422 Iv. COGNITI vE AND M OTIvATIONAL P ROCESSES
Summary and  Conclusions
In this chapter, we have attempted to pro -
vide readers with an introduction to the 
CAPS model of personality, originally de -
scribed by Mischel, Shoda, and colleagues. 
Rather than provide an entirely theoretical, 
model-  centric description or analysis, we 
have chosen to illustrate how CAPS oper -
ates “in the wild” through applied and ex -
perimental research on RS. To summarize, 
RS can be conceptualized as a personality 
dynamic that specifies how anxious expec -
tations of rejection are activated by particu -
lar features of situations (here, the potential 
for rejection) that then increase the likeli -
hood of perceiving and reacting strongly to 
such rejection. However, the nature of the 
dynamic and the associated if–then profile 
are dependent on the kind of rejection (e.g., 
based on personal vs. status characteristics), 
as well as the social and cultural context. At 
one level, we can conceptualize the if–then 
profile of RS as “ if rejection– then strong re -
action,” but at a more molecular level, we 
might specify “ if rejection– then lowered 
self- esteem” for Asian Americans but “ if 
rejection– then no effect on self-  esteem” for 
African Americans. Alternatively, we might 
say, for Person 1, if rejection–  then internal -
izing symptoms”, but for Person 2, “ if rejec -
tion– then externalizing symptoms.” CAPS, 
in other words, not only allows us to con -
sider individual differences at the level of the 
person, but it also provides a window into 
how distinct if–then profiles may be shared 
across cultural groups, opening a door into 
a conversation about how culture shapes 
personality in a way that does not rely on 
broad-brush stereotypes of cultural groups 
(see Mendoza-  Denton & Mischel, 2007, for 
an elaboration of this argument).
Furthermore, we have explicitly recog -
nized that no single personality attribute 
or dynamic exists on its own, but is rather 
embedded in a much broader network of 
other CAUs that may include abilities (e.g., 
self- regulatory competencies), beliefs (e.g., 
entity beliefs), or attitudes (e.g., racial at -
titudes). Finally, we have reviewed how the 
CAPS system is not impervious to environ -
mental input and can change as a function of 
new experiences, as illustrated by research 
on how cross-race friendship can interact with RS-race dynamics. Taken together, we 
hope that the research on RS reviewed here 
provides a grounded insight into how fun -
damental features of the CAPS model can 
inform the study of individual differences by 
incorporating situations into the very mea -
surement of personality itself, by highlight -
ing the importance of investigating dynamic 
processes that underlie such individual dif -
ferences, by recognizing and demonstrat -
ing the influence of context and culture in 
shaping individual differences, and by pro -
viding deeper insights into both the stability 
and instability of behavior across situations, 
a complexity that characterizes the human 
species.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We thank Randy Lee for his help with editing the 
manuscript.
REFERENCES
Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., 
& Bator, R. J. (1997). The experimental genera -
tion of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and 
some preliminary findings. Personality and So -
cial Psychology Bulletin, 23 (4), 363 –377.
Ayduk, O., Downey, G., & Kim, M. (2001). Re -
jection sensitivity and depressive symptoms in 
women. Personality and Social Psychology Bul -
letin, 27,  868–877.
Ayduk, O., Downey, G., Testa, A., Yen, Y., & 
Shoda, Y. (1999). Does rejection elicit hostility 
in rejection sensitive women? Social Cognition, 
17, 245–271.
Ayduk, O., & Gyurak, A. (2008). Cognitive inhibi -
tory control as a buffer against rejection sensi -
tivity. In Proceedings of the 1st International 
Congress on Interpersonal Acceptance and Re -
jection.  Storrs, CT: Rohrer Research.
Ayduk, O., Gyurak, A., & Luerssen, A. (2008). In -
dividual differences in the rejection–  aggression 
link in the hot sauce paradigm: The case of rejec -
tion sensitivity. Journal of Experimental Social 
Psychology, 44, 775–782.
Ayduk, O., Gyurak, A., & Luerssen, A. (2009). Re -
jection sensitivity moderates the impact of rejec -
tion on self-  concept clarity. Personality and So -
cial Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1467–1478.
Ayduk, O., May, D., Downey, G., & Higgins, E. T. 
(2003). Tactical differences in coping with rejec -
tion sensitivity: The role of prevention pride. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 (4), 
435–448.