The Effect of Rejection Sensitivity on Fear of Intimacy in Emerging Adulthood
A Moderated-Mediation Model
Abstract
Abstract.Background: This research examined fear of intimacy during emerging adulthood. We attempted to determine whether rejection sensitivity has any effect on fear of intimacy through the mediational effect of interpersonal anxiety. We also assumed that remembered parental acceptance can have a buffering effect on the above relationships. Methods: The sample was composed of 679 (280 male and 399 female) university students. Data collection was accomplished through the use of self-report questionnaires, which measured rejection sensitivity, fear of intimacy, interpersonal anxiety, and remembered parental acceptance. Analyses of mediation and moderation effects variables were conducted through the use of the PROCESS statistical software. Results: Analysis showed that there is a partial meditational effect of interpersonal anxiety on the relationship of rejection sensitivity to fear of intimacy. Further, remembered maternal acceptance had a protective effect on the development of fear of intimacy in young women who are sensitive to rejection and have high interpersonal anxiety. Discussion: Rejection sensitivity seems to have an effect on the development of fear of intimacy through increasing interpersonal anxiety, especially in females. These relationships seem to be moderated by maternal acceptance. Conclusion: Student counselling would be beneficial to help students in this transitional period become aware of anxious interpersonal patterns and regulate their reactivity when facing perceived rejection cues in their interpersonal relationships.
Theory and research indicate a strong association between relationship functioning and individual mental health and well-being (Braithwaite & Holt-Lunstad, 2017; Whisman & Baucom, 2012; Whisman et al., 2021). Intimacy is an important element of close relationships and has been found to affect the quality of relationships, relationship satisfaction, and well-being (Descutner & Thelen, 1991; Thelen et al., 2000; Weisskirch, 2018). According to Sternberg (1997, p. 315), “Intimacy refers to the feelings of closeness, connectedness, and bondedness in loving relationships.” Erickson’s psychosocial theory (1959) captures intimacy as the developmental goal of early adulthood. Emerging adulthood refers to the life stage, usually at ages 18–25, that signifies a transition from adolescence to adulthood and is characterized by identity exploration, instability, self-focus, feeling “in-between,” often described as an age of possibilities (Arnett, 2018). Existing research and literature emphasize the significance of emerging adulthood relationships in lifelong well-being (Desjardins & Leadbeater, 2017; Rohner, 2008). It appears that during early adulthood relationships can have a greater impact on the psychosocial adjustment than remembered parental experiences, since attachment needs tend to be transferred from family to romantic partners and peers (Arnett, 2000; Dykas & Siskind, 2018). Optimally, adolescents emerge into adulthood with a mature capacity for intimacy based on a solid sense of self, as evidenced by the desire to engage in close, warm, communicative, and committed interactions (Giovazolias et al., 2010). Relationship intimacy appears to be the main goal of emerging adulthood after the successful formation of identity, which usually takes place during adolescence (Lapsley, & Hardy, 2017; Norona et al., 2016). Further, intimacy needs are suggested as the main motivation for initiating a romantic relationship, while at the same time they appear to be one of the deciding factors for terminating it when they are not met (Norona et al., 2016; Park et al., 2021).
A significant factor that appears to stand as an obstacle to the formation of romantic relationships is fear of intimacy, a multidimensional phenomenon that deeply affects the quality of close relationships (Sobral et al., 2015). Fear of intimacy refers to “the inhibited capacity of an individual to exchange thoughts and feelings of personal significance with another individual who is highly valued” (Descutner & Thelen, 1991, p. 219). Prior research and theory focused on the effect of early attachment relationships on the ability to create intimate romantic relationships in adulthood (Firestone & Firestone, 2004; Phillips et al., 2013). Insecure attachment patterns that have developed from early childhood can lead to different difficulties with the intimacy process. Specifically, according to Bartholomew (1990), people with a high fear of intimacy either search for intimacy but do not have the appropriate skills to achieve it – or they deny the very need for intimate relationships.
The present research assumes that rejection sensitivity, a disposition characterized by a variety of cognitive emotional biases regarding rejection, can lead to an inhibited wish and capacity for intimate relationships in emerging adulthood (Ibrahim et al., 2015). Downey and Feldman (1996) introduced the theoretical model of rejection sensitivity. According to this model, experiences of systematic interpersonal and (mainly) parental rejection in childhood can lead to increased sensitivity in rejection experience. High rejection-sensitive people tend to have more intense expectations, perceptions, and reactions to rejection experiences (Downey & Feldman, 1996). Previous research found that rejection sensitivity is negatively associated with important components of the intimacy process, such as self-disclosure (Ayduk et al., 2009). Fear of intimacy has also been associated with self-silencing in intimate relationships, affect suppression, and social withdrawal (Harper & Welsh, 2007). Moreover, rejection expectations appear to be activated in circumstances in which there is an increased likelihood for a negative emotional response, like the intimacy process (Zimmer-Gembeck, 2015). According to Montgomery (2005), young adults who avoid intimacy are trying to protect themselves from possible exposure to rejection. Accordingly, we assume that rejection sensitivity can lead to an increased fear of intimacy. Theory and research indicate that the experience of rejection, whether actual or perceived, is linked to heightened interpersonal anxiety and distress in both adult and adolescent populations (Horowitz & Strack, 2011; Preti et al., 2018). Interpersonal anxiety is defined as a diffuse fear in relationship contexts, activated by relational stimuli (Rohner, 2005). It has been suggested that individuals with a high rejection sensitivity tend to show high arousal in their interpersonal relationships in an attempt to locate rejection stimuli, which can finally lead to a heightened experience of interpersonal distress (Lesnick & Mendle, 2021; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002). It appears that, in the context of heightened rejection experience, anxious representations and interaction patterns emerge (Ehrlich et al., 2015; Naz & Kausar, 2016). Relational anxiety is also linked to a tendency toward withdrawal from developmentally significant social contexts, such as the intimacy process (Shulman & Connolly, 2013). Taken together, we assume that interpersonal distress is an important factor in inhibiting the capacity of rejection-sensitive people in forming close intimate relationships. We assume then that rejection sensitivity is associated with fear of intimacy through the mediation of interpersonal anxiety in intimate relationships. Previous research demonstrated that the perception of the significant other as unavailable can lead to heightened stress, which in turn is handled with suppression of negative emotions and maximization of interpersonal distance (Wei et al., 2005). Zimmer-Gembeck’s (2015) research is also consistent with our hypothesis, since, according to her findings, rejection-sensitive individuals may respond to rejection expectancies with anxiety and withdrawal. As already mentioned, the proposed mediation model assumes that rejection sensitivity, a disposition characterized from dysfunctional mental models, leads to interpersonal difficulties in part through the feelings of distress that occur during the transactions with significant others. The order of the variables in the mediation model followed the theoretical postulation that rejection sensitivity develops early in one’s developmental course (Downey et al., 1998) and may precede the development of interpersonal difficulties (Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2014). Butler et al. (2007) suggested that, as rejection sensitivity rises, an individual’s confidence and abilities in their social interaction decrease, especially on the occasion of meeting people for the first time. Further, it has been suggested that fear of intimacy may be one of the by-products of interpersonal anxiety, and previous studies have tested the effect of interpersonal anxiety on fear of intimacy in a multicultural sample (Rohner et al., 2019).
One could argue that the three constructs tested in this model are conceptually similar; however, they can be clearly distinguished in the following way: First, rejection sensitivity focuses on expectations of the behavioral and/or emotional responses of others, whereas interpersonal anxiety identifies how individuals themselves respond to different social encounters (Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2021). Further, fear of intimacy refers specifically to an individual’s difficulty in sharing personal information, intimate feelings, or feelings of distress in the context of an intimate relationship with people they highly value (Emmons & Colby, 1995).
Nevertheless, it appears that some people are more capable than others of handling the effects of rejection. For example, Ayduk et al. (2009) found that rejection-sensitive adults suffer less from side effects in their interpersonal relationships if they have developed efficient self-regulation skills. In addition, in their study Mikami et al. (2015) found that interpersonal adjustment is greater when rejection expectations are conscious and explicit than when these expectations are ineffable. Palacio-González et al. (2017) suggested that the aftermath of a relationship can be understood in terms of intimacy and rejection-regulation skills. Weisskirch’s (2017) finding is in line with the assumption that self-regulation skills are connected to better relationship quality. Following the above, we assume that specific factors can buffer the side effects of dysfunctional mental models and the relationships described above.
Thus, we examined whether remembered parental acceptance provides a buffering effect in the mediation model proposed above. According to Rohner’s interpersonal acceptance-rejection theory (IPARTheory, formerly known as the parental acceptance-rejection theory or PARTheory; Rohner, 2005, 2008, 2014), parental acceptance is associated with better psychological adjustment and fewer interpersonal difficulties (Geitsidou & Giovazolias, 2016; Khaleque & Rohner 2013; Papadaki & Giovazolias, 2015), and it is also connected with trust and mutuality in relationships (Miranda et al., 2016). Previous research also shows that remembered parental care is negatively associated with fear of intimacy, while people with remembered parental acceptance even from one parent are less likely to experience fear of intimacy (Phillips et al., 2013). In a similar vein, it is suggested that interpersonal distress weakens when individuals search for proximity with an attachment figure, an automatic response that is thought to be associated with remembered parental care (Maxwell et al., 2013). Finally, this study investigates whether the mediation model described above is moderated by sex. Previous research about the differential influence of maternal and paternal support on both sexes during emerging adjustment in adults is limited (Desjardins & Leadbeater, 2017). In our research, by taking into consideration the socially constructed relational direction of female identity, we assume that high rejection-sensitive young women are more likely to experience interpersonal distress such as higher fear of intimacy (Nahon & Lander, 2016). Indeed, females appear to be more sensitive to social stimuli than males, and they are more likely to harm their relationships as a response to interpersonal stressful incidents (Kelly et al., 2014). In summary, the hypotheses of this research are as follows: (a) high levels of rejection sensitivity are expected to be associated with high levels of fear of intimacy in emerging adults, (b) interpersonal anxiety should mediate the relationship between rejection sensitivity and fear of intimacy, (c) remembered parental acceptance is hypothesized to have a buffering effect on the mediation model, (d) sex is also expected to moderate the mediation model. Specifically, it is expected that higher levels of rejection sensitivity result in higher levels of interpersonal anxiety, and that higher levels of interpersonal anxiety result in higher levels of fear of intimacy, more intensely in women than in men.
Method
Participants
In a convenient sample, this study comprised 679 Greek university students from four different geographical areas (Athens 36.8%, Crete 33.8%, Ioannina 18.4%, and Patra 10.9%), 280 of whom were males (41.2%) and 399 females (58.8%). The students ranged in age from 18 to 26 years with a mean of 21.20 years (SD = 2.15). In terms of years of study, 18.1% were 1st-year students, 24.2% were 2nd-year students, 14.6% were 3rd-year students, 20.8% were 4th-year or higher students, and 3.8% were master’s degree students.
Procedure
A selection criterion for participating in the study was that participants were students in Greek universities so that it is guaranteed that they match the concept of emerging adulthood. The questionnaires were filled out by the participants during breaks between lectures. The questionnaire order was changed to avoid possible order bias. Participants were informed that all data were kept confidential. After completing a consent form, they filled out the questionnaires in the presence of the researchers, who were available if clarifications were needed. Permission to conduct the research was granted by the University of Crete Ethics Committee. There was no payment or other incentive to complete the questionnaires. The data were collected during the 2019 spring semester; they were encoded, transferred, and analyzed with SPSS 25.
Measures
The data were collected with self-report questionnaires as follows: a demographic questionnaire providing information on sex, age, nationality, and academic year.
Adult Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire – Adult PARQ (Rohner, 2005)
This measure assesses participants’ remembrances of both maternal (PARQ-Mother) and paternal (PARQ-Father) acceptance-rejection. The two versions (one for each parent) include 24 identical items each. Items measure perceptions of parental warmth and affection, hostility and aggression, indifference and neglect, and undifferentiated rejection. Sample items are “My mother/father complained about me to others when I did not listen to her/him,” “My mother/father yelled at me when she/he was angry,” “My mother/father forgot things she/he was supposed to do for me.” Individuals respond to items on a 4-point Likert-like scale ranging from 4 (almost never true) to 1 (almost always true). Scores on the four acceptance-rejection scales are summed (after reverse scoring the warmth scale), producing an overall measure of perceived acceptance-rejection ranging from 24 (maximum perceived acceptance) to 96 (maximum perceived rejection). However, for a clearer interpretation of the results of this study, we scored this scale in the direction of acceptance (i.e., the higher the score, the more remembered acceptance participants reported). Prior studies had confirmed the high reliability and validity of Adult PARQ in both international (Khaleque & Rohner, 2013) and Greek samples (Giaouzi & Giovazolias, 2015). The reliabilities of both versions were high (Cronbach’s A = .95 for the father and .94 for the mother version, respectively).
Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire – RSQ (Downey & Feldman, 1996)
The Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire assesses the degree to which individuals anticipate rejection from others and experience anxiety about its occurrence. The scale includes 18 hypothetical interpersonal scenarios in which rejection can be a possible option. For each condition, participants report their anxiety level about each interpersonal circumstance as well as their perceived possibility of a negative outcome. Sample items are “You ask a friend if you can borrow something of his/hers” and “You ask your boyfriend/girlfriend if he/she really loves you.” Participants answer on a 6-point scale, from 1 (very unconcerned) to 6 (very concerned). They also respond about the estimated acceptance possibility in a 6-point scale (1 = very likely, 6 = very unlikely). The items indicating expected acceptance are reverse-coded to indicate expectations of rejection and then multiplied by the degree of anxiety experienced in each situation. Higher scores in the total score indicate higher levels of rejection sensitivity. The measure was found to be internally reliable (Downey & Feldman, 1996) and shows good predictive validity (Pietrzak et al., 2005). The RSQ had a high reliability coefficient in this study (Cronbach’s A = .88).
Fear οf Intimacy Scale – FIS (Descutner & Thelen, 1991)
The Fear of Intimacy Scale consists of 35 items that measure an individual’s anxiety about close, dating relationships, and whether or not they are in such a relationship. Sample items include “I would be afraid that I might not always feel close to O,” where O refers to the person who would be in a close relationship with the individual completing the scale, and “I would find it difficult being open with O about my personal thoughts.” Participants respond on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all characteristic of me) to 5 (extremely characteristic of me). Higher scores indicate higher fear of intimacy. Previous research (Descutner & Thelen, 1991) indicated high reliability and validity of this scale. The FIS in this study showed high reliability (Cronbach’s A = .90).
Interpersonal Relationships Anxiety Questionnaire – IRAQ (Rohner Research Publications, 2012)
The IRAQ is a 9-item instrument constructed to assess anxiety in interpersonal relationships with significant others (i.e., parents, romantic partners, friends). Participants respond on a 4-point scale from almost never true to almost always true to reflect how they feel in the context of interpersonal relationships. Sample items are “I feel apprehensive,” “I feel worried,” and “I feel stressed.” Participants in this study were instructed to refer to intimate relationships (past or present) when responding to IRAQ items. Higher scores indicate higher stress in interpersonal relationships. The IRAQ has been reported to be highly reliable and with very good construct validity in both English-speaking (Brown et al., 2014) and Greek samples (Tsaousis & Giovazolias, 2016). The reliability of the questionnaire in this study was also high (Cronbach’s A = .84).
Data Analyses
We tested gender differences in the study variables using nonparametric tests for independent samples (t-test). We examined the relationships among variables using the Spearman rho coefficient. The use of nonparametric tests was guided by the fact that the data were nonnormally distributed (as it was evidenced by the Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistic). An a priori power analysis with G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al., 2009) indicated that a sample size of 210 was enough to identify significant mediational and interaction effects with a power of .95 and an A of .05. To investigate whether interpersonal anxiety mediates the relationship between rejection sensitivity and fear of intimacy, we applied mediation analysis. In a simple mediation model, the independent variable (e.g., rejection sensitivity) is assumed to cause the mediator (interpersonal anxiety), which in turn affects the dependent variable (fear of intimacy). Hence, a mediation effect is termed an indirect effect (McKinnon et al., 2002). Although mediation analysis is a very useful statistical procedure as it allows to investigate “the way and how” of a causal process (Baron & Kenny, 1986), it is often important to examine whether the obtained mediation effect remains invariant across different values of an independent variable or across different groups (i.e., males – females). In this case, a moderating variable indicates under what conditions an independent variable is related to a dependent variable and responds to the question: “For which group/condition does the mediation effect work?” This analysis (moderated mediation) combines both the mediation and moderation effects into a single model (Hayes, 2013).
We tested the proposed mediation and moderated mediation model using PROCESS, a versatile modeling tool for observed variable mediation and moderation. This approach is considered an advancement over previous methods of assessing mediation and moderation because of the increased reliability of findings (Hayes, 2013). We based the analyses on 5,000 bootstrapped samples, using bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals. For the mediation analysis, when the confidence interval does not include 0, an indirect effect is considered significant. For the moderated mediation analysis, we tested model 75 from the PROCESS macro, in which it is assumed that both the a-path (rejection sensitivity to interpersonal anxiety) and the b-path (interpersonal anxiety to fear of intimacy) are moderated by a moderator variable W and/or a moderating variable Z (parental acceptance and sex, respectively). We chose to include both moderators in the model, as this methodology enables investigating the complex pathways of co-influence (Chryssochoidis, 2018).
Again, we used a bootstrapping procedure (5,000 bootstrap samples) to estimate the conditional indirect effects (Preacher et al., 2007). Furthermore, the degree of an indirect effect can vary at different levels of the moderator. In that sense, a mediation model may occur for one group (or a specific value of the moderator) but not for another. Finally, we used Soper’s (2006) Interaction Software v.1.4 to plot the moderating effects in the mediation model, using simple slope analyses (Frazier et al., 2004).
Results
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and t-tests for measures used in the present study. The t-tests for gender differences revealed that women reported significantly greater rejection sensitivity (RS) and interpersonal anxiety (IA) than men, whereas men reported significantly higher fear of intimacy (FOI) than women. No significant gender differences were observed for both remembered maternal and paternal acceptance-rejection.
Table 2 shows Spearman’s rho correlations among all study variables. RS is strongly associated both with IA (rho = .28**) and FOI (rho = .39**), respectively, whereas IA is also strongly associated with FOI (rho = .253**). The degree of these correlations suggests that there is no multicollinearity among the tested variables.
IA was then tested as a mediator between RS and FOI, as hypothesized, using PROCESS a) Mediation analysis shows that although RS has a significant total effect on FOI (c: B = .366, SE = .037, BCa CI [.293, .438]), after controlling for the effect of IA as the mediator (a: B = .056, SE = .018, BCa CI [.040, .073]; b: B = .715, SE = .189, BCa CI [.342, .653]) the direct effect of RS on FOI is reduced (c’: B = .325, SE = .038, BCa CI [.251, .400]). The indirect effect of RS on FOI scores through IA (B = .061, BCa CI [.018, .071]) indicates partial mediation by IA, and represents a small effect size (κ2 = .058, BCa CI [.021, .075]) (Preacher & Kelley, 2011).
To examine parental acceptance and gender as moderating factors in the mediation model, we used the PROCESS tool described earlier. The tested model is depicted in Figure 1.
Table 3 shows the relevant parts of the moderated mediation analysis output using maternal acceptance as a moderator. Overall, the moderated mediation model was significant: modmex index = .082, SE = .084, 95% bootstrap CI: .051 to .290. There are two multiple regression models: the “mediator variable model” predicting RS and the “dependent variable model” predicting FOI. The significant interaction between IA and maternal acceptance in the dependent model suggests that the indirect effect from RS to FOI is moderated by the different levels of maternal acceptance. This conditional indirect effect is significant for the path from the mediator (IA) to the dependent variable (FOI). The significant interaction gives us reason to probe the indirect effect at different levels of the moderator. As Table 3 (lower part) shows, the mediation is significant only for low maternal acceptance. We then probed the conditional indirect effect at the different levels of maternal acceptance using 95% bias accelerated and corrected CI’s with 5,000 resamples. The statistics are as follows (Table 3, lower part): B = .052, SE = .010, 95% bootstrap CI: .019 to .098 for low maternal acceptance and B = .001, SE = .020, 95% bootstrap CI: −.018 to .037 for high maternal acceptance. We remind that IA mediates the relationship between RS and FOI. This, however, occurs only in the condition of low maternal acceptance. The moderated effect is plotted in Figure 2.
A significant conditional indirect effect was found for the same mediation model (rejection sensitivity → interpersonal anxiety → fear of intimacy) when sex was used as a moderator, with a modmed index = .104, SE = .048, 95% bootstrap CI: .024 to .214. As Table 4 shows, only one path (from M to DV) was moderated by sex. Then, the conditional indirect effect was estimated for the two different groups (males – females). The results indicated (Table 4, lower part) that the effect of RS on FOI through IA was present for females B = .112, SE = .045, 95% bootstrap CI: .034 to .227 but not for males B = .001, SE = .016, 95% bootstrap CI: −.014 to .057. The moderated effect is plotted in Figure 3. No moderated mediation effects were revealed when paternal acceptance was used as a moderator in the mediation model.
Discussion
This research examined a model to explain possible ways and conditions through which fear of intimacy is exhibited within interpersonal relations during the emerging adulthood stage in a sample of young Greek students. Results showed that females exhibit higher rejection sensitivity and interpersonal anxiety than males. In general, females appear to experience higher anxiety than males, and they are also more likely to develop anxiety disorders (Burani & Nelson, 2020; Mclean & Anderson, 2009). Furthermore, it has been argued that females are more sensitive to social stimuli than males (Flannery & Smith, 2017). It has also been shown that, during puberty, young girls give more emphasis to interpersonal harmony and are more sensitive to criticism than young boys, who place more emphasis on accomplishments (Campbell et al., 2017). Findings from previous research, showing that men score higher in fear of intimacy than women (Nahon & Lander, 2016), were consistent with the findings of our study. For example, the meta-analytic study by Drescher and Schultheiss (2016) across 28 previous studies regarding gender differences on intimacy motivation notes that women are systematically found to show greater motivation for the intimacy process. This finding can be understood through the relationship-oriented gender role of women, which can motivate them to experience intimacy to a greater extent than men (North & Fiske, 2014). Finally, no gender differences were observed regarding remembered maternal and paternal rejection. Consistent with our hypothesis, results indicate that rejection sensitivity affects the development of fear of intimacy. We believe that this finding confirms the theoretical assumption that fear of intimacy is the outcome of dysfunctional representations that have developed within the framework of perceived rejection (Cash et al., 2004). The expectation of rejection as well as the receipt of rejection stimuli could inhibit the ability to develop close, intimate, interpersonal relationships (Norona et al., 2016). In the present study, we also attempted to determine whether interpersonal anxiety could explain the relationship between rejection sensitivity and fear of intimacy. Our hypothesis was confirmed, since we found that interpersonal anxiety acts as a mediating variable in the above relationship. This finding is of dual importance: On the one hand, it suggests that the presence of high rejection sensitivity may take precedence over the presence of interpersonal anxiety in relationships; on the other hand, it proposes a way through which it can lead to increased fear of intimacy. Indeed, interpersonal anxiety can lead to fear of intimacy, since it has been demonstrated that individuals with high interpersonal anxiety respond to societal conditions with more negative thoughts and by adopting avoidant behaviors in relationships (Afram & Kashdan, 2015). Our assumption that parental remembered acceptance would moderate the relationships between rejection sensitivity, relationship anxiety, and fear of intimacy was partially confirmed. Specifically, the moderated-mediation analysis showed that remembered maternal acceptance can inhibit the development of fear of intimacy in young adults with high rejection sensitivity and high interpersonal anxiety. This finding has a dual significance: First, it implies that the relationship between rejection sensitivity and interpersonal anxiety is not moderated, neither from remembered parental acceptance nor from sex (as mentioned below). In our opinion, this finding underlines the deep connection between rejection sensitivity and anxiety (Zimmer-Gembeck, 2015). Second, the moderating effect of remembered maternal acceptance on developing a fear of intimacy denotes that there are specific protective factors that can reduce the side effects of dysfunctional mental representations regarding rejection. This finding is also important because it indicates the differential role of each parent in relational goals (Desjardins & Leadbeater, 2017). This finding probably partially reflects the strong role of the mother figure in the Greek family. According to Georgas et al. (2006), the mother in the Greek family possesses the expressive role, that is, the emotional support and care of the family members. In the Greek family, the mother-child relationship also seems to be the strongest one and is respected by all family members (Giovazolias, 2014). Relevant research has demonstrated that, in patriarchal societies (such as Greek), remembered maternal acceptance can influence psychosocial adjustment more than remembered paternal acceptance, possibly because mothers are the ones most actively involved in the care and raising of children (Sultana & Khaleque, 2016). In any case, this finding confirms the theoretical position of the IPARTheory, namely, that parental acceptance is linked to better interpersonal adjustment (Rohner, 2008). It also confirms that the quality of the maternal relationship is crucial to the ability to express intimacy (Alperin, 2006; Rohner et al., 2019). The research by Ferrante (2005) confirms that problems of intimacy are often the outcome of inadequate maternal care. Finally, the hypothesis for the moderating effect of sex, with women displaying more anxiety and fear of intimacy as a result of rejection sensitivity than men, was also confirmed. Controlling for the moderating effect of sex on the mediation model described above, we found that rejection-sensitive women with high interpersonal anxiety are less likely to develop a fear of intimacy than men with similar characteristics. According to Kuiper et al. (2016), women ascribe greater importance to intimacy than men. We also know that the societal construction of the female identity is based on relational factors, while that of men is based on individual factors (Beyers & Seiffge-Krenke, 2010). It has also been shown that women are more accustomed to self-revelation than men (Horne & Johnson, 2018).
Research Limitations – Future Research
There is a methodological limitation regarding the collection of the data, since a large part consists of students attending the University in Athens, which is possibly not representative of all young people living in Greece. The use of self-reported measures means that the resulting data contain subjectivity and are not based on objective measurements. Further, we did not ask participants about their prior relationship experiences, so we were unable to use this information as a possible covariate in the tested model. Additionally, a methodological limitation of this study is that it is based on cross-sectional data, so that causal relationships among the variables tested could not be implied. Although based on previous theoretical postulations, the mediation model could be tested with a different ordering of the variables and the best model could be selected. Further, the proposed model of this study could be experimentally tested with a more elaborate methodology in the future, e.g., with the activation of prime representations and affect and examining their effects on aspects of interpersonal functioning, such as momentary interpersonal cognitions, or real interpersonal behaviors. Future research could also examine the moderating effect of specific skills on the relationship between sensitivity to rejection, interpersonal anxiety, and fear of intimacy. Such skills could include self-reflection, self-knowledge, and the abilities of stress-relief (Tamir, 2009). The findings of the present study could prove useful in clinical/counseling practice with young adults, providing a framework for understanding the mechanisms through which problems of intimacy are presented during this developmental stage. Besides, relationship issues are among the most frequent reasons for which people seek counseling (Fjeldstad et al., 2017). The recognition of anxiety interaction patterns is useful since they seem to be linked to the reduction of difficulties resulting from those patterns (Mikami et al., 2015). Specifically for student counselors, it would be beneficial to help students in this transitional period to become aware of these anxious interpersonal patterns and to regulate their reactivity when facing perceived rejection cues in their interpersonal relationships. Indeed, as it has been shown, high self-regulation skills seem to protect from the negative impact of perceived rejection cues (Meehan et al., 2019). For example, mentalization skills could enhance affect regulation regarding rejection and intimacy, and the replacement of dysfunctional attributions concerning the behavior of others with other, more realistic ones (Clarkei et al., 2020; Fonagy et al., 2002).
References
(2015). Coping with rejection concerns in romantic relationships: An experimental investigation of social anxiety and risk regulation. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 4(3), 151–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2015.04.003
(2006). Impediments to intimacy. Clinical Social Work Journal, 34(4), 559–572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-005-0032-2
(2018).
Conceptual foundations of emerging adulthood . In J. L. MurrayJ. J. ArnettEds., Emerging adulthood and higher education: A new student development paradigm (pp. 11–24). Routledge.(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469
(2009). Rejection sensitivity moderates the impact of rejection on self-concept clarity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(11), 1467–1478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209343969
(1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
(1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(2), 147–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407590072001
(2010). Does identity precede intimacy? Testing Erikson’s theory on romantic development in emerging adults of the 21st century. Journal of Adolescent Research, 25(3), 387–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558410361370
(2017). Romantic relationships and mental health. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 120–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.001
(2014, June 24–27). An investigation of the psychometric properties of the Interpersonal Relationships Anxiety Questionnaire. 5th International Conference on Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection, Kishinau, Moldavia
(2020). Gender differences in anxiety: The mediating role of sensitivity to unpredictable threat. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 153, 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2020.05.001
(2007). Social antecedents and consequences of interpersonal rejection sensitivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1376–1385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.006
(2017). Sex differences in associations of hostile and non-hostile criticism with relationship quality. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 151(4), 416–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2017.1305324
(2004). Body image in an interpersonal context: Adult attachment, fear of intimacy and social anxiety. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(1), 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.23.1.89.26987
(2018). Double moderated mediation models: Problems and (part) remedies. Journal of Modelling in Management, 13(1), 50–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-06-2016-0053
(2020). Exploring mentalization, trust, communication quality, and alienation in adolescents. PLoS One, 15(6), Article e0234662. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234662
(1991). Development and validation of a Fear-of-Intimacy Scale. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 3(2), 218–225. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.3.2.218
(2017). Changes in parental emotional support and psychological control in early adulthood: Direct and indirect associations with educational and occupational adjustment. Emerging Adulthood, 5(3), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696816666974
(1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1327–1343. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1327
(1998). Rejection sensitivity and children’s interpersonal difficulties. Child Development, 69(4), 1074–1091. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06161.x
(2016). Meta-analytic evidence for higher implicit affiliation and intimacy motivation scores in women compared to men. Journal of Research in Personality, 64, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.019
(2018). Turning From Parents: Psychological Distancing and Attachment-Related Changes in Regret for Immediate Contact in Emerging Adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 8(3), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696818799833
(2015). Hypervigilance to rejecting stimuli in rejection sensitive individuals: Behavioral and neurocognitive evidence. Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.023
(1995). Emotional conflict and well-being: Relation to perceived availability, daily utilization, and observer reports of social support. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 68(5), 947–959. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.5.947
(1959). Identity and the life cycle. Psychological Issues, 1, 1–17.
(2005). Co-parenting in intact and divorced families: Its impact on young adult adjustment (Master’s thesis). Virginia Commonwealth University.
(2004).
Methods for overcoming the fear of intimacy . In D. J. MashekA. AronEds., Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 375–396). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.(2017). Patterns of change in interpersonal problems during and after short-term and long-term psychodynamic group therapy: A randomized clinical trial. Psychotherapy Research, 27(3), 350–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2015.1102357
(2017). The effects of age, gender, and gender role ideology on adolescents’ social perspective-taking ability and tendency in friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(5), 617–635. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516650942
(2002). Affect regulation, mentalization, and the development of the self. Other Press.
(2016). Perceived partner acceptance–rejection and well being: The mediating role of resilience. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(11), 3260–3269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0493-7
(2006).
Family Roles Questionnaire . In J. GeorgasJ. BerryF. J. R. van de VivjerC. KagitcibasiY. PoortingaEds., Families across cultures: A 30 Nation Psychological Study (pp. 344–352). CUP.(2015). Remembered parental rejection and social anxiety: The mediating role of partner acceptance-rejection. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(11), 3170–3179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0120-z
(2014). The moderating role of Parental Power/Prestige on the relationship between Parental Rejection and Psychological Maladjustment in a Greek student sample. Cross-Cultural Research, 48(3), 240–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397114528299
(2010). Assessment of Greek university students’ counselling needs and attitudes: An exploratory study. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 32(2), 101–116.
(2022). Dataset_Giovazolias_Paschalidi_EJPO. https://hardmin.heal-link.gr/dataset/b56616c5-7c7a-419f-9f94-c4ef6052e2e1
(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.
(2007). Keeping quiet: Self-silencing and its association with relational and individual functioning among adolescent romantic couples. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24(1), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507072601
(2018). Gender role attitudes, relationship efficacy, and self-disclosure in intimate relationships. Journal of Social Psychology, 158(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2017.1297288
(2011). Handbook of interpersonal psychology: Theory, research, assessment and therapeutic interventions. Wiley.
(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
(2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 51, 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.115
(2015). Adults' remembrances of parental acceptance-rejection in childhood predict current rejection sensitivity in adulthood. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 44(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcsr.12119
(2014). Changing work and work-family conflict: Evidence from the work, family, and health network. American Sociological Review, 79(3), 485–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414531435
(2013). Effects of multiple acceptance and rejection on adults' psychological adjustment: A pancultural study. Social Indicators Research, 113(1), 393–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0100-2
(2016). Identity and intimacy development, humor styles, and psychological well-being. Identity, 16(2), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2016.1159964
(2017).
Identity formation and moral development in emerging adulthood . In L. M. Padilla-WalkerL. J. NelsonEds., Emerging adulthood series. Flourishing in emerging adulthood: Positive development during the third decade of life (pp. 14–39). Oxford University Press.(2021). Rejection sensitivity and negative urgency: A proposed framework of intersecting risk for peer stress. Developmental Review, 62, Article 100998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2021.100998
(2013). Attachment theory as a framework for understanding responses to social exclusion. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(7), 444–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12037
(2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83
(2009). Brave men and timid women? A review of the gender differences in fear and anxiety. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(6), 496–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.05.003
(2019). Rejection sensitivity and self-regulation of daily interpersonal events. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 49(4), 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10879-019-09424-9
(2015). Implicit versus explicit rejection self-perceptions and adolescents' interpersonal functioning. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 390–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.051
(2016). Parental acceptance–rejection and adolescent maladjustment: Mothers’ and fathers’ combined roles. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(4), 1352–1362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0305-5
(2005). Psychosocial intimacy and identity: From early adolescence to emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20, 346–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558404273118
(2016). Somatic symptoms scale: Psychometric properties in clinical and normal sample. Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 66(1), 8–12. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26712171/
(2016). The integrity model: Working with men, their intimacy issues, and their search for community. Journal of Men's Studies, 24(1), 89–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1060826515600459
(2016). Rejection sensitivity and depressive symptoms: Longitudinal actor-partner effects in adolescent romantic relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 51, 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.05.007
(2014).
Social categories create and reflect inequality: Psychological and sociological insights . In J. T. ChengJ. L. TracyC. AndersonEds., The psychology of social status (pp. 243–265). Springer.(2017). Distress severity following a romantic breakup is associated with positive relationship memories among emerging adults. Emerging Adulthood, 5(4), 259–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696817704117
(2015). The protective role of father acceptance in the relationship between maternal rejection and bullying: A moderated-mediation model. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(2), 330–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9839-6
(2021). Lack of intimacy prospectively predicts breakup. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(4), 442–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620929499
(2013). Recollected parental care and fear of intimacy in emerging adults. The Family Journal, 21(3), 335–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480713476848
(2005).
Rejection sensitivity as an interpersonal vulnerability . In M. W. BaldwinEd., Interpersonal cognition (pp. 62–84). Guilford Press.(2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022658
(2007). Assessing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavior Research, 42, 185–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022658
(2018). Cognitive and emotional components of rejection sensitivity: Independent contributions to adolescent self- and interpersonal functioning. Assessment, 27(6), 1230–1241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118817866
(2005).
Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ): Test manual . In R. P. RohnerA. KhalequeEds., Handbook for the study of parental acceptance and rejection (pp. 43–106). Rohner Research Publications.(2008). Introduction: Parental acceptance-rejection theory studies of intimate adult relationships. Cross-Cultural Research, 42(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397107309749
(2014). PARTheory gets a new name: Interpersonal Acceptance-Rejection Theory (IPARTheory). International Society for Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection Newsletter, 8(3), 6. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1055
. (2012). Interpersonal Anxiety Questionnaire. http://rohnerresearchpublications.com/1.html
(2019). Psychological maladjustment mediates the relation between remembrances of parental rejection in childhood and adults’ fear of intimacy: A multicultural study. Cross-Cultural Research, 53(5), 508–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397118822992
(2002). Attachment-related psychodynamics. Attachment & Human Development, 4(2), 133–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730210154171
(2013). The challenge of romantic relationships in emerging adulthood: Reconceptualization of the field. emerging adulthood, 1(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696812467330
(2015). Fear of intimacy among couples: Dyadic and mediating effects of parental inhibition of exploration and individuality and partner attachment. Family Science, 6(1), 380–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/19424620.2015.1106416
(2006). Interaction [Computer program]. http://www.danielsoper.com/Interaction
(1997). Construct validation of a Triangular Love Scale. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27(3), 313–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-0992(199705)27:3<313::aid-ejsp824>3.0.co;2-4
(2016). Differential effects of perceived maternal and paternal acceptance on male and female adult Offspring’s psychological adjustment. Gender Issues, 33(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-015-9147-0
(2009). What do people want to feel and why?: Pleasure and utility in emotion regulation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(2), 101–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01617.x
(2000). Fear of intimacy among dating couples. Behavior Modification, 1(24), 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445500242004
(2016, June 6–9). An item response theory analysis of the Interpersonal Relationship Anxiety Questionnaire (IRAQ) in a Greek student sample. Paper presented at 6th Congress on Interpersonal Acceptance-Rejection. Madrid, Spain
(2005). Adult attachment, affect regulation, negative mood, and interpersonal problems: The mediating roles of emotional reactivity and emotional cutoff. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(1), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.1.14
(2017). Abilities in romantic relationships and well-being among emerging adults. Marriage & Family Review, 53(1), 36–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2016.1195471
(2018). Psychosocial intimacy, relationships with parents, and well-being among emerging adults. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(11), 3497–3505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1171-8
(2012). Intimate relationships and psychopathology. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 15(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-011-0107-2
(2021). Intimate relationships and depression: Searching for causation in the sea of association. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 17, 233–258. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081219-103323
(2015). Emotional sensitivity before and after coping with rejection: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 41(1), 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2015.05.001
(2021). Rejection sensitivity and the development of social anxiety symptoms during adolescence: A five-year longitudinal study. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 45(3), 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025421995921
(2014). Relational victimization, loneliness and depressive symptoms: Indirect associations via self and peer reports of rejection sensitivity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(4), 568–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9993-6
