See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/223603781

An interpersonal circumplex/five-factor analysis of the Rejection

Sensitivity Questionnaire

Article  in  Personality and Individual Differences · February 2003

DOI: 10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00065-X

CITATIONS READS
46 2,024

3 authors, including:

Jeffrey Brookings
Wittenberg University
43 PUBLICATIONS   1,467 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Invisible Illness and Suicide Risk View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jeffrey Brookings on 30 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 449–461
www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

An interpersonal circumplex/five-factor analysis of the

Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire
Jeffrey B. Brookingsa,*, Mary Jo Zembara, Greta M. Hochstetlerb
a
Department of Psychology, Wittenberg University, PO Box 720, Springfield, OH 45501, USA
b
Department of Psychology, University of Dayton, 300 College Park, Dayton, OH, 45469, USA

Received 22 June 2001; received in revised form 22 January 2002; accepted 7 March 2002

Abstract
Rejection sensitive persons expect others to reject them, readily interpret ambiguous interpersonal
cues as rejection, and overreact to rejection, real or imagined (Downey & Feldman, 1996). Rejection
sensitivity—as assessed by the Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (RSQ)—is psychologically distressing
and predicts relationship problems, but questions remain about the measurement properties of the RSQ.
For this study, the interpersonal circumplex and five-factor models provided the framework for a com-
prehensive mapping of rejection sensitivity in the personality domain. College students completed the
RSQ, the Interpersonal Adjective Scales Revised-Big Five (Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990), and measures of
theoretically relevant constructs. The RSQ had significant interpersonal content, as expected, its angular
placement was between IASR-B5 octant scales HI (Unassured-Submissive) and FG (Aloof-Introverted),
and it was correlated significantly with Neuroticism. It appears, then, that rejection sensitive persons,
as identified by the RSQ, are more likely to avoid rejection by distancing themselves from others, rather
than by seeking intimate relationships. The RSQ has adequate psychometric properties, but valid tests of
rejection sensitivity as a variable linking early attachment problems to later rejection-avoidance strategies
require the inclusion of additional measures. # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Rejection sensitivity; Validation; Interpersonal circumplex; Five-factor model

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-937-327-7485; fax: +1-937-327-7481.

E-mail address: jbrookings@wittenberg.edu (J.B. Brookings).

0191-8869/03/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0191-8869(02)00065-X
450 J.B. Brookings et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 449–461

1. Introduction

Personality psychologists have long acknowledged the damaging effects of social exclusion and
rejection on psychological well-being and interpersonal adjustment (e.g., Horney, 1937; Sullivan,
1953). Baumeister and Leary’s (1995) review details these effects (e.g., depression, hostility, emo-
tional withdrawal), in the context of their assertion that the need for interpersonal attachments is
a fundamental human motive.
In a program of research related to one aspect of the need for interpersonal attachments,
Downey and her colleagues (e.g., Downey & Feldman, 1996; Downey, Freitas, Michaelis, &
Khouri, 1998a; Downey, Khouri, & Feldman, 1997; Feldman & Downey, 1994) investigated
individual differences in rejection sensitivity (RS): ‘‘. . .the disposition to anxiously expect, readily
perceive, and overreact to rejection’’ (Downey, Freitas et al., 1998, p. 545). RS is hypothesized to
result from early parental rejection, which in turn disrupts subsequent interpersonal relationships
in adolescence (Downey, Lebolt, & Rincon, 1998) and adulthood. The theoretical foundation for
the construct (Downey & Feldman, 1996) derives primarily from attachment theory (Bowlby,
1969) and cognitive-affective information-processing models of personality (e.g., Crick & Dodge,
1994; Mischel & Shoda, 1995).

1.1. The Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire

The Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (RSQ; Downey & Feldman, 1996) assesses
‘‘. . .generalized expectations and anxiety about whether significant others will meet one’s needs
for acceptance or will be rejecting’’ (p. 1329). The 18 RSQ items describe hypothetical situations
in which respondents make requests of important others such as parents or dating partners (e.g.,
‘‘You ask your boyfriend/girlfriend to move in with you’’). For each item, they indicate: (a) their
level of concern or anxiety about the person’s reaction to the request; and (b) their expectation
that the person would grant the request. Typically, Downey and her colleagues use median splits
on total RS scores (see Section 2 for scoring details) to identify high and low RS persons for
subsequent analyses.
Downey and Feldman (1996) reported that RSQ scores predicted subjects’ attributions about
their romantic partner’s hurtful behavior, after controlling for the effects of interpersonal sensi-
tivity, social anxiety, adult attachment style, self-esteem, extraversion, and neuroticism. Also,
bivariate correlations between the RSQ and these dispositions ranged from 0.30 (secure
attachment style) to 0.49 (social distress), indicating that RS is empirically distinguishable from
attachment styles and generalized intrapersonal and interpersonal distress.
From the initial conceptual and empirical work on RS, it is possible now to develop a clearer
picture of the construct. To do so entails analyzing the measurement properties of the RSQ in the
context of a comprehensive framework of relevant personality variables. A description of this
framework follows.

1.2. The Interpersonal Circumplex (IC)

Among contemporary interpersonal theorists, there is a consensus that interpersonal traits

reflect the joint influence of two orthogonal, bipolar constructs: Dominance (DOM) and Love
 J.B. Brookings et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 449–461 451

(LOV) (Wiggins & Trapnell, 1996). Furthermore, research evidence supports the argument that a
two-dimensional, circular ordering of variables or circumplex (Guttman, 1954), organized about
the superordinate constructs DOM and LOV, provides a concise but complete representation of
the interpersonal trait domain (see Fig. 1). From this basic model, interpersonal researchers have
developed a variety of measures with circumplex properties, including the Interpersonal Adjective
Scales-Revised (Wiggins, 1995), the Impact Message Inventory (Kiesler & Schmidt, 1991), and
the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-Circumplex (Horowitz, Alden, Wiggins, & Pincus,
2000). The IC provides a potentially useful framework as well for interpersonal analyses of psy-
chopathology and psychotherapy (see Gurtman, 1994; Gurtman & Balakrishnan, 1998; Pincus,
1994).
At the same time, researchers have begun to explore the utility of the IC as a methodological
tool for evaluating the psychometric properties of measures with interpersonal item content. For
example, the projection of a measured variable (e.g., questionnaire item, scale) in the two-
dimensional IC space provides information on the extent (vector length) and quality (angular
placement) of its interpersonal content or ‘‘interpersonalness’’ (Gurtman, 1991, 1999). A variable’s
1
vector length is given by (DOM2+LOV2)2 , and its angular placement by Arctan (DOM/LOV),

Fig. 1. Projections of personality scales on the circumplex structure of the Interpersonal Adjective Scales-Revised.
RSQ=Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire; PSI-A=Personal Style Inventory-Autonomy; PSI-S=Personal Style
Inventory-Sociotropy; ACS=Attributional Complexity Scale.
452 J.B. Brookings et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 449–461

where DOM and LOV are the variable’s correlations with the respective IC superordinate con-
structs (Gurtman, 1991, 1993). For multiple measures, the proximity of their projections, as
indexed by the cosine of the difference between their angular placements, indicates their
‘‘interpersonal similarity’’ (Gurtman, 1992).
At a broader level, the IC provides the theoretical framework for a geometric taxonomy of
extant personality scales (Wiggins & Broughton, 1991). Collectively, these and other applications
lend credence to Gurtman’s (1992) assertion that ‘‘. . .the interpersonal circumplex is a nomo-
logical network with enormous potential. . .’’ and that the procedures derived from it ‘‘. . .elevate
the circumplex beyond its original status as a descriptive medium to that of a genuinely useful
tool for validating constructs’’ (p. 116).

1.3. The five-factor model (FFM)

Interpersonal trait theorists (e.g. Wiggins & Trapnell, 1996) regard DOM and LOV as ‘‘rota-
tional variants’’ (p. 89) of Extraversion and Agreeableness, respectively, two dimensions of the
five-factor model (FFM) of personality (McCrae & John, 1992). However, because the IC offers
little insight into the remaining FFM dimensions (Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, and Open-
ness-to-Experience), Trapnell and Wiggins (1990) assembled adjective markers for these factors
and combined them with the circumplex scales comprising the Interpersonal Adjective Scales-
Revised (Wiggins, 1995). This combined IC/FFM measure, the Interpersonal Adjective Scales
Revised-B5 (IASR-B5), was used in the current study.

1.4. Related constructs

Downey et al. (1997) speculated that to minimize the likelihood of interpersonal rejection, some
rejection sensitive persons avoid intimate relationships, whereas others actively seek such rela-
tionships in hopes of finding an unconditionally accepting partner. These patterns are con-
ceptually equivalent to the personality styles proposed by Beck (1983) as predisposing factors for
depression. One style, autonomy, is characterized by excessive concerns with self-reliance and
meeting personal goals, and by vulnerability to stressors stemming from achievement-related
failure (i.e., intimacy ‘‘avoiders’’). Sociotropy, in contrast, is marked by heightened needs for
reassurance and approval from others, overreliance on interpersonal relationships as sources of
self-worth, and vulnerability to stressors caused by relationship difficulties (i.e., intimacy ‘‘see-
kers’’). To explore possible interpersonal links between RS and Beck’s personality styles, we
included a measure of sociotropy and autonomy, the Personal Style Inventory (PSI; Robins,
Ladd, Welkowitz, Blaney, Diaz, & Kutcher, 1994), in the current study.
Finally, there is a social-cognitive component to RS (Downey et al., 1997): early parental
rejection is hypothesized to influence current interpersonal behavior in part by producing infor-
mation processing biases or deficits (e.g., attributing hostile intent to romantic partners, attending
selectively to interpersonal cues). A potentially important feature of RS, then, is a failure to
thoroughly and accurately process ambiguous interpersonal cues. To assess such tendencies, we
included the Attributional Complexity Scale (Fletcher, Danilovics, Fernandez, Peterson, &
Reeder, 1986), an individual differences measure of the tendency to engage in complex
attributional processing.
 J.B. Brookings et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 449–461 453

1.5. Study overview

Despite encouraging initial results from studies using the RSQ, questions about its measurement
properties remain:

1. Given its interpersonal focus, does the RSQ have substantial interpersonal content? If so,
what is the nature of that content?
2. How and to what extent is RS related to the broad trait dimensions comprising the FFM?
3. Is simplistic attributional processing a salient feature of RS?

2. Method

2.1. Subjects

The subjects were 177 students (126 female, 51 male) at a midwestern liberal arts college.
Participants received extra-credit in their introductory psychology course for completing the
study.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (RSQ)

The adult version of the RSQ (Downey & Feldman, 1996) comprises 18 items. Each item
depicts a hypothetical interpersonal situation involving a request directed by the respondent to a
parent, professor, acquaintance, or romantic partner (e.g., ‘‘You ask someone you don’t know
well out on a date’’). Respondents indicate, for each situation: (1) their level of anxiety or concern
about its outcome, ranging from 1 (very unconcerned) to 6 (very concerned); and (2) their estimate
of the likelihood that the recipient will grant the request, ranging from 1 (very unlikely) to 6 (very
likely). The RSQ is scored by: (a) reversing the likelihood estimates for all 18 items; (b) multi-
plying the concern and recoded likelihood scores for each item; (c) summing these products
across the 18 items; and (d) dividing the total by 18.
Downey and Feldman’s (1996) principal components analysis of the RSQ items led them to
conclude that a one-factor solution provided an adequate resolution of the item correlation
matrix. They reported an internal consistency reliability (
) of 0.83, test–retest reliabilities of 0.83
and 0.78 for 3 week and 4 month retest intervals, respectively, and supportive construct
validation evidence from three additional studies.

2.2.2. The Personal Style Inventory (PSI)

The PSI (Robins, Ladd, & Luten, 1990) was developed to assess autonomy and sociotropy,
personality factors hypothesized to render persons vulnerable to depression. A literature review
identified three sub-factors each for autonomy (excessive perfectionism, need for control, defen-
sive separation from others) and sociotropy (excessive concerns about what others think, dependency,
pleasing others). From this conceptual framework, Robins, et al. (1990) created 60 items—30 each
454 J.B. Brookings et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 449–461

for the Autonomy and Sociotropy scales—describing construct-relevant attitudes, feelings,

perceptions, and behaviors (e.g., ‘‘I am too apologetic to other people’’). For each item, respon-
dents indicate their agreement on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).
Psychometric analyses of the PSI items led to a revision (Robins et al., 1994) composed of 48
items divided equally between the Autonomy (PSI-A) and Sociotropy (PSI-S) scales. For the
developmental and validation samples, internal consistency reliabilities (
) for the revised scales
ranged from 0.86 to 0.90, test–retest reliabilities were 0.70 for PSI-A and 0.80 for PSI-S (5–13
week retest intervals), and the two scales were modestly correlated r=0.18). Studies 4 and 5 in
Robins et al. (1994) provided supportive evidence for the construct validity of the PSI scales, as
did an IC analysis by Alden and Bieling (1996).

2.2.3. The Attributional Complexity Scale (ACS)

The 28-item ACS (Fletcher et al., 1986) assesses individual differences in the complexity of
attributional schemata. On a seven-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree), subjects respond to declarative statements such as the following: ‘‘I have found that the
causes for people’s behavior are usually complex rather than simple.’’ Items were written to
reflect seven different dimensions of attributional complexity (e.g., preference for complex expla-
nations, tendency to infer abstract or causally complex internal attributions). Scores are summed
across the 28 items to produce a composite score; higher scores reflect greater attributional com-
plexity. Fletcher et al. (1986) reported an internal consistency reliability of 0.85, test–retest reli-
ability of 0.80 (18-day retest interval), and evidence for the ACS’s predictive validity. Factor
analyses of the scale (Brookings & Brown, 1988; Flett, Pliner, & Blankstein, 1989; Marsh &
Weary, 1989) support the unidimensional scoring procedure recommended by Fletcher et al.
(1986).

2.2.4. The Interpersonal Adjective Scales Revised-Big Five (IASR-B5)

To create the IASR-B5, Trapnell and Wiggins (1990) identified 20 adjective markers each for
Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience. These items were then combined
with the Interpersonal Adjective Scales-Revised (Wiggins, 1995), a 64-item, circumplex measure
of DOM (Extraversion) and LOV (Agreeableness). Respondents rate how accurately each item
describes them on a scale ranging from 1 (extremely inaccurate) to 8 (extremely accurate). The 124
adjective ratings for each subject were scored on eight interpersonal circumplex octant scales (see
Fig. 1), the IC coordinates DOM and LOV, and the other three FFM dimensions. There is con-
siderable evidence for the construct validity of the IAS-R (Wiggins, 1995), and for its fit to the IC
model (Gurtman & Pincus, 2000).

2.3. Procedure

Subjects completed the measures in groups ranging from 5 to 15 persons. Two different
questionnaire orders were used to allow assessment of order effects on the scores. No order effects
were found on any of the variables.
 J.B. Brookings et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 449–461 455

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive statistics

The means, standard deviations, and results of gender comparisons (see Table 1) were generally
consistent with those reported previously for samples of college students. Internal consistency
reliabilities were acceptable, as well, with the exception of one IASR-B5 octant scale, Unassum-
ing-Ingenuous (JK). JK had the lowest reliability in Wiggins, Trapnell, and Phillips (1988) study
as well, which Wiggins (1995) later attributed to the numerous unfamiliar negations (e.g.,
‘‘Unargumentative,’’ ‘‘Unwily’’) in this scale.

Table 1
Descriptive statistics for the RSQ, PSI, ACS, and IASR-B5 scales

Scale Male (n=51) Female (n=126) t

M S.D. M S.D.

RSQ 8.72 3.01 8.71 2.79 0.03 0.84

PSI Autonomy 84.06 12.99 82.18 12.73 0.87 0.80
PSI Sociotropy 92.79 17.18 98.20 14.68 2.06* 0.88
ACS 136.29 20.50 14.17 20.45 3.20** 0.90

IASR-B5 Octanta
PA 5.09 1.00 4.93 1.01 0.92 0.80
BC 4.63 1.14 3.75 0.98 5.05*** 0.79
DE 2.84 0.90 2.22 0.79 4.56*** 0.80
FG 3.03 1.05 2.91 1.00 0.70 0.83
HI 3.57 1.04 3.64 1.18 0.37 0.82
JK 3.88 0.95 4.22 0.82 2.42** 0.64
LM 6.12 0.77 6.33 0.82 1.61 0.86
NO 5.58 1.05 5.87 0.94 1.77 0.82

IASR-B5 Domain
DOM 0.37 0.99 0.20 0.94 1.03 0.91
LOV 0.36 0.88 0.22 0.81 4.08*** 0.91
Consc 5.21 1.05 5.73 1.00 3.10** 0.93
Neurot 4.47 1.15 4.77 0.98 1.72 0.92
Openness 5.66 0.86 5.66 0.78 0.03 0.88

RSQ=Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire; PSI=Personal Style Inventory; ACS=Attributional Complexity Scale;

PA=Assured-Dominant; BC=Arrogant-Calculating; DE=Cold-hearted; FG=Aloof-Introverted; HI=Unassured-
Submissive; JK=Unassuming-Ingenuous; LM=Warm-Agreeable; NO=Gregarious-Extraverted; DOM=Domi-
nance; LOV=Love.
a
Scores for the IASR-B5 octant scales and the Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness-to-Experience
domain scales are item means. The scores for DOM and LOV are weighted linear composites—in z-score form—
computed from IASR-B5 octant scores. Their reliabilities were estimated from the alpha coefficients for constituent
IAS-R octant scales (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994, p. 271).
* P< 0.05; **P <0.005; ***P< 0.001.
456 J.B. Brookings et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 449–461

Table 2 shows bivariate correlations of the RSQ and other measures with the IASR-B5. The
RSQ was correlated (P<0.05, two-tailed) positively with two IASR-B5 octant scales (FG, HI)
and FFM Neuroticism, and negatively correlated with two octant scales (PA, NO) and FFM
DOM. Patterns of correlations between the PSI scales and IASR-B5 octant scales were similar to
those reported by Alden and Bieling (1996), even though the latter were based on a different cir-
cumplex measure, the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-Circumplex (Horowitz et al., 2000).
LOV was correlated negatively with PSI-A and positively with PSI-S and, as expected, both
PSI scales were correlated positively with Neuroticism. The largest ACS correlation was with
Openness-to-Experience.
The RSQ was correlated significantly with both PSI-A (0.310) and PSI-S ( 0.371), but not with
the ACS (0.012). Also, the two PSI scales were correlated significantly (0.237), and there was a
significant but modest correlation between PSI-S and the ACS (0.186).

3.2. Circumplex analyses

The first step in these analyses was to verify that the correlational structure for the IASR-B5
octant scales met geometric assumptions for circularity. A principal components analysis of the
eight-scale correlation matrix produced an eigenvalue distribution (see footnote to Table 3)
reflective of the anticipated two factor solution; the two factors accounted for 68.1% of the total

Table 2
Correlations of the RSQ, PSI, and ACS with the IASR-B5 scales (N=177)

IASR-B5 RSQ PSI Autonomy PSI Sociotropy ACS

Octant
PA 0.237** 0.090 0.215** 0.044
BC 0.054 0.116 0.044 0.105
DE 0.045 0.275** 0.231** 0.171*
FG 0.231** 0.409** 0.060 0.017
HI 0.338** 0.218** 0.385** 0.086
JK 0.103 0.085 0.063 0.056
LM 0.015 0.247** 0.362** 0.254**
NO 0.289** 0.385** 0.092 0.124

Domain
DOM 0.305** 0.224** 0.157* 0.035
LOV 0.075 0.361** 0.287** 0.217**
Consc 0.051 0.051 0.055 0.175*
Neurot 0.364** 0.344** 0.450** 0.169*
Openness 0.033 0.152* 0.053 0.443**

RSQ=Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire; PSI=Personal Style Inventory; ACS=Attributional Complexity Scale;

PA=Assured-Dominant; BC=Arrogant-Calculating; DE=Cold-hearted; FG=Aloof-Introverted; HI=Unassured-
Submissive; JK=Unassuming-Ingenuous; LM=Warm-Agreeable; NO=Gregarious-Extraverted; DOM=Dominance;
LOV=Love.
* P< 0.05; ** P< 0.01.
 J.B. Brookings et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 449–461 457

variance. An initial oblique rotation (Oblimin) of the factors indicated that, as expected, they
were uncorrelated r= 0.03). Loadings of the scales on the Varimax-rotated factors—which were
readily identifiable as DOM and LOV—were consistent in pattern and magnitude with a
circumplex arrangement of variables (see Table 3).
To provide more specific information on circumplexity, we first rotated the eight octant scales
to maximum convergence (least-squares criterion) with their corresponding theoretical coordi-
nates. Then, we calculated the cosine of the difference between the empirical and theoretical
angular placements for each scale (see Table 3). With the exception of JK (Unassuming-Ingen-
uous), the octant scales were generally placed as expected in IC space (mean angular dis-
crepancy=5.8%; mean cosine difference=0.993). Also, estimated factor scores for DOM and
LOV were highly correlated (0.91 and 0.94, respectively) with those derived using Wiggins’ (1995)
theoretical formulas. It was concluded, then, that the empirically-derived IC met geometric
assumptions for circularity.
Next, the ‘‘interpersonalness’’ of the RSQ, PSI scales, and ACS was assessed by: (1) correlating
them with DOM and LOV, as computed from the theoretical formulas (Wiggins, 1995); (2) cal-
culating the extent (vector length) and quality (angular placement) of their interpersonal content;
and (3) estimating similarities among the constructs via the proximity of their angular place-
ments, as indexed by the cosine difference (Gurtman, 1991, 1992, 1999). The results of these
analyses are summarized in Fig. 1 and Table 4. Vector lengths for the RSQ and PSI scales
exceeded Gurtman’s (1991) rule of thumb (0.30) for inferring that a scale has substantial inter-
personal content, whereas the interpersonal content for the ACS was minimal. Finally, the
angular placements indicated that RS was more similar in interpersonal content to PSI-A (44.4
difference, cosine difference=0.714) than to PSI-S (75.1 difference; cosine difference=0.257).

Table 3
Rotated factor loadings and angular placements for the IASR-B5 octant scales

IASR-B5 octant scale Varimax Factor Loadings Angular placement ( ) Cosine differencea

DOM LOV

PA (90 ) 0.823 0.183 100 0.984

BC (135 ) 0.723 0.258 132 0.999
DE (180 ) 0.397 0.757 175 0.996
FG (225 ) 0.353 0.802 227 1.000
HI (270 ) 0.720 0.338 268 0.999
JK (315 ) 0.800 0.124 302 0.973
LM (0 ) 0.214 0.747 7 0.993
NO (45 ) 0.385 0.786 49 0.998

PA=Assured-Dominant; BC=Arrogant-Calculating; DE=Cold-hearted; FG=Aloof-Introverted; HI=Unassured-

Submissive; JK=Unassuming-Ingenuous; LM=Warm-Agreeable; NO=Gregarious-Extraverted. Eigenvalues=2.98,
2.47, 0.94, 0.53, 0.44, 0.24, 0.22, and 0.18.
a
Cosine difference reflects the correlation between each scale’s empirical and theoretical angular placements,
following rotation to maximum convergence with the theoretical coordinates.
458 J.B. Brookings et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 449–461

Table 4
Interpersonal circumplex statistics for the RSQ, PSI, and ACS

Scale Vector length Angular placement ( )

RSQ 0.314 256.2

PSI Autonomy 0.425 211.8
PSI Sociotropy 0.327 331.3
ACS 0.220 350.8

RSQ=Rejection Sensitivity; PSI=Personal Style Inventory; ACS=Attributional Complexity Scale.

4. Discussion

The results of this study provide insight into RS, particularly in relation to its interpersonal
components, and are generally supportive of the construct validity of the RSQ. Specifically, the
research questions posed earlier can be answered as follows:
Does the RSQ have substantial interpersonal content? If so, what is the quality of that content?
The calculated vector length for the RSQ exceeded the criteria used in previous IC-based studies
for determining that a scale has appreciable interpersonal content. Also, it should be noted that
the RSQ, PSI scales, and ACS were not factored jointly with the IASR-B5 octant scales. This
enabled clear definition of the IC factor space, but had the effect also of reducing the shared
variance between the octant scales and other measures and may, as a result, have attenuated the
vector lengths. Furthermore, modest vector lengths for interpersonal scales do not necessarily
imply that they lack construct validity, particularly if such scales correlate in substantively
meaningful ways with other, non-interpersonal traits (Wiggins & Broughton, 1991). Such was the
case in this study, where the significant positive correlation between the RSQ and IASR-B5
Neuroticism replicated the findings of Downey and Feldman (1996).
With regard to the quality of RSQ interpersonal content, the angular placement of the scale was
between IASR-B5 Unassured-Submissive (HI) and Aloof-Introverted (FG). Interestingly, RS was
located closer interpersonally to PSI Autonomy than to Sociotropy, even though it was more
highly correlated with the latter. This finding, which was due to differences in the direction of the
scales’ projections on LOV (negative for the RSQ and PSI Autonomy, positive for PSI Socio-
tropy), illustrates the capacity of the IC to reveal subtle nuances in the content of interpersonal
scales. Substantively, it leads to the conclusion that, as identified by the RSQ, high RS persons
are more likely to avoid rejection by ‘‘keeping a safe distance’’ from others (autonomy) rather
than by seeking intimacy with them (sociotropy). In Horney’s (1937) terms, RS persons respond
to perceived threats of rejection by ‘‘moving away’’ from others, rather than ‘‘moving toward’’
them.
An additional perspective on interpersonal constituents of RS is provided by Wiggins and
Broughton’s (1991) IC-derived taxonomy of personality scales. In their research, scales with
angular placements closest to the RSQ in the current study (15 ) included measures of social
avoidance and distress, trait anxiety, generalized discomfort, emotionality/fear and non-assertion.
Such cross-study comparisons should be interpreted with caution, but they are consistent with the
 J.B. Brookings et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 449–461 459

notion that RS persons, as identified by the RSQ, are likely to minimize rejection by investing less
in interpersonal relationships, rather than more (Downey et al., 1997).
How and to what extent is RS related to the broad trait dimensions comprising the FFM? The
circumplex analyses showed that, in terms of interpersonal content, RS is related significantly and
negatively to DOM, and uncorrelated with LOV. Of the remaining three FFM dimensions, RS
was correlated only with Neuroticism. Together, these findings depict the RS person as sub-
missive, anxious, and vulnerable, a description that is generally consonant with Downey and
Feldman’s (1996) initial conceptual analysis of RS. Also, the PSI scale correlations with LOV—
positive for Sociotropy, negative for Autonomy—reflect the differing interpersonal styles described
by Beck (1983).
Is simplistic attributional processing a salient feature of RS? It appears that simplistic attributional
processing is not among the salient features of RS; the RSQ and ACS were uncorrelated.

4.1. Limitations and directions for future research

It should be noted that while the IC derived from the IASR-B5 octant scales met geometric
assumptions for circumplexity, the fit to the theoretical model was not perfect. Specifically, the
internal consistency reliability for Unassuming-Ingenuous (JK) was considerably lower than was
the case for the other scales, and its angular placement was the most discrepant from its theo-
retical angular location. It is possible that such problems may have influenced somewhat the
accuracy of vector length and angular placement calculations for the RSQ.
Second, RS was correlated significantly with IASR-B5 Neuroticism and its angular placement
was proximal to measures of social discomfort and avoidance. In other words, RS can be con-
strued as an interpersonal problem accompanied by some degree of interpersonal distress. Con-
sequently, it would be useful to replicate this study with a more pathology-oriented IC measure,
such as the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-Circumplex (Horowitz et al., 2000). Also, to
more comprehensively explore non-interpersonal elements of RS, future studies should include
measures which enable fine-grained analyses of the correlation between RS and Neuroticism. One
obvious possibility is the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992), which provides scores on six
distinct ‘‘facets’’ for each FFM domain scale.
Finally, Downey et al.’s (1997) theoretical model of RS presents several intriguing possibilities
for future research. Pathways linking particular kinds of early attachment problems to the sub-
sequent strategies used by high RS persons to avoid rejection (i.e., avoiding vs. seeking intimacy)
need to be identified, as well as the role that romantic investment plays in differentiating between
these same strategies. The results of this study, however, indicate that in terms of its interpersonal
content, the RSQ is ‘‘tilted’’ toward autonomy or relationship avoidance, and thus may be
incapable of distinguishing this strategy from others. This limitation may also apply to using the
RSQ to distinguish between high RS children who aggress against peers (Downey, Lebolt, &
Rincon, 1998), high RS adolescents who enter into exclusive dating relationships prematurely
(Downey, Bonica, & Rincon, 1999), and high RS men who react with anger/violence towards
romantic partners (Downey, Feldman, & Ayduk, 2000). Therefore, studies of such strategies
should assess RS in conjunction with variables reflecting tendencies to employ specific rejection-
avoidance or intimacy-seeking tactics (e.g., need for belongingness or affiliation, relationship
investment, need for autonomy), as was done by Downey et al. (2000).
460 J.B. Brookings et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 449–461

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Michael Gurtman, who provided the software for rotation of the IASR-B5
scales. An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Society, Washington, DC, 22 May 1998.

References

Alden, L. E., & Bieling, P. J. (1996). Interpersonal convergence of personality constructs in dynamic and cognitive
models of depression. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 60–75.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental
human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Beck, A. T. (1983). Cognitive therapy of depression: new perspectives. In P. J. Clayton, & J. E. Barrett (Eds.), Treat-
ment of depression: old controversies and new approaches (pp. 265–290). New York: Raven Press.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Brookings, J. B., & Brown, C. E. (1988). Dimensionality of the Attributional Complexity Scale. Presented at the meeting
of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago.
Costa, P. T. Jr, & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R: professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Crick, N., & Dodge, K. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s
social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74–101.
Downey, G., Bonica, C., & Rincon, C. (1999). Rejection sensitivity and adolescent romantic relationships. In
W. Furman, B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The development of adolescent romantic relationships (pp. 148–174). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Downey, G., & Feldman, S. I. (1996). Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1327–1343.
Downey, G., Feldman, S., & Ayduk, O. (2000). Rejection sensitivity and male violence in romantic relationships.
Personal Relationships, 7, 45–61.
Downey, G., Freitas, A. L., Michaelis, B., & Khouri, H. (1998). The self-fulfilling prophecy in close relationships:
rejection sensitivity and rejection by romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 545–560.
Downey, G., Khouri, H., & Feldman, S. I. (1997). Early interpersonal trauma and later adjustment: the mediational
role of rejection sensitivity. In D. Cicchetti, & S. L. Toth (Eds.), Rochester symposium on developmental psycho-
pathology: volume 8. Developmental perspectives on trauma: theory, research, and intervention (pp. 85–114). Rochester,
NY: University of Rochester Press.
Downey, G., Lebolt, A., & Rincon, C. (1998). Rejection sensitivity and children’s interpersonal difficulties. Child
Development, 69, 1074–1091.
Feldman, S. I., & Downey, G. (1994). Rejection sensitivity as a mediator of the impact of childhood exposure to family
violence on adult attachment behavior. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 231–247.
Fletcher, G. J. O., Danilovics, P., Fernandez, G., Peterson, D., & Reeder, G. D. (1986). Attributional complexity: an
individual differences measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 875–884.
Flett, G. L., Pliner, P., & Blankstein, K. R. (1989). Depression and components of attributional complexity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 757–764.
Gurtman, M. B. (1991). Evaluating the interpersonalness of personality scales. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
17, 670–677.
Gurtman, M. B. (1992). Construct validity of interpersonal personality measures: the interpersonal circumplex as a
nomological net. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 105–118.
Gurtman, M. B. (1993). Constructing personality tests to meet a structural criterion: application of the interpersonal
circumplex. Journal of Personality, 61, 237–263.
 J.B. Brookings et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 34 (2003) 449–461 461

Gurtman, M. B. (1994). The circumplex as a tool for studying normal and abnormal personality: a methodological
primer. In S. Strack, & M. Lorr (Eds.), Differentiating normal and abnormal personality (pp. 243–263). New York:
Springer.
Gurtman, M. B. (1999). Social competence: an interpersonal analysis and reformulation. European Journal of Psycho-
logical Assessment, 15, 233–245.
Gurtman, M. B., & Balakrishnan, J. D. (1998). Circular measurement redux: the analysis and interpretation of inter-
personal circle profiles. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 5, 344–360.
Gurtman, M. B., & Pincus, A. L. (2000). Interpersonal adjective scales: confirmation of circumplex structure from
multiple perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 374–384.
Guttman, L. (1954). A new approach to factor analysis: the radex. In P. R. Lazarsfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking in
the social sciences (pp. 258–348). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Horney, K. (1937). The neurotic personality of our time. New York: Norton.
Horowitz, L. M., Alden, L. E., Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (2000). Manual for the Inventory of Interpersonal
Problems. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Kiesler, D. J., & Schmidt, J. A. (1991). Octant scale version of the Impact Message Inventory Form IIA . Redwood City,
CA: Mind Garden.
Marsh, K. L., & Weary, G. (1989). Depression and attributional complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
15, 325–336.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of
Personality, 60, 175–215.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: reconceptualizing situations,
dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structures. Psychological Review, 102, 246–268.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pincus, A. L. (1994). The interpersonal circumplex and the interpersonal theory: perspectives on personality and its
pathology. In S. Strack, & M. Lorr (Eds.), Differentiating normal and abnormal personality (pp. 114–136). New York:
Springer Publishing Co.
Robins, C. J., Ladd, J., Welkowitz, J., Blaney, P. H., Diaz, R., & Kutcher, G. (1994). The Personal Style Inventory:
preliminary validation studies of new measures of sociotropy and autonomy. Journal of Psychopathology and Beha-
vioral Assessment, 16, 277–300.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.
Robins, C. J., Ladd, J., & Luten, A. G. (1990). Development and preliminary validation of the Personal Style Inventory:
a questionnaire to assess sociotropic and autonomous personality characteristics. Unpublished manuscript, Duke
University Medical Center, Department of Psychiatry.
Trapnell, P. D., & Wiggins, J. S. (1990). Extension of the Interpersonal Adjective Scales to include the big five dimen-
sions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 781–790.
Wiggins, J. S. (1995). Interpersonal Adjective Scales professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources, Inc.
Wiggins, J. S., & Broughton, R. (1991). A geometric taxonomy of personality scales. European Journal of Personality,
5, 343–365.
Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1996). A dyadic-interactional perspective on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins
(Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: theoretical perspectives (pp. 88–162). New York: The Guilford Press.
Wiggins, J. S., Trapnell, P. D., & Phillips, N. (1988). Psychometric and geometric characteristics of the Revised Inter-
personal Adjective Scales (IAS-R). Multivariate Behavioural Research, 23, 517–530.

View publication stats