Rejection sensitivity is the disposition to anxiously expect, readily perceive, and intensely react to rejection. In response to perceived social exclusion, highly rejection sensitive people react with increased hostile feelings toward others and are more likely to show reactive aggression than less rejection sensitive people in the same situation. This paper summarizes work on rejection sensitivity that has provided evidence for the link between anxious expectations of rejection and hostility after rejection. We review evidence that rejection sensitivity functions as a defensive motivational system. Thus, we link rejection sensitivity to attentional and perceptual processes that underlie the processing of social information. A range of experimental and diary studies shows that perceiving rejection triggers hostility and aggressive behavior in rejection sensitive people. We review studies that show that this hostility and reactive aggression can perpetuate a vicious cycle by eliciting rejection from those who rejection sensitive people value most. Finally, we summarize recent work suggesting that this cycle can be interrupted with generalized self-regulatory skills and the experience of positive, supportive relationships.

Building on prior work on rejection sensitivity, we propose a social-cognitive model of gender-based rejection sensitivity (Gender RS) to account for individual differences in how women perceive and cope with gender-based evaluative threats in competitive, historically male institutions. Study 1 develops a measure of Gender RS, defined as anxious expectations of gender-based rejection. Studies 2-5 support the central predictions of the model: Gender RS is associated with increased perceptions of gender-based threats and increased coping by self-silencing--responses that reinforce feelings of alienation and diminished motivation. Study 2 shows that Gender RS is distinct from overall sensitivity to rejection or perceiving the world through the lens of gender. Study 3 shows that Gender RS becomes activated specifically when gender-based rejection is a plausible explanation for negative outcomes. Study 4 provides experimental evidence that Gender RS predicts lower academic self-confidence, greater expectations of bias, and avoidance of opportunities for further help from a weakness-focused expert evaluator. Study 5 tests the Gender RS model in situ, using daily diaries to track women's experiences during the first weeks in a highly competitive law school. Implications for women's coping with the subtle nature of contemporary sexism are discussed as well as the importance of institution-level checks to prevent the costs of gender-based rejection.

Societies and social scientists have long held the belief that exclusion induces ingratiation and conformity, an idea in contradiction with robust empirical evidence linking rejection with hostility and aggression. The classic literatures on ingratiation and conformity help resolve this contradiction by identifying circumstances under which rejection may trigger efforts to ingratiate. Jointly, findings from these literatures suggest that when people are given an opportunity to impress their rejecters, ingratiation is likely after rejection experiences that are harsh and that occur in important situations that threaten the individual's self-definition. Four studies tested the hypothesis that people high in rejection sensitivity, and therefore dispositionally concerned about rejection, will utilize opportunities to ingratiate after harsh rejection in situations that are selfdefining. In three studies of situations that are particularly self-defining for men, rejection predicted ingratiation among men (but not women) who were high in rejection sensitivity. In a fourth study, harsh rejection in a situation particularly self-defining for women predicted ingratiation among highly rejection-sensitive women (but not men). These findings help identify the specific circumstances under which people are willing to act in socially desirable ways toward those who have rejected them harshly.

In a nationally representative survey experiment, diverse segments of the US public underestimated the environmental concerns of nonwhite and low-income Americans and misperceived them as lower than those of white and more affluent Americans. Moreover, both whites and nonwhites and higher- and lower-income respondents associated the term “environmentalist” with whites and the well-educated, suggesting that shared cultural stereotypes may drive these misperceptions. This environmental belief paradox—a tendency to misperceive groups that are among the most environmentally concerned and most vulnerable to a wide range of environmental impacts as least concerned about the environment—was largely invariant across demographic groups and also extended to the specific issue of climate change. Suggesting these beliefs are malleable, exposure to images of a racially diverse (vs. nondiverse) environmental organization in an embedded randomized experiment reduced the perceived gap between whites’ and nonwhites’ environmental concerns and strengthened associations between nonwhites and the category “environmentalists” among minority respondents. These findings suggest that stereotypes about others’ environmental attitudes may pose a barrier to broadening public engagement with environmental initiatives, particularly among populations most vulnerable to negative environmental impacts.