviour, creating feedback loops of rejection. Over time, this dynamic erodes trust, intimacy, and satisfaction, while increasing conflict, isolation, and risk of breakup or violence. Supportive interpersonal environments can mitigate these trajectories, but RS remains a potent vulnerability factor in relational life.both angry and anxious expectations lead to loneliness.

Rejection sensitivity is a cognitive-affective disposition developed through early experiences of rejection or insecure attachment, which leads individuals to anxiously expect, readily perceive, and intensely react to potential rejection (Downey & Feldman, 1996; Pietrzak et al., 2005). The rejection sensitivity model proposes that anxious expectations of rejection trigger hypervigilance to social threat and maladaptive emotional responses, such as anger, withdrawal, and hostility (Downey & Feldman, 1996; Mishra & Allen, 2023).

Psychologically, RS functions through the defensive motivational system, where perceived rejection automatically activates a threat response similar to fight-or-flight (Downey, Mougios, et al., 2004; Gao et al., 2021). These defensive mechanisms influence behaviour in two common ways: angry RS, linked to aggression, control, and retribution; and anxious RS, associated with avoidance, social withdrawal, and depressive symptoms (Zimmer-Gembeck & Nesdale, 2013; Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2016).

RS significantly affects relationships and wellbeing. It contributes to self-fulfilling cycles of rejection, where defensive behaviours evoke the very rejection individuals fear (Downey et al., 1998). In romantic contexts, high RS predicts lower satisfaction, greater conflict, and increased risk of breakup or intimate partner violence (Mishra & Allen, 2023). Across friendships and family ties, supportive relationships act as protective factors, buffering the emotional and behavioural effects of RS (McDonald et al., 2010).

In essence, rejection sensitivity highlights how early relational experiences shape later emotional dysregulation and interpersonal motivation. Understanding RS offers valuable insight into how people seek connection yet inadvertently create distance. Interventions that build secure attachments, emotional awareness, and supportive relationships may help interrupt these cycles, promoting healthier emotional and social functioning.

• Attachment theory (Wikipedia)
• Rejection sensitivity (Book chapter, 2024)
• Rejection sensitive dysphoria (Wikipedia)
• Social rejection (Wikipedia)

• Episode 256: rejection sensitivity dysphoria with Dr. Bill Dodson (Neurodiversity Podcast)
• New insights into rejection sensitive dysphoria (ADDitude magazine article by Dr William Dodson)
• Rejection sensitive dysphoria, relationships, and how to overcome challenges (Dr Megan Anna Neff - Neurodivergent insight blog)
• Uncovering the roots and evolution of rejection sensitivity dysphoria (Dr Megan Anna Neff - Neurodivergent insight blog)