414 Iv. COGNITI vE AND M OTIvATIONAL P ROCESSES
Personal Rejection  Sensitivity
The implications of adopting a CAPS frame -
work are evident in a number of method -
ological and theoretical features that dis -
tinguish RS from the study of many other 
personality dispositions. First, because dis -
positions in a CAPS system are conceptu -
alized in terms of CAUs that get triggered 
by specific situational features, RS is mea -
sured in terms of the activation of anxious 
rejection expectations in specific situations 
rather than in terms of broad, average levels 
of behavioral tendencies. Second, because 
processing dispositions are hypothesized to 
reflect the stable activation of a network of 
CAUs, the program of research on RS has 
focused a great deal on explicating the acti -
vation links among the CAUs that make up 
the RS dynamic. Third, the emphasis of the 
CAPS approach on the interactions among 
different activation networks of CAUs with -
in the mind itself as determining behavior 
has led to an active exploration of modera -
tor variables for the behavioral manifesta -
tions of the RS system. Below we elaborate 
on each of these features for RS-  personal.
Situation‑Sensitive Measurement of  CAUs
Because, theoretically, activation of anxious 
expectations of rejection is what triggers the 
entire RS dynamic, RS is measured in terms 
of this specific CAU. In addition, consis -
tent with the idea that dispositions need to 
be measured in their diagnostic situations, 
RS is measured in scenario-  based question -
naires in which the situations depicted are 
unique to the relevant RS domain being 
measured. Therefore, the Rejection Sensitiv -
ity Questionnaire (RSQ; Downey & Feld -
man, 1996) includes 18 interpersonal situa -
tions that afford the possibility of rejection 
based on one’s personal characteristics to 
measure RS-  personal. These situations were 
identified by young adults in focus groups as 
being particularly relevant to interpersonal 
rejection concerns and include scenarios 
with parents (e.g., “You ask your parents for 
extra money to cover living expenses”), peers 
and friends (e.g., “You ask someone in class 
if you can borrow his or her notes”), and ro -
mantic partners (e.g., “You ask someone you 
don’t know well on a date”). For each situa -
tion, participants are asked to rate their de -gree of concern/anxiety about the possibility 
of rejection (i.e., anxiety component) and 
their perceptions of how likely rejection is as 
a possible outcome (i.e., expectation compo -
nent). Empirically, anxiety and expectation 
dimensions tend to be orthogonal.
The theoretical model of RS argues that 
to be high RS, one needs to both be highly 
anxious about the possibility of rejection 
(reflecting the high value the individual 
places on this outcome) and to believe that 
rejection is a very likely outcome (reflect -
ing their expectancies of rejection). In other 
words, the model argues that being high in 
anxiety without expecting rejection (e.g., 
generalized anxiety) or expecting rejection 
without being particularly anxious about it 
(e.g., telemarketers) does not capture high 
RS; instead, the effect of rejection expecta -
tions needs to be weighted by the value peo -
ple place on this outcome (Bandura, 1986). 
Therefore, level of anxiety and rejection ex -
pectations are multiplied for each scenario, 
and then averaged across scenarios to cap -
ture a single dimension of anxious rejection 
expectations. Thus, low scores on the RSQ 
capture the tendency to calmly expect accep -
tance, whereas high scores capture the ten -
dency to anxiously expect rejection.
Rejection as  the Psychological Feature 
Eliciting Anxious Expectations of  Rejection
Consistent with the CAPS approach, the RS 
model proposes that the processing dynam -
ics of high RS are activated only in situations 
that are relevant to rejection. In the absence 
of situational cues that are relevant to rejec -
tion, the model does not expect differences 
in behavior as a function of RS. This point 
is well demonstrated by a study that utilized 
the human startle-  probe paradigm to capture 
activation of anxious rejection expectations 
at the physiological level (Downey, Mou -
gios, Ayduk, London, & Shoda, 2004). The 
startle-  probe paradigm is a well-  established 
measure of the activation of a physiologically 
based defensive motivational system (Lang, 
Bradley, & Cuthbert, 1990). The paradigm 
capitalizes on the fact that the strength of the 
startle reflex, which is a naturally occurring 
defensive reaction to a loud noise, can be mod -
ulated by the negativity–  positivity of people’s 
psychological state in the moment. If people 
are psychologically threatened or scared, as 